Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

While I am just waiting for some notes in relation to that, I might respond to your previous contribution, just prior to senators' statements. It's important to characterise these positions correctly. We had just had a discussion about what would happen in the very narrow set of circumstances where a participant in the scheme sought agreement to have, under the new provisions, a support that's on the prescribed list replaced with an alternative support and sought agreement from the CEO. It was a very narrow set of circumstances that are not available to participants now. What is being proposed is a better system that is more flexible, that has more clarity and transparency, not just for participants and their families, carers and their communities but also for the community at large; therefore, it means a more sustainable scheme with a deeper reservoir of community support.

In the narrow circumstances where a person makes an application for a support that is not on the list to be substituted for a support that they have been given access to, there is now an additional process that allows for the CEO or, as you say, their delegate to consider that request and make a decision. I don't think, while we were heading towards senators' statements and people were making statements, that your characterisation of that as a somehow worse situation than what is occurring now is fair. That doesn't mean to say it's not above criticism, and I certainly don't want to convey that. We are open for business in terms of criticism and debate here, but I don't think that's a fair characterisation. In terms of the education questions—I just wanted to be certain about this point. As I am briefed, the act doesn't refer to an 'educative approach' or whatever the phrase was that you used. The agency have said the way they operationally deliver compliance—I don't have anything additional to say to you on this beyond that it will be their responsibility to provide participants in the scheme and service providers in the scheme with as much education material as is judged appropriate to make their responsibilities, particularly for service providers, as clear as they possibly can be. I think that's a proper approach to compliance, and, in terms of what the agency has said, it's obviously mobilised by a view that that will assist a deeper understanding of the obligations and will assist with better compliance.