Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) | Hansard source

I thank all members of the crossbench and the member for Ryan for their contributions to this important piece of legislation. I now present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet ST122, as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I won't detain the House. The rationale behind these amendments is contained in the documents just presented by the government. Essentially, these six amendments clarify our original intention in relation to the revocation or suspension of plant and the process that the agency would go through for that, as well as a drafting clarification, particularly around the operation of the requirement for appropriate treatment—namely, no requirement for additional treatment where a participant has already undertaken appropriate treatment. I commend the amendments to the House and I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 79, page 30 (after line 17), after subsection 30(1A), insert:

(1B) The CEO cannot be satisfied that reasonable attempts to contact the participant have been made as mentioned in subparagraph (1A)(a)(i) unless the CEO is satisfied that the requirements in subsection (1C) are met in relation to:

(a) unless paragraph (b) or (c) applies—the participant; or

(b) if the participant has a nominee—the participant's nominee; or

(c) if the participant does not have a nominee but has another authorised contact or representative—that other authorised contact or representative.

(1C) The requirements in this subsection are met in relation to the person mentioned in paragraph (1B)(a), (b) or (c) (as applicable) if:

(a) at least 5 attempts have been made to contact the person using the person's preferred form of contact; and

(b) the last of those attempts was made at least 3 months, and not more than 4 months, after the first of those attempts; and

(c) if the person's preferred form of contact is not in writing—at least one additional attempt has been made, during the period between the first and last of the attempts mentioned in paragraph (a), to contact the person in writing.

(1D) If the person the CEO is attempting to contact is the participant, an attempt does not count for the purposes of subsection (1C) if, before suspending the plan, the CEO becomes aware that at the time the attempt was made, the participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution, or experiencing homelessness.

(2) Schedule 1, item 83, page 31 (after line 13), after subsection 40A(1), insert:

(1A) The CEO cannot be satisfied that reasonable attempts to contact the participant have been made as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) unless the CEO is satisfied that the requirements in subsection (1B) are met in relation to:

(a) unless paragraph (b) or (c) applies—the participant; or

(b) if the participant has a nominee—the participant's nominee; or

(c) if the participant does not have a nominee but has another authorised contact or representative—that other authorised contact or representative.

(1B) The requirements in this subsection are met in relation to the person mentioned in paragraph (1A)(a), (b) or (c) (as applicable) if:

(a) at least 5 attempts have been made to contact the person using the person's preferred form of contact; and

(b) the last of those attempts was made at least 3 months, and not more than 4 months, after the first of those attempts; and

(c) if the person's preferred form of contact is not in writing—at least one additional attempt has been made, during the period between the first and last of the attempts mentioned in paragraph (a), to contact the person in writing.

(1C) If the person the CEO is attempting to contact is the participant, an attempt does not count for the purposes of subsection (1B) if, before suspending the plan, the CEO becomes aware that at the time the attempt was made, the participant was in the care of a hospital or other institution, or experiencing homelessness.

(3) Schedule 1, item 89, page 34 (lines 15 to 17), omit paragraph 24(5)(b).

(4) Schedule 1, item 89, page 34 (line 18), omit "(c)", substitute "(b)".

(5) Schedule 1, item 91, page 35 (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraph 25(1B)(b).

(6) Schedule 1, item 91, page 35 (line 10), omit "(c)", substitute "(b)".

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

(7) Schedule 2, item 91, page 81 (lines 8 to 16), omit the definition of related party in section 9, substitute:

related party has the meaning given by subsection 73EA(2A).

(8) Schedule 2, item 93, page 81 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", or a related party of a person registered or applying to be registered,".

(9) Schedule 2, item 95, page 82 (lines 5 and 6), omit ", or is a related party of another person that is".

(10) Schedule 2, item 95, page 82 (lines 11 and 12), omit ", or is a related party of another person that is".

(11) Schedule 2, item 97, page 83 (line 7), after "person", insert "and key personnel of the person".

(12) Schedule 2, item 97, page 83 (after line 8), after subsection 73EA(2), insert:

(2A) A person is a related party of another person in any of the following circumstances:

(a) the person is a relative of the other person (within the meaning of section 9 of the Corporations Act 2001);

(b) either person is an associated entity of the other person (within the meaning of section 50AAA of the Corporations Act 2001);

(c) circumstances prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Rules for the purposes of this paragraph.

(13) Schedule 2, item 98, page 83 (lines 22 to 25), omit paragraph 73F(2)(j).

(14) Schedule 2, item 98, page 83 (line 26), omit "(k)", substitute "; (j)".

(15) Schedule 2, item 98, page 83 (line 27), omit "and any related party of the person".

(16) Schedule 2, item 100, page 84 (line 4), omit "section 9", substitute "subsection 73EA(2A)".

(17) Schedule 2, item 101, page 84 (line 31), omit "paragraphs 73F(2)(j) and (k)", substitute "paragraph 73F(2)(j)".

(18) Schedule 2, item 101, page 85 (line 1), omit "do", substitute "does".

Briefly, these amendments seek to clarify the separation that we've sought through this bill between plan manager on the one hand and providers of other services on the other. We're very determined to make significant reforms to the plan management part of this scheme. We'll be moving to a commissioned model so that plan managers will only be able to offer their services to participants when the government has been satisfied that they meet certain standards and qualifications. Our original intention was not to allow related entities—a plan manager service—to have other support services provided by a related entity.

We've taken feedback from the sector and concluded that there are very high-value services being provided by related entities—not the same service per se, but by related entities—plan management on one hand and a range of other support services on the other, and that it would be really to the detriment of participants were we to adopt a harder line in relation to this. We are making it clear that particular services are either plan managers or they're service providers of another type. Related entities will be able to provide plan management services on the one hand and other services on the other. Very strict conflict-of-interest arrangements will be put in place as a result of this bill if it passes. I commend those changes to the House.

See this speech in context