[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
1998-1999-2000-2001
THE PARLIAMENT OF
THE COMMONWEALTH OF
AUSTRALIA
SENATE
DISABILITY
SERVICES AMENDMENT
(IMPROVED QUALITY ASSURANCE) BILL
2001
EXPLANATORY
MEMORANDUM
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Family and
Community Services,
Senator the Hon Amanda Vanstone)
DISABILITY
SERVICES AMENDMENT
(IMPROVED QUALITY ASSURANCE) BILL 2001
OUTLINE AND FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The Australians Working Together package announced in the
Government's 2001-02 Budget includes a measure, A Better Deal for People with
Disabilities, which will improve outcomes for people with disabilities
through better access to education and training, better assessment of people's
work capacities, better access to employment assistance services and quality
assurance of available employment services and rehabilitation
programs.
This Bill gives effect to the component of this measure that
aims at improving the quality of Commonwealth-funded employment services and
rehabilitation programs provided to people with disabilities. The measure
establishes a new quality assurance system in relation to the provision of those
services, based on certification of the services against disability employment
standards, or rehabilitation program standards, by industry-based certification
bodies accredited for this purpose by an internationally recognised accrediting
authority.
The amendments in this Bill make funding of employment
services, and the approval of rehabilitation programs, dependent on a service
provider being certified as meeting the relevant standards. After a three-year
transition period, only those existing employment services that fully meet the
disability employment standards will be funded by the Commonwealth, and only
those rehabilitation programs the provision of which fully meets the
rehabilitation program standards will be approved.
During the
transitional period, existing employment services will be funded if they comply
with the standards that currently apply to them and notify the Minister of their
intention to seek to obtain a certificate of compliance within the time
specified by the Minister.
New employment services will have up to twelve
months to become certified.
The measure commences on 1 January
2002.
The legislation affected is the Disability Services Act
1986.
Estimated expenditure for the quality assurance measure is
$2.0m in 2001-2002, $4.7m in 2002-2003, $5.3m in 2003-2004 and $5.2 in
2004-2005.
DISABILITY SERVICES AMENDMENT
(IMPROVED QUALITY
ASSURANCE) BILL 2001
REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT
New Quality Strategy for Commonwealth Funded Disability Employment Services
There is a concern that the current system of quality assurance for
Commonwealth funded disability employment services is not effective in assuring
quality in a consistent and independent way.
The Commonwealth helps
people with disabilities to find and maintain employment either through the
Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business programs or
employment assistance programs funded by the Department of Family and Community
Services (FaCS). FaCS’ programs typically provide employment support for
people with more severe disabilities through either open or supported employment
services. These services are mainly charitable, non-profit agencies that are
contracted by FaCS to provide employment support. Many agencies are likely to
be funded from a number of sources.
FaCS funds 435 organisations to
provide more than 870 specialist employment services, which are used by 49,285
people with disabilities. $279 million has been allocated to these programs in
2000-2001. FaCS also provides vocational rehabilitation through 160 CRS
Australia outlets at a cost of $101.9 million (2000-2001). The new quality
strategy will be applied to both vocational rehabilitation and FaCS funded
disability employment assistance programs.
These disability employment
and rehabilitation providers are funded under the Disability Services Act
1986 (the Disability Services Act). This legislation marked a
turning point in the Commonwealth’s legislative regulation of services for
people with a disability. The Act was a result of a review of the
Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 which concluded that
although people with disabilities wanted to participate in community and
economic life, they were often prevented from doing so by prevailing attitudes
amongst service providers and sectors of the broader community.
The
Disability Services Act came into operation in 1987. It provided all the then
funded services with five years to meet the higher standard of service
embodied in the objects, and the principles and objectives of the Disability
Services Act. This five-year period ended on 30 June
1992.
Although significant achievements had been made, it became clear
that for many services this five-year period was not long enough to deal with
the complexity of change required.
In 1992 the Disability Services Act
was amended to remove the sunset clause.
In March 1993, the Government
adopted the Disability Services Standards that were developed in consultation
with service providers and consumer bodies, unions and State/Territory
Governments. They set out eleven areas of service quality that consumers are
entitled to expect. They cover:
• service
access
• individual needs
• decision making and
choice
• privacy, dignity and confidentiality
• participation
and integration
• valued status
• complaints &
disputes
• service management
• employment
conditions
• employment support
• employment skills &
development
In 1993 the Disability Services Standards (Standards) were
introduced with a plan to move services through a three tiered process of
service improvement to fully meet the Standards.
This process of change
has met with limited success – many of the supported employment services
(many of which are the traditional sheltered workshops) have not made the
expected improvements to meet the highest level of Standards. Currently, 341
services (39% of funded services) meet the Disability Services Standards at the
minimum level.
Current monitoring of service quality against the Disability Services
Standards is required under Section 14K of the Disability Services Act, and
involves:
• an annual self-assessment process undertaken by each
service in consultation with its consumers. The Government funds a Consumer
Training and Support Program to provide independent training and support for
consumers in this process. Independent consumer support is expected to continue
to be provided.
• the Department conducts an audit of each service at
least every five years, to verify compliance against the Standards.
This
new quality assurance system will address concerns raised by a review of the
current system conducted by representatives of the disability sector -
Assuring Quality by the Disability Standards Review and Quality Assurance
Working Party (April 1997). The review concluded that ‘there is
no formal accreditation system which provides assurance of service quality for
consumers or for the government as the purchaser’. Other major concerns
were that the current system provided poor measures of quality, little incentive
for improvement and an ad hoc complaints and referral
system.
Why is Government action needed to
correct the problem?
There has been a loss in confidence in the ability of the current system
to ensure that disability employment services meet quality standards – the
Disability Services Standards.
[1]
Explicit government
regulation of quality is warranted to ensure service providers meet the highest
level of quality standards. Without regulation there is a high risk that the
quality standards will not be fully met and substandard support services will be
provided to people with a disability potentially placing them at risk.
To
support the development and introduction of the quality assurance system a
Disability Quality and Standards Working Party was established. This Working
Party represented key stakeholders from the disability employment sector –
disability employment service providers, consumers and government (including
state/territory governments).
The Disability Quality and Standards
Working Party reached consensus that the existing system of quality assurance
required significant change to improve its independence, efficiency and
effectiveness (Assuring Quality, April 1997). It agreed that the existing
Standards should be retained to provide the core values for the new quality
assurance system, with the addition of two new Standards
on:
• staff recruitment, employment and training;
and
• protection of human rights and freedom from abuse and
neglect.
The key question that will be addressed by this regulation impact
statement is:
“Does the proposed new quality assurance system
address quality concerns disability employment assistance services in a cost
effective way.”
In June 1997, the then Minister for Family Services approved the following
objectives for the new quality assurance/accreditation system:
• provide people with disabilities with an improved level of confidence
in the quality of service delivery;
• treat all service providers
equally (in both the government and non-government sectors);
• make
assessment of quality more objective & measurable;
• link quality
assurance to funding through an accreditation process which would provide the
purchaser with confidence in the quality of service delivery and outcomes for
individuals; and
• reduce government intervention in the day to day
operation of services.
The current system provides for service performance to be measured
against 11 Disability Services Standards and 101 supporting standards with
examples of good practice. Each service lodges annual self-assessment for
scrutiny by FaCS. FaCS also undertakes five yearly audits against the
Standards.
The Government announced its commitment to reform the quality assurance
process for disability employment assistance services in the 1996/97
Budget.
This new quality assurance system provides the platform for
further reform to better link funding to individual need and quality
outcomes.
There are three options that should be assessed by this RIS:
1. the
Status-quo;
2. a JAS-ANZ system of accreditation; and
3. a disability
specific system of accreditation.
The Disability Quality and Standards
Working Party agreed that the existing Standards should be retained with some
changes to provide the core values for the new quality assurance system.
Changes included the amalgamation of two existing Standards, the addition of two
new Standards and some minor wording changes. The Working Party deliberations
were informed by an independent study of the disability sector’s views on
the overall effectiveness of the
Standards[2]. Of the 11 existing
Disability Services Standards, it is proposed to amalgamate two standards and
include two additional standards on training and human rights. There will be 12
Disability Services Standards and 30 associated Key Performance
Indicators.
Under the current arrangements, officers from the Commonwealth Department
of Family and Community Services audit employment services against 11 Disability
Services Standards every five years. This is in accordance with the
requirements of section 14K of the Disability Services Act. In addition, the
service provider is required to assess their service against the Standards
annually and to lodge this assessment with FaCS for scrutiny.
The current
system recognises three levels of performance against the existing Disability
Services Standards - minimum, enhanced and eligible levels. Initially,
financial incentives were provided to encourage services to improve through the
three tiers and reach the eligibility classification level.
The
Disability Services Standards require each service to provide internal
complaints mechanism for consumers to raise issues and have them resolved. A
Disability Services Review Panel (DSRP) can also be established as required, to
review services and advise the Minister in cases where sanctions are being
considered against services for not meeting the Standards.
The Government funds the current system of Departmental audits, which is estimated at approximately $1.3 million per annum. There is an additional $1.2 million per annum currently allocated for the Consumer Training and Support Program which provides independent training and support to consumers during the annual self-assessment process. This support is required irrespective of the system chosen.
This proposed quality assurance system is based on a system of
accreditation/certification that is well-established in Australian industry,
based on international standards of best practice tailored to the requirements
of people with disabilities and promoted by the disability sector. It involves
the use of skilled audit teams whose competence and impartiality will be
monitored by an independent, internationally recognised accreditation agency,
the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand
(JAS-ANZ).
The Australian and New Zealand Governments established JAS-ANZ
as a non-profit organisation to ensure that the certification agencies
responsible for providing independent auditors are competent and
impartial.
The certification agencies are responsible for putting
together audit teams that will meet the skills and competencies outlined in the
General Criteria and Guidelines for Bodies Operating Assessment and
Certification of Disability Employment Services (Procedure 18 of the JAS-ANZ
Auditing Criteria). Each audit team is to include a person with a disability,
either as a lead auditor or a technical expert. All audit teams require
technical expertise and a detailed understanding of the Disability Services
Standards, industry practices and high-level communication skills to engage and
draw feedback from consumers of disability employment services. A person with a
disability provides critical insights about the experience of the
consumers.
Certification Process
JAS-ANZ
Accredits certification
agency against
auditing
criteria
CERTIFICATION AGENCIES
Certifies disability
employment service
against
Disability Services Standards
DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
Accredited certification agencies will assess disability
employment services against the Disability Services Standards – quality
standards that have been established by the disability sector. Service
providers will be able to choose from a range of accredited certification
agencies that best address their particular requirements.
Under this
proposed system, a service’s certification status will, after an expected
transition period of up to three years, be linked to funding. Those services
not certified after the three-year transition period will not be funded. Service
providers wishing to enter the disability employment assistant market place, to
qualify to receive referrals of eligible jobseekers from Centrelink, would need
to be certified within a prescribed period.
To assist providers meet the
new framework there will be a range of continuous improvement initiatives to
encourage and support service improvement during and after the transition
period. A key priority for the continuous improvement program will be to assist
those service providers that do not have any quality management systems
currently in place.
The development and implementation of an independent,
consumer complaint handling mechanism will also be an important component of the
Commonwealth’s quality strategy for disability employment assistance.
This mechanism complements the JAS-ANZ complaints system that allows review of
any accreditation and certification decisions or processes. The Disability
Services Standards continue to require each service to provide internal
complaints mechanism for consumers to raise issues and have them
resolved.
The Government proposes to contribute to the
accreditation/certification costs during the three-year transition period.
Towards the end of this period, the system will be reviewed to determine whether
funded organisations will be able to meet the certification/accreditation costs
under an outcome based funding system.
During the three-year transition
phase, the average cost per year is estimated at approximately $5.8 million per
year. This includes accreditation /certification costs ($2.7 million),
continuous improvement activities ($0.7 million per annum), implementation and
ongoing maintenance of an independent complaints and referral system ($1.6
million per annum) and departmental expenses ($0.8 million per annum). An
additional $1.2 million each year is required to continue to provide independent
consumer training and support.
If after three years it is determined that
services can fully self-fund certification/accreditation costs then the overall
costs of the quality strategy could be scaled back to $3.1 million per year to
cover continuous improvement, implementation and ongoing maintenance of the
independent complaints and referral system and departmental expenses.
The disability specific option would involve the establishment of a
disability specific accreditation authority with powers under Commonwealth
legislation to accredit service providers for funding purposes similar to
arrangements that apply to Aged Care facilities.
The new authority would
employ contract auditors to audit service providers for compliance with the
Disability Services Standards as measured against performance indicators
specified by the Commonwealth in legislation. The authority would make the
decision to accredit a service provider on the basis of the audit. Service
providers wishing to enter the disability employment assistant market place, to
qualify to receive referrals of eligible jobseekers from Centrelink, would
contact the authority to seek an audit.
The new authority would require a
board of management, offices and administrative staff. The authority would be
responsible for training and contracting qualified auditors. There would be an
independent consumer complaints and referral system. It is assumed that all
infrastructure costs of the new accreditation authority would be borne by the
Commonwealth and that service providers would pay for audits on a fee for
service basis.
This system would be very similar to the Aged Care
Standards and Accreditation Agency, which was established in October 1997 as a
Commonwealth company limited by guarantee. By 1 January 2001
(‘accreditation day’), every residential aged care service in
Australia in receipt of Commonwealth funding had to be accredited for at least
three years in order to continue to receive that funding.
The Aged Care
Standards and Accreditation Agency is responsible for assessing and accrediting
Australia’s 3000 residential aged care services, which provide residential
care for 135,000 people at a cost to the Commonwealth of $11.7 million for
2000/01. Expenditure estimates used in this Regulation Impact Statement are from
the 1999/2000 Annual Report for the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency
available on their internet website address.
Expenditure of $11.7 million
in 2000/01 covered the following activities:
• managing
accreditation and ongoing monitoring;
• sending suitability qualified
teams to check service quality against the Aged Care Standards;
and
• investigating complaints that have been referred from the
Department of Health and Aged Care.
Services of 20 beds or more are to
pay a fee of between $3,050 and $9,500 (depending on the size of service) to the
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency to cover assessment and
accreditation costs. The Government will pay the full accreditation fee for
smaller facilities with less than 20 beds and for those facilities between 20
and 25, a tapered subsidy will apply. In 2000-2001, the Accreditation Agency
anticipates it will receive $13.6 million in fees and charges from
services.
In the 2000-2001 Budget, the Government announced that an
additional $6.4 million would be provided over four years for the subsidisation
of accreditation fees to ensure that fees remain at less than one percent for
all facilities.
The total government outlays for the quality assurance
process for 3000 aged care facilities (135,000 people) in 2000-2001 is
approximately $26.9 million which includes $13.6 million paid by services in
accreditation fees and charges. It does not include the Departmental staffing
resource to support the system.
Disability employment services involve
49,285 people, which is 36.5% of the aged care population in residential aged
care facilities. Using this as a benchmark, we could assume that the disability
specific accreditation agency for 880 services (49,285 people) will cost
approximately $9.8 million plus Departmental staffing resources which are
estimated at $1.9 million per year, resulting in a total of $11.7 million per
annum. Also there would be some significant initial infrastructure costs not
reflected in this figure. An additional $1.2 million would continue to be
required to provide independent training and
support.
Assessment of
Options
|
Benefits
|
Costs
|
Consumers
|
• Government funds a Consumer Training and Support Program which
informs consumers about the Standards
|
• Current measures of service quality are unreliable and process
focused.
• Little transparency for consumers and community on service quality. • Ineffective integration of consumer views on a service’s quality (Evaluation of Consumer Training and Support Program, 1999). • Lack of independent complaint system. |
Business (ie service providers)
|
• No cost apart from the time involved in undertaking the external
audits and self-assessment process
|
• Inefficient and ineffective - too much time spent on a system that
is process focused and administratively burdensome with little real benefits
(Assuring Quality, 1997).
• Unreliable and inconsistently applied measures of quality. • Little incentive and guidance on how to improve service quality. • No appeals system for audit process/decisions apart from the Ministerial appointed Disability Standards Review Panel (which is rarely used). • System has little relevance to current business practice. Currently, over 30% of service providers already have an ISO based quality system that use JAS-ANZ accredited Certification Agencies and would like to adopt a similar system for the Disability Standards. |
Government
|
• Quality standards are currently monitored.
• There are core quality standards that apply to all Government funded disability services across Commonwealth and State/Territory Government jurisdictions. . |
• The Government funds the current system of Departmental audits
which is estimated at approximately $1.3 million per annum
• Currently, there is no effective incentive for service providers to perform above the regulated minimum. • Commonwealth rehabilitation services are not audited against the Standards and are treated quite differently form service providers in the non-government sector. • Lack of consistency and independence raises credibility issues for
Government. The critical nature of funding decisions requires a more credible
system.
|
|
Benefits |
Costs
|
Consumers |
• System can be adjusted to ensure the effective participation of
people with disabilities in the accreditation/certification process at all
levels.
• There are a range of checks and balances in this system that promote consumer confidence. • Greater transparency of service quality. • Less prescriptive, more outcomes focussed regime. • Access to an independent consumer complaints system. • Strategies and incentives for service improvement against the Standards. |
|
Business (service providers)
|
• A third of service providers are already using a JAS-ANZ system of
quality certification.
• Provides a universally recognised quality assurance badge. • Service providers can choose from a range of accredited certification bodies that best address their particular requirements. • Replaces an existing system, which many services regard as administratively burdensome with little overall value. |
• Two thirds of services do not have experience with the proposed
system.
• The system requires a major assessment every three years with annual surveillance audits during the intervening years. This may be considered more resource intensive than the current system, which involves an external audit every five year with annual self-assessment. • Following the three-year transition period, service providers may be required to contribute toward or pay the full cost of certification depending on the findings of an 18-month Post Implementation Review. Costs beyond the first three years could average $8,000 for the full assessment of a single site service and $2,000 for the annual surveillance audits. There are additional auditing costs associated with rural and multi-site services. It is expected, that service providers with an existing JAS-ANZ quality system should only pay an additional marginal cost for the disability specific system. |
Government
|
• Certification is determined by an independent, non-government
agency with particular expertise in quality assurance and the disability
sector.
• Allows Government to focus on outcomes rather than process. JAS-ANZ and the Certification Agencies are to perform in accordance with international quality practice and agreed auditing criteria. • Fewer infrastructure costs for Government because it builds on an existing system. • Increased frequency of audits provides greater accountability. • Service providers in the government and non-government sector are certified under the same system. • Core Disability Services Standards remain common across Commonwealth/State Government jurisdictions. |
• During the three-year transition period, (commencing on 1 January
2002) the Government has allocated $17.4 million for the new system - an average
of $5.8 million per year.
• The cost of conducting audits will increase if the inclusion of a person with a disability on the audit team results in a larger audit team. |
|
Benefits
|
Costs
|
Consumers |
• Greater transparency of service quality.
• Access to an independent consumer complaints system. Strategies and incentives for service improvement against the Standards. |
• The accuracy and reliability of the audit results may be harder to
maintain without an independent regulator (ie JAS-ANZ).
|
Business (service providers)
|
• Would be less prescriptive, more outcome focused than the current
system.
|
• One-off nature of system may involve higher accreditation fees and
charges.
• Would require a single system to apply to all services irrespective of business structure or quality assurance environment (no opportunity to integrate it with an existing quality system). |
Government
|
• Places both the accreditation and management of certification, with
one independent, expert quality assurance agency.
• Service providers in the government and non-government sector are accredited under the same system. • The system allows Government to focus on the outcomes rather than process. |
• This system does not provide the level of independence of Option 2
(ie JAS-ANZ) to ensure the system adheres to international quality
standards.
• Building and maintaining this one-off system will be more expensive for Government compared to either of the other two systems. • Estimated financial cost approximately $11.7 million per year compared to $5.8 million of Option 2. If service providers fund the certification costs of the system in the longer term, the financial cost of both options could be scaled back by $2.7 million to $9 million for Option 3 and $3.1million for Option 2. |
FaCS undertook a six-month trial of the preferred quality assurance option
(the JAS-ANZ system) which was completed in December 2000. It involved
certification audits of 22 disability services and accreditation of six
potential certification bodies.
As part of the trial, the Department
commissioned ARTD Management and Research Consultants to undertake an
independent evaluation of the operational effectiveness of the proposed quality
assurance option across the diversity of service types and arrangements.
National consultations were also undertaken with service providers and 50
consumer focus groups to inform interested stakeholders of the outcomes of the
evaluation and identify any outstanding issues and suggestions for
improvement.
The evaluation found the trial had successfully demonstrated
the new quality assurance system could provide a robust and credible system for
measuring the extent to which disability employment services comply with the
Disability Services Standards across a range of service types and arrangements.
Copies of the relevant reports are available from the quality assurance website
(www.facs.gov.au/qa). It also demonstrated that the quality assurance system
could accommodate any existing quality assurance system that disability
employment services may have in place.
The evaluation found that trial
participants supported the introduction of the new quality assurance system
based on the JAS-ANZ system. For although the system involved a full assessment
every three years instead of every five years with annual surveillance checks,
it was more outcome focused with clearer benefits for all parties.
While
trial participants were not required to pay for the certification costs of the
trial, the trial evaluation did estimate an average of $8,000 for the cost of a
single site certification audit that would be required every three years. An
annual surveillance audit for the two years in between was estimated to be
between $2,000 to $3,000 per year.
The estimated cost of an additional
site audit for a multi-site organisation was $2,000 however not all sites would
be audited every year. The number of sites required for audit is defined by an
algorithm to select a representative sample to enable an evaluation to be made
of precision and reliability. The number of sites per organisation (including
CRS) are indicated in the following table commencing with the number of single
site organisations at 274.
No of organisations
|
274
|
69
|
43
|
20
|
10
|
7
|
2
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
No of outlets/sites
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
17
|
38
|
160
|
Before the trial, FaCS undertook a survey, which showed a third of
disability services are already certified under an ISO quality systems and are
paying this order of certification costs. Another third of disability services
indicated they were planning to adopt and pay for a quality assurance
system.
Government will cover reasonable accreditation/certification
costs for the first three years with any continuing funding based to be based on
a review in 2003-2004 of sector’s ability to fund their own
certification/accreditation costs after 2004-05.
The Department has worked very closely with key representative of the
disability sector (via the Disability Quality and Standards Working Party, a
sub-committee of the National Disability Advisory Council) to develop and trial
the new quality assurance system.
The evaluation concluded that the
JAS-ANZ system received ‘strong support from service providers and
consumers. The additional investment required by this system (over the status
quo) could be easily justified on the basis of the added-value features of the
new system, particularly the potential for greater:
• independence
and professional objectivity through the use of accredited certification
bodies;
• rigour and consistency between audits;
• involvement
of consumers in the audit process;
• focus on service quality and
outcomes; and
• fairness in the quality requirements for different
service types (‘level playing field’).
At the same time,
trial participants highlighted this added value will only be achieved if action
is taken in the areas of improvement identified in the evaluation. Areas of
improvement include developing a comprehensive communication strategy about the
quality assurance initiative, refining the performance measures, supporting
consumer participation and providing orientation training for
auditors.
In 2000, there was a national round of public information
sessions on the proposed quality assurance system for disability employment
services and consumers. A further round of consultations with the sector was
conducted in April 2001 on the findings of the evaluation and future directions.
These sessions included 50 consumer focus groups organised and run by expert
facilitators. A summary of the issues raised can be found on the quality
assurance website (www.facs.gov.au/qa).
There
are two main areas where consensus between all stakeholders has not been able to
be reached. The outstanding issues involve the performance indicators for two
Disability Service Standards (Standards 5 and 9 – Integration and
Employment Conditions) and the training requirements of the person with a
disability on the audit team. All issues will be reassessed with a major review
planned within 18 months of the introduction of any new system. Regular ongoing
reviews involving consultation with the disability sector will also be required
to confirm that the original objectives are being met and that the performance
indicators are appropriate.
The evaluation of the trial provides clear evidence that the proposed new
quality assurance system (Option 2) does fully meet the objectives sought by
government and provides the best value for money in terms of ensuring the
quality of disability employment services. It is also broadly supported by the
disability sector.
Both Options 2 and 3 will address to varying degrees, the
Government’s stated objectives specified for the new quality assurance
system – objectives that are not being met by the current system (Option
1). Specifically, both Options 2 and 3 will:
• provide people with disabilities with an improved level of confidence
in the quality of service delivery;
• treat all service providers
equally (in both the government and non-government sectors);
• make
assessment of quality more objective & measurable;
• link quality
assurance to funding through an accreditation process which would provide the
Government with confidence in the quality of service delivery and outcomes for
individuals; and
• reduce government intervention in the day to day
operation of services.
In addition, the two new systems will provide an
independent complaint mechanism for consumers and provide a range of incentives
for service providers to continue to improve the quality of their services. All
parties maintain that these are both critical elements of any quality strategy
for disability services.
Both Options 2 and 3 would involve a full
assessment every three years with annual surveillance reviews by independent
(non-Departmental) auditors. Both these options are likely to involve more
resources for service providers than the current system of five-yearly
Departmental audits and annual self-assessments. However, the prevailing view
amongst service providers is that a more outcome-focused system of quality
assurance (which Options 2 and 3 would be designed to deliver) would be worth
the additional investment in time and effort. Whether they would be willing and
able to pay certification costs under the Options 2 and 3 is, at this stage,
unclear. In view of this uncertainty, the Government has agreed to pay for
reasonable certification costs during the three-year transition period, during
which the impact of self-funding certification costs, can be more carefully
considered.
Also most service providers acknowledge that in this day and
age, quality assurance is critical to improved service delivery and business
practices. As more of Commonwealth funded employment services move to a more
competitive business environment, there is a general recognition that they need
to adopt more effective quality assurance systems.
Both Options 2 and 3
would provide both consumers (and government) with greater confidence in the
quality of disability services because under both options only certified
services would be funded (following a transition period). Certification would
be based on more accurate and reliable assessment of quality compared to Option
1.
The existing system of FaCS Departmental audits is the cheapest alternative
at an estimated audit cost of $1.3 million per annum. It is estimated that the
disability specific system (Option 3) will cost approximately $11.7 million per
year compared to $5.8 million for the JAS-ANZ. In the longer term, service
providers paying for the certification cost (estimated at $2.7 million per
annum) could reduce the cost to Government of both these Options. Potentially,
Option 2 could be reduced to $3.1 million per annum and Option 3 to $9
million in the longer term. A reduction to Government outlay would result in
increase costs to service providers. An additional $1.2 million per annum for
independent training and support for people with disabilities would need to be
added to the cost to Government for all the Options.
Of the two new
systems that have been proposed, the JAS-ANZ system is seen to be most
cost-effective alternative.
• The JAS-ANZ system is more effective
as it provides a more accurate and reliable assessment of quality with an
independent regulator to assess the competence and impartiality of the audit
teams and the subsequent audit results. The disability specific model lacks an
independent regulator to ensure the competence and impartiality of the audit
teams.
• The JAS-ANZ system is cheaper as it builds onto a system with
an existing infrastructure that operates in a competitive environment.
Disability specific matters have been successfully integrated into the
JAS-ANZ system. While there was an initial concern that the JAS-ANZ system may
not be as responsive to disability issues as the disability specific system, all
parties are now convinced that this is not the case. The JAS-ANZ procedures have
been crafted to ensure that the system is knowledgeable and responsive to
disability issues and concerns. For example, the JAS-ANZ procedures require
that a person with a disability is to be included in audit teams as the
technical expert. This person will be responsible for engaging consumers and
ensuring that their feedback is fully considered by the audit
team.
Implementation &
Review
Subject to the passage of this legislation, the new system
will commence on 1 January 2002. During December 2001, existing
disability employment services will need to register their intention to seek
certification under the new system. They will have up to three years to achieve
certification. After December 2004, only those existing disability employment
assistance and rehabilitation services that are certified will receive
Commonwealth funding under the Disability Services Act.
FaCS plans to
undertake a post implementation review of the quality assurance initiative
within eighteen months of its introduction. It will be designed to assess the
impact of the quality assurance initiative, the capacity of disability
employment services to fund the certification costs and review key performance
indicators.
Consultations will be progressing on the complaint handling
process during 2001 with implementation planned from July 2002.
(IMPROVED QUALITY ASSURANCE) BILL 2001
EXPLANATION OF CLAUSES
Clause 1 sets out how the amending Act is to be cited, that is, as
the Disability Services Amendment (Improved Quality Assurance) Act
2001.
Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the Act.
Sections 1 and 2 commence on the day of Royal Assent. Schedule 1 commences on 1
January 2002.
Clause 3 provides that each Act that is specified in
a Schedule in the Bill is amended or repealed as set out in that
Schedule.
SCHEDULE 1 - AMENDMENT OF THE DISABILITY SERVICES ACT 1986
Summary
Currently, Commonwealth assistance (grants)
under Part II of the Disability Services Act 1986 (Disability
Services Act) is available in respect of disability services classified as
“eligible services”, transitional services” and
“prescribed services”. The making of grants for those services is
dependent on the service being provided in accordance with the standards
determined by the Minister. The Department of Family and Community Services
assesses the compliance with the standards every five years and monitors annual
self-assessments by service providers.
The standards determined by the
Minister under the Disability Services Act do not apply to the provision of
rehabilitation programs under Part III of the Act.
The Disability
Services Act is amended to replace the current quality assessment system by a
new industry-based quality assurance system. The new system will apply to those
disability services that provide "employment services". Prescribed services,
transitional services and some of the eligible services fall in that category
(notes on item 10, included under the heading Employment services,
provide detailed information on the kinds of services defined as "employment
services"). It will also apply to the provision of rehabilitation programs
(rehabilitation services).
The new quality assurance system is based on a
system of certification/accreditation that is well-established in Australia and
based on international standards of best practice. It involves the use of
skilled audit teams provided by accredited certification bodies whose competence
and impartiality will be monitored by an independent, internationally recognised
accreditation authority. Accredited certification bodies will be assessing
disability employment services and the provision of rehabilitation programs
against disability standards and new key performance indicators. The same
standards will apply to employment services and the provision of rehabilitation
programs (they are referred to in this Bill as disability employment standards
and rehabilitation program standards, respectively).
The disability
employment standards and rehabilitation program standards are based on the
existing disability services standards with a few differences. These
differences include the amalgamation of two existing standards and the addition
of two new standards. The revised standards will be determined by the Minister
in an instrument to be tabled in Parliament.
Key performance indicators
have been developed in consultation with the disability sector and will be used
by certification bodies to assess compliance with the standards. Any changes to
key performance indicators will be approved by the Minister following
consultation with the disability sector. It is expected that the key
performance indicators will be reviewed periodically and amended in light of
changing practice and community expectations.
Certification bodies will
give service providers certificates of compliance in respect of a service that
meets the standards. They will monitor the provision of certified services
through annual surveillance audits and full assessment audits every three
years.
Amendments to the Disability Services Act make a clear link
between the certification and the provision of financial assistance by the
Commonwealth. Generally, after a three-year transitional period, grants under
this Act will only be made in respect of certified employment and rehabilitation
services. New employment services that are approved for funding after 1 January
2002 will only have up to twelve months to become certified. Services that are
funded prior to this date will have three years to achieve certification because
of the significant changes some of the services will need to undergo. There
will be a range of incentives and support to help services achieve certification
during the three-year transition period.
During the transitional period,
existing employment services will be funded if they comply with the standards
that currently apply to them and notify the Minister of their intention to seek
to obtain a certificate of compliance within the time specified by the
Minister.
The existing disability services standards will continue to
apply to the non-employment services. These services are referred to in this
Bill as eligible services and the standards relevant to those services are
referred to as eligibility standards (notes on item 9, included under the
heading Eligible services, provide detailed information on the kinds of
services defined as eligible services.
The current system of monitoring
standards by the department will continue to apply to eligible
services.
Background
The Government announced its
commitment to reform the quality assurance process for employment services in
the 1996-1997 Budget.
To support the development and introduction of the
quality assurance system, a sub-committee of the National Disability Advisory
Council, the Disability Quality and Standards Working Party, was established.
The Working Party included key representatives from the disability sector
(disability employment service providers, the rehabilitation service provider -
CRS Australia, consumers of disability employment services and state/territory
governments). State and territory governments have been included because they
also use the existing disability services standards (the non-employment specific
standards).
The Working Party agreed that the existing standards should
largely be retained to provide the core values for the new quality assurance
system. However, a number of changes were identified including the amalgamation
of two existing standards, the addition of two new standards and some minor
wording changes. Working Party deliberations were informed by an independent
study of the disability sector’s views on the overall effectiveness of the
Standards (Evaluation of The Barriers to the Implementation of the Disability
Services Standards Project, 1997).
The two new standards relate
to:
• staff recruitment, employment and training;
and
• protection of human rights and freedom from abuse and
neglect.
In its 1997 report, Assuring Quality, the Disability Quality and
Standard Working Party raised concerns about the current system of quality
assurance. The concerns included the lack of transparent and universally
applied accreditation/certification system that would provide an assurance of
service quality for consumers and the government, the lack of incentives for
service improvement and an ad hoc complaints system. The new quality assurance
system addresses these concerns.
In response to these concerns, the
following objectives were formulated for the new quality assurance
initiative:
• to provide people with disabilities with an improved
level of confidence in the quality of service delivery;
• to treat all
service providers equally (in both the government and non-government
sectors);
• to make assessment of quality more objective and
measurable;
• to link quality assurance to funding through an
accreditation process which would provide the purchaser with confidence in the
quality of service delivery and outcomes for individuals; and
• to
reduce government intervention in the day to day operation of
services.
Explanation of changes
In these notes, the
reference to a section means a section of the Disability Services
Act.
Currently, the Disability Services Act provides for making grants of
financial assistance in relation to the provision of eligible services,
transitional services and prescribed services.
Grants under section 10
are made in respect of eligible services meeting the eligibility standards (the
highest standards). “Eligible services” are defined in section 7 by
reference to section 9 and an instrument made under this section. These are
services established since the introduction of the Disability Services Act in
1987. They include nine kinds of services: accommodation support services,
advocacy services, competitive employment training and placement services,
independent living training services, information services, print disability
services, recreation services, respite care services and supported employment
services.
Grants under sections 13 and 14 are made in respect of
prescribed services meeting the minimum standards. "Prescribed services" are
defined in section 7. They are essentially employment services, that is,
services providing, or otherwise assisting with, obtaining paid employment for
persons with disabilities.
Grants under sections 12A and 14 are made in
respect of transitional services meeting the enhanced standards.
“Transitional services” are defined in section 7. These are
essentially prescribed services on their way to meeting the eligibility
standards.
Prescribed services and transitional services are the services
established before the introduction of the Disability Services Act in
1987.
The new system that makes funding for the provision of disability
services dependent on the service provider holding a certificate of compliance
with the standards issued by an accredited certification body will apply to
those services that are referred to as "employment services". Essentially, they
include transitional services, prescribed services, and two of the services
currently included in the definition of eligible services, that is, competitive
employment training and placement services and supported employment services.
"Competitive employment training and placement services" are defined in section
7. Generally, these are services assisting persons with disabilities to obtain
and/or retain paid employment. "Supported employment services" are defined in
section 7 as, generally, services supporting the paid employment of persons with
disabilities.
Employment services
Items 6, 10, 14, 18,
19, and 20 make amendments relevant to the definition of "employment
service".
“Employment service” is currently defined in
section 7 as, generally, a service that focus on obtaining paid employment by
persons with disabilities. Currently, only prescribed services and transitional
services fall into the ambit of that definition.
Item 10 amends
the definition of "employment service" in section 7 to specify that it includes
competitive employment training and placement services, supported employment
services, services that immediately before 1 January 2002 were transitional
services or prescribed services and any service that the Minister determines for
that purpose under new section 9A substituted by item 20.
New
section 9A gives the Minister a discretionary power to approve an additional
class of an employment service if the Minister is satisfied that the provision
of services included in that class would further the objects of the Disability
Services Act and its principles and objectives, and would comply with the
relevant guidelines (the objects are set out in section 3, the principles and
objectives are formulated in an instrument made under section 5 and the
guidelines are formulated in an instrument made under section 5).
A minor
amendment is made by item 6 to the definition of " competitive employment
training and placement services" to reflect the fact that those services are
commonly referred to in the disability industry as "open employment
services".
As the consequence of the amendments made by item 10,
transitional services and prescribed services will be defined as employment
services. The definitions of "transitional services" and "prescribed service"
in section 7 are therefore no longer needed; they are repealed by
item 18 and item 14, respectively. Section 9B that
provides for approval of a service as a prescribed service and section 9A that
provides for approval of a prescribed service as a transitional service will no
longer have any application; they are repealed by item 20. The
definition of "transitional strategy" relevant to the approval under the
repealed section 9A is repealed by item 19.
Eligible
services
Items 9 and 20 make amendments relevant to the
definition of "eligible service".
The inclusion in the definition of
"employment service" of two types of services currently defined as eligible
services (competitive employment training and placement services and supported
employment services) necessitates a consequential amendment to the definition of
"eligible service".
Section 7 defines "eligible service" as the service
included in a class of services approved by the Minister under section 9.
Section 9 gives the Minister a discretionary power to approve a class of
services definition in section 7 if the Minister is satisfied that the provision
of services included in that class would further the objects of the Disability
Services Act and its principles and objectives, and would comply with the
relevant guidelines (the objects are set out in section 3, the principles and
objectives are formulated in an instrument made under section 5 and the
guidelines are formulated in an instrument made under section 5). Section 9
refers specifically (but not exclusively) to nine kinds of services the Minister
may approve.
Item 9 repeals the current definition of "eligible
service" and substitutes a new definition. The new definition is reduced in
scope and includes accommodation support services, advocacy services,
independent living training services, information services, print disability
services, recreation services, respite services and services included in a class
of services approved for that purpose by the Minister under new section 9. New
section 9 (substituted by item 20) gives the Minister a discretionary
power to approve an additional class of eligible services if the Minister is
satisfied that the provision of services included in that class would further
the objects of the Disability Services Act and the principles and objectives,
and would comply with the relevant guidelines (the objects are set out in
section 3, the principles and objectives are formulated in an instrument made
under section 5 and the guidelines are formulated in an instrument made under
section 5).
The new quality assurance system that links financial
assistance under the Disability Services Act with certification of services will
not apply to eligible services. Current assessment system and grant conditions
will continue to apply to those
services.
Standards
Items 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 20, 42
and 46 make amendments relevant to standards.
Currently, grants of
financial assistance are made on the condition that the provision of an eligible
service is meeting the eligibility standards, the provision of a transitional
service is meeting the enhanced standards and the provision of a prescribed
service is meeting the minimum standards. The standards for service provision
are determined by the Minister under section 9C. The definitions of
"eligibility standards", "enhanced standards" and "minimum standards" in section
7 cross-refer to the determination under section 9C.
With the
transitional services and prescribed services being subsumed into the definition
of employment services (amendments made by items 10, 14 and 18 refer),
the provisions relating to the standards relevant to transitional and prescribed
services became obsolete. Consequently, item 11 repeals the definition
of "enhanced standards" and item 12 repeals the definition of "minimum
standards".
Section 9C providing for the determination by the
Minister of the eligibility standards, enhanced standards and
minimum standards is repealed by item 20. The power for the Minister to
determine the eligibility standards for the provision of eligible services
referred to in Part II of the Disability Services Act is relocated to new
section 5A inserted by item 1 (new paragraph 5A(1)(a) refers)
Consequential amendment is made by item 8 to the definition of
"eligibility standards" in section 7 so it cross-refers to the eligibility
standards determined under new paragraph 5A(1)(a).
Section 5A also
includes the power to determine disability employment standards for the
provision of employment services referred to in Part II of the Disability
Services Act (new paragraph 5A(1)(b) refers). It requires the Minister to
determine key performance indicators for the purposes of the assessment by a
certification body whether the standards have been met. Item 7 inserts
in section 7 a definition of "disability employment standards" cross-referring
to standards made under new paragraph 5A(1)(b). "Key performance indicators" are
defined in new section 6A (Definitions) inserted by item 3 as the
indicators approved under new subsection 5A(2).
The
determination-making power under section 5A extends to determining
rehabilitation program standards and key performance indicators relevant to the
provision of rehabilitation programs referred to in Part III of the Disability
Services Act (new paragraph 5A(1)(c) refers). Item 42 inserts in section
17 a definition of "rehabilitation program standards" cross-referring to
standards made under new paragraph 5A(1)(c). "Key performance indicators" are
defined in new section 6A inserted by item 3 as the indicators approved
under new subsection 5A(2).
A determination under new subsection 5A(1)
relating to standards is a disallowable instrument (item 46
refers).
Item 2 is a saving provision consequential on repeal, by
item 20, of the power to determine the eligibility standards in paragraph
9C(a). Item 2 ensures that the determination of the eligibility
standards made by the Minister under paragraph 9C(a) before its repeal continues
in force for the purposes of those services that fall within the definition of
eligible services (as amended by item 9) and to which the current quality
assurance system continues to apply.
Accreditation and
certification
Item 3 inserts new Part IA into the Disability
Services Act.
New Part IA - Accreditation and certification for the purposes of certain services and programs
New Part IA contains provisions establishing the main building blocks of
the new accreditation and certification system, that is,
- the approval
of an accrediting authority by the Secretary (new section 6B
refers);
- accreditation of certification bodies by the accrediting authority
(new section 6C refers);
- certification of States or eligible
organisation by accredited certification bodies (new sections 6D and 6E
refer).
New section 6A - Definitions
New section 6A
includes definitions of expressions used in this Bill relevant to the
accreditation and certification process.
"Accrediting authority" is
defined as authority approved by the Secretary under new section 6B for the
purpose of granting accreditation to certification bodies (new
section 6B is explained in the notes on that section).
"Accreditation" is
defined as accreditation under new Part IA. In this Part, new section 6C
provides for accreditation of certification bodies by an accrediting
authority (new section 6C is explained in the notes on that
section).
"Certification body" is defined as the body that carries out
certifying functions.
"Certifying functions" means two functions:
assessing whether an employment services meets the disability employment
standards, or the provision of rehabilitation programs meets the rehabilitation
program standards, and giving certificates of compliance if the relevant
standards are met. The definition stipulates that the assessment whether the
standards are met is done with reference to key performance
indicators.
"Certificate of compliance" is defined by reference to
new sections 6D and 6E (new sections 6D and 6E are explained in the notes on
those sections).
"Current certificate of compliance" means a certificate
of compliance that is in force (new subsection 6D(4) specifies when a
certificate of compliance is in force).
"Key performance indicators"
means the indicators approved under new subsection 5A(2) (inserted by
item 1).
"Accredited certification body" means a certification
body that holds a current accreditation.
"Current accreditation"
is an accreditation that has not been withdrawn (new subsection 6C provides for
withdrawal of an accreditation).
"Person" is defined as including the
Commonwealth and an authority of the Commonwealth. This definition only applies
in relation to the provision of a rehabilitation program.
"Rehabilitation program" is defined in section 17 as the program provided under
Part III of the Disability Services Act.
New section 6B - Secretary
may approve accrediting authorities
New section 6B provides the
Secretary with a discretionary power to approve an authority that has the
function of granting accreditation to certification bodies that the authority is
satisfied will carry out certifying functions competently and impartially (new
subsection 6B)(1) refers). The Secretary will only approve an authority if the
Secretary is satisfied that that the authority is internationally recognised as
a suitable authority to grant accreditations and will perform its functions in
an independent and impartial way (new subsection 6B(2)
refers).
"Accreditation", "certification body" and "certifying functions"
are defined in new section 6A.
Accreditation functions carried out by an
accrediting authority are specified in new section 6C.
It is intended
that the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ), an
internationally recognised non-profit accreditation agency established by the
Australian and New Zealand Governments, will be approved under this section to
carry out accreditations.
The power in section 6B to approve an
accrediting authority includes the power to revoke the
approval.
New section 6C - Accrediting authority may grant
accreditation to certification bodies
New section 6C deals with
accreditation.
New subsection 6C(1) sets out the functions of an
accrediting authority. It specifies two functions: assessing whether
certification bodies will carry out certifying functions competently and
impartially and, if so, granting accreditation to the body. The assessment is
carried out in accordance with disability auditing criteria established by the
accrediting authority and made publicly available.
"Accrediting
authority", "certification body", certifying functions" and "accreditation" are
defined in new section 6A.
An accrediting authority will monitor whether
accredited certification bodies carry out their certifying functions competently
and impartially. New subsection 6C(2) imposes an obligation on the accrediting
authority to withdraw the accreditation if the authority ceases to be satisfied
that the accredited certification body carries out the certifying functions in
the competent and impartial way. The body must be notified in writing about
withdrawal of its accreditation.
The Secretary is to be notified by an
accrediting authority, as soon as practicable, about the grant of accreditation
to a certification body, the withdrawal of the accreditation, and the reasons
for those decisions. This requirement, specified in new subsection 6C(3)
ensures that information about the accreditation process if publicly
available.
New subsection 6C(4) specifies when an accreditation is in
force. An accreditation continues in force until it is withdrawn (under new
subsection 6C(2)). If the accreditation is not withdrawn, but the Secretary has
revoked an accrediting authority’s approval, the accreditation continues
in force until the end of a three-month period starting after the revocation of
the approval.
JAS-ANZ provides a process to appeal against a decision of
an accrediting authority to accredit (or not) a certification body. The process
for decision making is also subject to appeal.
The JAS-ANZ complaints
system will be complemented by an independent complaint mechanism for consumers
and service providers to resolve issues and concerns about service quality and
delivery.
New section 6D - Accredited certification body may give
certificates of compliance to States or eligible
organisations
New section 6D deals with certification of
employment services.
New subsection 6D(1) specifies when an accredited
certification body must give to the State or eligible organisation a
certificate, called a certificate of compliance, stating that the employment
service meets the disability employment standards. The certificate must be
given on request of the State or eligible organisation, if the certification
body is satisfied that the employment service provided by the State or
organisation meets the relevant standards.
"State" is defined in section
7 as including the Northern Territory.
"Eligible organisation" is defined
in section 7 as being, generally, a body corporate (non-profit), a State or
Territory governing body, a tertiary institution or any other society,
association or body approved by the Minister for the purpose of this
definition.
"Accredited certification body" is defined in new section 6A
and "disability employment standards" are defined in section 7 by reference to
new paragraph 5A(1)(b).
The certification body that gave the
certificate of compliance will carry out full three-yearly audits of the
certified services, and annual surveillance audits, to ensure that only services
that continue to meet the disability employment standards are certified. New
subsection 6D(2) imposes an obligation on the accredited certification body to
revoke the certificate if the certification body ceases to be satisfied that the
service meets the disability employment standards. The State or eligible
organisation must be notified in writing about the revocation of its
certificate.
The Secretary is to be notified by a certification body, as
soon as practicable, about the giving of a certificate of compliance to a State
or eligible organisation, the revocation of the certificate, and the reasons for
those decisions. This requirement, specified in new subsection 6D(3), ensures
that information about the certification process if publicly
available.
New subsection 6D(4) specifies when a certificate of
compliance is in force. A certificate of compliance continues in force until it
is revoked (under new subsection 6D(2)). If the certificate is not
revoked, but the accreditation of the certification body has been withdrawn by
an accrediting authority (under new subsection 6C(2)), the certificate continues
in force until the end of a three-month period starting after the withdrawal of
the accreditation.
The JAS-ANZ provides a process to appeal against a
decision of a certification body to give (or not) a certificate of compliance to
the State or an eligible organisation. The process for decision making is also
subject to appeal.
The JAS-ANZ complaints system will be complemented by
an independent complaint mechanism for consumers and service providers to
resolve issues and concerns about service quality and delivery.
New
section 6E - Accredited certification body may give certificates of compliance
to providers of rehabilitation programs
New section 6E deals with
certification of the provision of rehabilitation programs. It contains
provisions similar to those applicable to certification of employment services
in new section 6D.
New subsection 6E(1) specifies when an accredited
certification body must give to a person a certificate, called a certificate of
compliance, stating that the provision of rehabilitation programs by the person
meets the rehabilitation program standards. The certificate must be given on
request of the person, if the certification body is satisfied that the provision
of rehabilitation programs by the person meets the relevant
standards.
"Person" is defined in new section 6A as including the
Commonwealth and an authority of the Commonwealth (currently, rehabilitation
programs are provided by an authority of the Commonwealth, CRS
Australia).
"Accredited certification body" is defined in new section 6A
and "rehabilitation program standards" are defined in section 17 by reference to
new paragraph 5A(1)(c).
The certification body that gave the certificate
of compliance will carry out full three-yearly audits of the certified service,
and annual surveillance audits, to ensure that only provision of rehabilitation
programs that continue to meet the rehabilitation program standards are
certified. New subsection 6E(2) imposes an obligation on the accredited
certification body to revoke the certificate if the body ceases to be satisfied
that the provision of rehabilitation programs meets the rehabilitation program
standards. The person holding the certificate must be notified in writing about
the revocation of the certificate.
The Secretary is to be notified by a
certification body, as soon as practicable, about the giving of a certificate of
compliance, the revocation of the certificate, and the reasons for those
decisions.
New subsection 6E(4) specifies when a certificate of
compliance is in force. A certificate of compliance continues in force until it
is revoked (under new subsection 6E(2)). If the certificate is not
revoked, but the accreditation of the certification body has been withdrawn by
an accrediting authority (under new subsection 6C(2)), the certificate continues
in force until the end of a three-month period starting after the withdrawal of
the accreditation.
The JAS-ANZ provides a process to appeal against a
decision of a certification body to give (or not) a certificate of compliance to
the provider of rehabilitation programs. The process for decision making is
also subject to appeal.
The JAS-ANZ complaints system will be
complemented by an independent complaint mechanism for consumers and service
providers to resolve issues and concerns about service quality and
delivery.
Item 4 makes a technical amendment to section 7
(Interpretation). Some of the expressions used in new Part IA are defined in
section 7 of Part II of the Disability Services Act as amended by this Bill (for
example, "employment service" is used in new section 6D in new Part IA but is
defined in section 7 of Part II that contains definitions). Section 7
currently provides that it applies to Part II only. Item 4 amends
section 7 so that the definitions contained in that section apply to all Parts
of the Act. The definitions will therefore apply to expressions used in new
Part IA.
Item 5 amends the definition of "applicable standards".
The amendment is explained in the notes on amendments to section 14C (Functions
of Review Panels).
Item 13 inserts a definition of "pre-2002-03
grant". The amendment is explained in the notes on amendments to new section
12AA inserted by item 21.
Item 15 inserts in section 7 a
definition of “receiving a grant of financial assistance“. This or
similar expressions are used in various provisions. A State or organisation is
taken to be receiving a grant of financial assistance from the time the grant is
approved until immediately after payment, or payment of the last instalment of
the grant, is made.
Item 16 inserts in section 7 a definition of
"transitional grant". The amendment is explained in the notes on amendments to
new section 12AA inserted by item 21.
Item 17 inserts in
section 7 a definition of "transitional period". The amendment is explained in
the notes on amendments to new section 12AA inserted by item
21.
Item 21 inserts new Division 2A after Division 2 of Part
II.
Part II of the Disability Services Act contains provisions relating
to the approval of grants of financial assistance for the provision of
services.
Division 2 of Part II (sections 10 and 12) deals with grants
for eligible services and research and development activities. These provisions
will continue to apply to the current and new grants of financial assistance in
respect of the provision of eligible services as defined in section 7 (this
definition is amended by item 9). The new quality assurance system based
on certification will not apply to grants for eligible service.
New
Division 2A deals with grants for employment services.
New Division 2A - Grants for employment services
New Division 2A is divided into the following three
subdivisions:
- new Subdivision A (new sections 12AA and 12AB) contains
provisions relating to approval of transitional grants;
- new Subdivision B
(new sections 12AC and 12AD) contains provisions relating to approval of other
than transitional grants; and
- new Subdivision C (new sections 12AE)
contains provisions common to both transitional and other than transitional
grants.
New Subdivision A - Transitional grants
New Subdivision A contains provisions relating to approval of
transitional grants, that is, grants of financial assistance approved during a
three-year transitional period (2002-2004) in respect of services that were
funded for the financial year 2001-2002 (existing services). It provides for
relaxed conditions under which such grants may be approved and paid, when
compared with the conditions that apply to other grants (under new
Subdivision B).
An existing service will need to meet two funding
conditions during the transitional period:
- that the service provision
complies with the standards that currently apply to the service; and
- that
the State or organisation providing the service notifies the Minister of its
intention to seek to obtain a certificate of compliance within the time
specified by the Minister.
After the day specified by the Minister or
after the transitional period, whichever occurs earlier, an existing service
must be certified to be eligible for continued funding. It will also be subject
to the conditions of grant specified in new Subdivision B.
New
section 12AA - Application of Subdivision
New section 12AA is an
application provision relating to transitional grants.
New subsection
12AA(1) specifies when and in respect of which employment services an approval
may be given to the making of a transitional grant during the transitional
period.
It provides that Subdivision A authorises the approval, during
the transitional period, of grants to State or eligible organisation in respect
of an employment service if a pre-2002-03 grant, that is, a grant in respect of
the financial year 2001-2002, was approved for the service and at least one
instalment of that grant was paid.
Item 16 inserts in section 7 a
definition of transitional grant. “Transitional grant” of financial
assistance means a grant of financial assistance approved under
Subdivision A of Division 2A of Part II.
The definition of
“transitional period” inserted in section 7 by item 17
specifies that it is the period that starts on 1 January 2002 and ends on 31
December 2004.
The definition of “pre-2002-03 grant” inserted
in section 7 by item 13 defines this term by reference to subsection
12AA(1).
A transitional grant can be approved irrespective of whether the
pre-2002-03 was approved before or after the commencement of this Bill on
1 January 2002. A note at the end of subsection 12AA(1) informs the reader
that, by virtue of the saving provision in subitem 50(1), the current
provisions of the Disability Services Act continue in force in relation to
financial year that began on 1 July 2001. One of the effects of the saving
provision is that after 1 January 2002 a grant in respect of the financial year
2001-2002 may be approved under the current conditions.
A transitional
grant cannot be approved if the pre-2002-03 grant was approved for the service
but never paid or if the last grant for the service was approved in respect of
the financial year earlier than 2001-2002.
New subsection 12AA(2)
prevents in certain situations the approval of a transitional grant for a
service for which a transitional grant could otherwise have been approved. A
transitional grant cannot be approved if:
- at the time when the approval
would be made, the State or eligible organisation holds a current certificate of
compliance in respect of the service;
- at the time when the approval would
be made, the State or eligible organisation does not hold a current certificate
of compliance in respect of the service, but held such a certificate previously
while receiving a grant other than transitional grant under new section
12AD;
- before the time when the approval would be made, the State or
organisation received a grant other than the transitional grant under new
section 122AD; or
- a transitional grant that the State or organisation was
receiving previously was terminated.
“Current certificate of
compliance” is defined in new section 6A inserted by item 3 as a
certificate of compliance that is in force. New subsection 6D(4) inserted by
item 3 specifies when a certificate of compliance is in force.
If
a transitional grant cannot be approved in respect of a service, financial
assistance for the service may be available via a grant other than transitional
grant under new section 12AD.
New section 12AB Transitional
financial assistance for employment services
New section 12AB
sets out conditions of approval of a transitional grant for an employment
service and conditions of the grant.
Under new subsections 12AB(1) and
(2), all of the following conditions have to be met before a transitional grant
may be approved in respect of a service:
- the service must be provided
for persons in a target group (under section 8, the target group consists of
persons with disability that is attributable to an intellectual, psychiatric,
sensory or physical impairment or combinations of such impairments, is permanent
or likely to be permanent and results in substantially reduced capacity for
communication, learning or mobility and the need for ongoing support services)
(new subsection 12AB(1) refers);
- the Minister must be satisfied that the
making of the grant would further the object of the Disability Services Act set
out in section 3 and the principles and objectives formulated in an instrument
under section 5, and would comply with the relevant guidelines formulated in an
instrument under section 5 (new paragraph 12AB(2)(a) refers);
- the Minister
has determined a day by which the State or eligible organisation must obtain a
certificate of compliance in respect of the service and the State or
organisation has notified the Minister (by written notice given in accordance
with the procedure set out in the guidelines formulated under section 5) that it
intends to seek to obtain such a certificate (new paragraph 12AB(2)(b)
refers);
- the Minister is satisfied that the State or organisation is
meeting the standards that were the applicable standards in respect of the
service when the grant for the financial year 2001-2002 was paid for the
service; depending on whether the service was before 1 January 2002 an eligible
service or prescribed service or transitional service, the applicable standard
for the same service for a transitional grant would be the eligibility standards
or minimum standards or enhanced standards as applicable to the service before 1
January 2002 (new paragraph 12AB(2)(c) refers).
New subsection 12AB(3)
authorises the Minister to make determinations, or their variations, to fix a
day by which the State or organisation must obtain a certificate of compliance.
The day cannot be later than 31 December 2004.
New subsection 12AB(4)
specifies the following conditions of the grant for a service:
- the
State or organisation must meet the relevant standards all the time before the
State or organisation obtains a certificate of compliance in respect of the
service or before the day specified by the Minister for obtaining the
certificate, whichever is earlier; and
- the State or organisation holds a
current certificate of compliance in respect of the service all the time after
the day specified by the Minister for obtaining the certificate, or after the
day such a certificate has been obtained, until the end of the period to which
the grant relates.
Non-compliance with these conditions may result in
sanctions under section 14G that include termination of the grant.
New Subdivision B – Grants (other than transitional grants)
Outline
New Subdivision B contains provisions relating to
the making after 1 January 2002 of other than transitional grants for employment
services.
New Subdivision B applies to services to which new section 12AA
relating to transitional grants does not apply. Generally, new Subdivision B
applies in respect of grants for a service for which a grant for the financial
year 2001-2002 was not paid, for a service for which a transitional grant was
paid but was terminated, or a for a service in respect of which a certificate of
compliance was obtained.
The main essential conditions of the grant under
new Subdivision B is that a State or an eligible organisation holds a
certificate of compliance in respect of the service.
There is a provision
for making a grant, in certain situations, for a service that is not certified,
providing the State or organisation notifies the Minister of its intention to
obtain a certificate of compliance in respect of the service by the time
determined by the Minister. The maximum time during which a grant under new
Subdivision B may be paid to in respect of a service that is not certified is 12
months.
This section provides that new Subdivision B authorise the approval, on
or after 1 January 2002, of grants of financial assistance, other than
transitional grants, to a State or organisation in respect of an employment
service.
New section 12 AD specifies the circumstances under which approval for
the making of a grant may be made.
New subsections 12AD(1) and (2)
specify the following conditions that have to be met before a transitional grant
may be approved in respect of a service:
- the service must be provided
for persons in a target group (under section 8, the target group consists of
persons with disability that is attributable to an intellectual, psychiatric,
sensory or physical impairment or combinations of such impairments, is permanent
or likely to be permanent and results in substantially reduced capacity for
communication, learning or mobility and the need for ongoing support services)
(new subsection 12AD(1) refers); and
- the Minister must be satisfied that
the making of the grant would further the object of the Disability Services Act
set out in section 3 and the principles and objectives formulated in an
instrument under section 5, and would comply with the relevant guidelines
formulated in an instrument under section 5 (new paragraph 12AD(2)(a) refers);
and
- the State or eligible organisation holds a current certificate of
compliance in respect of the service (new subparagraph 12AD((2)(b)(i)
refers).
If a State or organisation does not hold a current certificate
of compliance in respect of the service for which a grant is sought, the grant
may be approved if:
- the Minister has determined a day by which the
State or organisation must obtain a certificate of compliance in respect of the
service; and
- the State or organisation has notified the Minister (by
written notice given in accordance with the procedure set out in the guidelines
formulated under section 5) that its intend to seek to obtain such a certificate
(new subparagraph 12AD(2)(b)(ii) refers).
The approval of a grant
under the condition specified in new subparagraph 12AD(2)(b)(ii) (for a
non-certified service) is available only in respect of a service that has not
been funded before 1 January 2002 and only for the first grant approved in
respect of the service after 1 January 2002 under new section 12AD. New
subsection 12AD(3) provides for that restriction.
New subsection 12AD(4)
authorises the Minister to make determinations, or their variations, to fix a
day by which the State or organisation must obtain a certificate of compliance.
The day cannot be later than 12 months after the approval of the
grant.
New subsection 12AD(5) specifies the following conditions of a
grant for a service:
- if the grant was approved for a certified service,
the State or organisation must hold a current certificate of compliance in
respect of the service all the time after the approval until the end of the
period to which the grant relates;
- if the grant was approved for a service
not certified at the time of the approval, the State or organisation must
obtain a certificate of compliance in respect of the service before the day
specified by the Minister for obtaining the certificate and continue to hold it
until the end of the period to which the grant relates.
Non-compliance
with these conditions may result in sanctions under section 14G that include
termination of the grant.
New Subdivision C – Provisions applicable in respect of all grants under this Division
The provisions of new Subdivision C (new section 12AE) apply to grants
made under Subdivision A (transitional grants) and to grants made under
Subdivision B (other than transitional grants).
New section 12AE -
Ancillary provisions relating to grants in respect of employment
services
New section 12AE replicates, for the purposes of grants
for employment services, the current ancillary provisions relating to grants for
eligible services, prescribed services and transitional services. The same
provisions will continue to apply after 1 January 2002 to grants for
eligible services.
New subsection 12AE(1) indicates that the Minister may
approve the making of a grant for a service with respect to recurrent
expenditure, cost of acquiring land, building cost and cost of equipment. This
subsection in not intended to limit the application of new subsections 12AB(1)
or 12AD(1) that provide for approval of grants for the provision of employment
services.
New subsection 12AE(2) specifies the determinations the
Minister must make if the Minister approves a grant under new section 12AB or
12AD. Following the approval, the Minister must determine the amount of the
grant or the manner in which the grant is to be calculated, and the time at
which, and the instalments (if any) in which, the grant is to be paid (new
paragraphs 12AD(2)(a) and (b) refer).
The Minister must also specify any
other terms and conditions of a grant (new paragraph 12AD(2)(c) refers). New
subsection 12AE(3) specifies that those terms and conditions include terms and
conditions with respect to:
- the purposes for which the grant may be
applied;
- the amounts, and their source, to be applied by the relevant State
or organisation for those or other purposes;
- the outcomes to be achieved by
persons with disability using the service, and their rights in relation to the
provision of the service or otherwise;
- the provision of
information;
- the provision of certificates with respect to the fulfilment
of terms and conditions;
- the repayment of grant;
- the giving of
security for the fulfilment of terms and conditions; and
- the use and
disposal of, and the recovery of the amounts that under the terms and conditions
are to be taken as representing the Commonwealth’s interest in land,
buildings and equipment as a result of the application of the grant money or
money that include the grant money.
The Minister may specify other terms
and conditions.
New subsection 12AE(4) limits the time within which
instalments of a grant are to be paid to maximum 5 years after the approval of
the grant.
Amendment to Division 3, Part II
Item 22
repeals Division 3 of Part II that provides for grants for transitional and
prescribed services. This amendment is consequential on the amendment made by
item 10 that amends the definition of “employment service” to
include services that immediately before 1 January 2002 were transitional and
prescribed services. After 1 January 2002, grants for those services
will be made under new Division 2A which provides for grants for employment
services.
Amendments to section 14C (Functions of Review
Panels)
Items 23 and 24 make amendments to section 14C which
sets out functions of Disability Standards Review Panels. In general, the
function of the panels is to review and report to the Minister, at the
Minister’s direction or at the request of an eligible organisation, on the
performance of an eligible service, or a prescribed service or a transitional
service for which a grant is paid. Specifically, the panels consider whether the
standards relevant to a particular service (the ”applicable
standards”) are met. This function is exercised mainly (but not
exclusively) in the situation where the Minister proposes to make, in respect of
a service, a declaration under section 14G (declaration of failure to meet
standard).
The function of the Disability Standards Review Panels is
directly relevant to the current quality assurance system based on the
departmental audit of services’ standards. The current quality assurance
system, and the Disability Standards Review Panels, will continue to operate
after 1 January 2002 in respect of eligible services and employment services
receiving transitional grants that have not yet been certified.
Paragraph
14C(1)(a) refers to “a transitional service or a prescribed
service”. As those services will be defined from 1 January 2002 as
employment services, item 23 amends that paragraph to omit those
references.
Item 24 then amends the definition of
“service” used for the purposes of the review provisions in section
14C so it means an eligible service and an employment service in respect of
which a transitional grant is being received.
“Applicable
standards” that the Panels review, as referred to in subsection 14C(3),
are defined in section 7 as meaning: the eligibility standards – in case
of an eligible service, the enhanced standards – in case of a transitional
service, and the minimum standards - in case of a prescribed service. Item
5 substitutes a new definition of applicable standards that the Panels will
be able to review. Under the amended definition, applicable standards are: the
eligibility standards – in case of an eligible service, and the standards
referred to in paragraph 12AB(2)(c) – in case of an employment service in
respect of which a transitional grant is being received (that is, the
eligibility or the enhanced or the minimum standards, as the case may
be).
Amendments to section 14G (Declaration of failure to meet
standards)
Division 3B contains provisions that apply when there is a
failure to meet applicable standards in the provision of care. Specifically, it
authorises the Minister to make a declaration of failure to meet applicable
standards (section 14G refers) and specifies matters relevant to the making of
such a declaration.
These provisions are relevant, and will continue to
be relevant, to the services in respect of which grants are approved on the
condition of meeting the applicable standards, that is, to eligible services.
They will also be applicable to employment services receiving transitional
grants before the day specified by the Minister as the day by which they must
obtain a certificate of compliance or before the day they obtain the
certificate, whichever occurs earlier.
Section 14G provides that if an
eligible organisation is not meeting the applicable standards in the provision
of an eligible service, or a transitional service or a prescribed service, the
Minister may make a declaration stating so and stating that the organisation is
in breach of the condition of the grant specified in the relevant grant
provisions.
Item 26 amends section 14G by repealing subsection (1)
and substituting new subsections 14G(1) and 14G(1A).
New subsection
14G(1) provides for the application of section 14G (Declaration of failure to
meet standards) if an organisation is not meeting the applicable standards and
the organisation is:
- receiving a grant under Division 2 for an eligible
service; or
- receiving transitional grant for an employment service before
the relevant time, being the day determined by the Minister under paragraph
12AB(2)(b) (the day by which a certificate must be obtained) or the day on which
certificate was obtained.
New subsection 14G(1A) authorises the Minister
to make a declaration stating that the organisation is not meeting the
applicable standards and is breaching the conditions of the grant in subsection
10(3A) (conditions of the grant for an eligible service) or paragraph 12AB(4)(a)
(conditions of the transitional grant for an employment service). The Minister
may also specify in the declaration the actions that will be taken as a result
of the failure.
Items 27, 28 and 29 amend cross-references in
subsection 14G(2), paragraph 14G(2)(a) and subsection 14G(3), respectively.
These amendments are consequential on the amendments made by item
26.
Amendments to sections 14H (Certain matters to occur before
Minister makes a declaration or takes action) and 14J (Information about
Minister’s declaration may be made available to the public) as a result of
the amendment made by item 26
Further technical amendments,
consequential on the amendment made by item 26, are made to
subsection 14H(1) and paragraph 14J(1)(a) by items 31 and 32
to remove references to transitional and prescribed services from sections 14H
(certain matter to occur before Minister makes a declaration or takes action)
and 14J (information about Minister’s declaration may be made available to
the public) and to ensure that those sections apply to the relevant employment
services.
Item 30 inserts new section 14GA to provide for a
declaration of failure to hold a certificate of compliance. This amendment
reflect the fact the under new Division 2A (grants for employment services), it
is a condition of grant of a certified service to hold a current certificate of
compliance and it is a condition of grant of a service that is not certified to
obtain a certificate by a specified day and then hold the current
certificate.
New section 14GA (Declaration of failure to hold a
certificate of compliance)
New section 14GA provides for making
by the Minister of a declaration of failure to hold a certificate.
New
subsection 14GA(1) provides for the application of section 14GA:
- if an
organisation is receiving a grant for an employment service; and
- in respect
of the service for which the grant is received, the organisation does not hold a
current certificate of compliance after the day determined by the Minister under
paragraph 12AB(2)(b) or 12AD(2)(b)(ii) (the day by which a certificate must be
obtained) or, after the day on which certificate was obtained.
New
subsection 14GA(2) authorises the Minister to make a declaration stating that
the organisation does not hold a current certificate of compliance in respect of
the service and therefore is breaching the conditions of the grant in paragraph
12AB(4)(b) (conditions of a transitional grant) or in subsection 12AD(5)
(conditions of a grant other than transitional). The Minister may also specify
in the declaration the actions that will be taken as a result of the
failure.
New subsection 14GA(3) provides that the actions may be the
actions (all or any) that have been specified in the terms and conditions of the
grant and/or an action taken under section 14J (information about the
Minister’s declaration may be made available to the public).
New
subsection 14GA(4) only allows actions to be taken that were specified in the
Minister’s declaration.
New subsection 14GA(5) requires the
Minister to give a copy of the declaration to the eligible organisation to which
the declaration relates.
As a consequence of the amendment made by
item 30, item 25 amends the heading to Division 3B from “Failure to
meet applicable standards in the provision of a service” to “Failure
to meet applicable standards or hold certificate of
compliance’.
Amendments to section 14J (Information about
Minister’s declaration may be made available to the public) as a result of
the amendment made by item 30
Section 14J authorises the
Minister to make publicly available the information relating to a declaration of
failure. Items 33, 34 and 35 make consequential amendments to this
section, to paragraphs 14J(1)(b), 14J(1)(e) and 14J(1)(f) and (g) respectively,
to ensure that it applies to the declaration of failure to hold a
certificate.
Amendments to section 14K (Review of services funded
under Part II)
Section 14K requires the Minister to ensure at least a
five-yearly review of the extent to which a State or eligible organisation
fulfils the terms and conditions of its grants in respect of an eligible,
transitional or prescribed service. The main emphasis of the review is the
extent to which outcomes required by the terms and conditions have been achieved
by the persons who receive the service, and the extent of compliance with the
applicable standards.
From 1 January 2002, the requirement to conduct
five-yearly review of the extent to which the terms and conditions are fulfilled
will continue in respect of all services, that is, eligible services and
employment services.
However, the review of the extent to which the
standards are complied with, as part of the five-yearly review, will only be
conducted in respect of grants made for eligible services and for employment
services in respect of which transitional grants were paid. This is because the
accreditation/certification process that provides for audits of standards by
certification bodies will not apply to those grants. The standards of the
employment services that receive other than transitional grants will be
reviewed/audited by certification bodies, not by the Minister.
Items
36, 37 and 38 amend section 14K accordingly.
The heading to section
14K is amended to reflect the changed scope of section 14K.
Amendments
to section 15 (Agreements in respect of terms and conditions of
grants)
Section 15 provides that that a grant is not payable unless
the Minister enters into an agreement with the eligible organisation containing
the same terms and conditions on which the grant was approved. Subsection 15(4)
allows variation of those terms and conditions if the Minister made a
declaration of failure to meet standards. Item 40 amends paragraph
15(4)(a) to ensure that the terms and conditions also may be varied if the
Minister makes a declaration of failure to hold a current certificate of
compliance. Item 39 repeals subsection 15(2) that cross-refers to
section 14A repealed by item 22.
Amendments to Part
III
Items 41 to 45 make amendments to Part III dealing with
the provision of rehabilitation services by the Commonwealth.
Part II
provides, among other things, for approval by the Secretary of the provision of
a rehabilitation program to an individual in a target group (“target
group” is defined for this purpose in section 18).
The new quality
assurance system based on accreditation and certification will apply to the
provision of rehabilitation programs. After a three-year transitional period
ending on 31 December 2004, the provider of rehabilitation programs (currently,
the CRS Australia) is expected to be certified by a certification
body.
Amendment to section 19 (Exercise of powers)
Item
43 inserts new subsection 19(2) specifying that, after 1 January 2005, the
Secretary must not approve the provision of rehabilitation programs for a person
unless the provider of the rehabilitation program holds a current certificate of
compliance in respect of the provision of rehabilitation programs.
New
paragraph 19(2)(b) authorises the Secretary to approve, in exceptional
circumstances of the individual to whom the program is to be provided, the
provision of a rehabilitation program even though the provider does not hold a
current certificate. This provision safeguards the position of the individual
to whom the program is to be provided, so the individual is not disadvantaged by
the failure of the provider to obtain a certificate, should it ever
happen.
“Rehabilitation program” is defined in section 17 as,
generally, a program under this Part.
To accommodate together the
relevant rehabilitation programs definitions, item 42 inserts a
definition of “rehabilitation program standards” in
section 17 (Interpretation). “Rehabilitation program
standards” means the standards determined by the Minister under paragraph
5A(1)(c).
As the references to rehabilitation program standards occur in
other Parts of the Disability Services Act, especially in new Part IA
(Accreditation and certification for the purposes of certain services and
programs) inserted by item 3, item 41 makes a technical amendment
to section 17 to ensure that the definitions included in this section apply for
the purposes of the whole Act, unless the contrary intention
appears.
Amendment to section 22 (Cost of rehabilitation
programs)
Section 22 provides that if a person is a pensioner or a
beneficiary, the cost of the determination whether a rehabilitation program
should be approved for the person and the cost of the provision of the
rehabilitation program are born by the Commonwealth. Subsection 22(4) defines
“pensioner or beneficiary” by reference to specific pensions,
allowances and benefits received under the specified Parts of the Social
Security Act 1991. The references are largely outdated. Item
44 corrects those references.
Amendment to section 24 (Training
allowance and living-away-from-home allowance)
Section 24 provides
for the approval in certain circumstances, by the Secretary, of the payment of
training allowance and living-away-from-home allowance to a person undertaking a
rehabilitation program. Subsection 24(6) specifies the provisions of the
Social Security Act 1991 that apply to those allowances as they
were an age pension. The references to the section numbers have became
incorrect as a result of the amendments to the Social Security Act
1991 made by the introduction of the Social Security
(Administration) Act 1999 and the amendments made by the Family
and Community Services and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Debt
recovery) Act 2000. Item 45 amends subsection 24(6) to update
those references.
Amendment to section 31(Principles etc. to be tabled
in the Parliament and disallowable)
Subsection 31(1) specifies which
instruments made under the Disability Services Act are disallowable instruments
for the purposes of section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act
1901. Items 46 and 47 amend this subsection to include
references to a standard determined by the Minister under new subsection 5A(1)
inserted by item 1 and to an approval given under new sections 9
(approval of additional eligible services) and 9A (approval of additional
employment services) (item 20 substituted new sections 9 and
9A).
Amendment to section 33 (Delegation by
Minister)
Subsection 33(1) specifies the Minister’s powers
under the Disability Services Act that cannot be delegated. Items 48 and
49 amend subsection 33(1) to include references to the power to determine
standards under new subsection 5A(1) inserted by item 1, the power to
approve key performance indicators under new subsection 5A(2) inserted by
item 1 and the power to give approvals under sections 9 and 9A as
substituted by item 20.
Item 50 includes savings and transitional arrangements relating to
grants of financial assistance approved in respect of the financial year
2001-2002.
Subitem 50(1) preserves the operation of the provisions
of the Disability Services Act as in force before 1 January 2002 in respect of
the grants in respect of the financial year 2001-2002 approved under the Act
before 1 January 2002. This is relevant to the services that at the time of the
approval of such a grant were prescribed or transitional services. The
provisions of the Disability Services Act as in force before
1 January 2002 will continue to apply to those grants after 1 January
2002.
Subitem 50(1) also extends the operation of the current
provisions of the Disability Services Act for the purpose of approval after 1
January 2002 of the making of a grant in respect of employment services relating
to the financial year 2001-2002.
The effect of subitem 50(1) is
that a grant in relation to the financial year 2001-2002, or a part of it, is
subject to the provisions of the Disability Services Act as in force before 1
January 2002, regardless of whether the grant is approved before or after
1 January 2002.
Subitems 50(2) to (6) give effect to
transitional arrangements relating to grants made in respect of the financial
year 2001-02. Under these arrangements, the instalment of such a grant due on
or after 1 January 2002 will not be paid unless, and until, the State or
organisation for whom the grant was approved notifies the Minister of its
intention to obtain a certificate of compliance.
Specifically, the
following rules will apply in respect of the payment of instalments that are due
on or after 1 January 2002 (future instalments).
If the State or
organisation does not give to the Minister before "the commencement day", a
notice stating its intention to obtain a certificate of compliance in respect of
the relevant service, the future instalments will not be payable (subitem
50(4) refers).
"Commencement day" means: for grants approved before 1
January 2002 - 1 January 2002, and for grants approved after 1 January
2002 - the day on which the grant is approved (subitem 50(2)
refers).
However, the future instalments will become payable if,
before 30 June 2002, the notice is given to the Minister, or the State or
organisation is given a certificate of compliance in respect of the service
(subitem 50(5) refers).
If the notice is given to the Minister, or
the State or organisation is given a certificate of compliance in respect of the
service after 30 June 2002, the future instalment will become payable
only if a grant is made for the service in respect of a period beginning
immediately after that time (subitem 50(6) refers).
The notice of
intention to seek to obtain a certificate of compliance has to be in writing and
must include the name of the State or organisation, the nature of the relevant
service and the number of places at which service would be or will be provided
(subitem 50(7) refers).
Expressions used in item 50 have
the same meaning as the expressions used in the Disability Services Act as
amended by this Bill (subitem 50(8) refers).
[1] Assuring Quality, A
Report by the Disability Standards Review and Quality Assurance Working Party,
April 1997
[2] Evaluation of the
barriers to Implementing the Disability Standards, final report, 1997