Submission cover sheet
- Name of organisation or individual making this submission
Questions on possible options
- Are the objects of the Boarding Houses Act 2012 still valid? Why or why not?
• ANSWER: No, it is not valid, the way services are now provided has changed since the introduction of the NDIS, there are different types of housing models and that participants have a choice to live in (SDA SIL, Independent funded) • NDIS Providers should be able to provide all services to other NDIS houses based upon participants needs and the participants choice • People who reside in SIL accommodation should also be exempt from the NSW BH regulations. If the BH screening tool in its current form was applied to NDIS SIL recipients and enforced by the NSW BH Enforcement team. No one would gain entry into any types of accommodation in NSW, other than an unlicensed Boarding House. The Boarding House Screening tool would exclude them. We would have massive waiting lists of people with disabilities and people living with a mental Illness waiting on entry to accommodation. • NSW CMO” s NGO’s are now housing up to 18 participants in one building, 12 participants in another. Under the boarding House regulations in principle these accommodation types are what the NSW BH Enforcement team deem a boarding house, however, the NSW BH team has failed to act. On investigating this which is by selective and discriminative.
- Are there any types of premises which should be included in or excluded from the Act?
• ANSWER: YES, people who reside in NDIS Shared Independent Living (SIL) accommodation should also be exempt from the BH regulations. The NDIS SIL participants are commonwealth funded and procedures under Commonwealth legislation. It is and has been proven by the Assisted Boarding House sector that trying to comply with Federal legislation simultaneously, and the onerous State boarding house legislation cannot co-exist together. Fernlea Accommodation Services Recommendation: That if a person wanting to live in an NDIS Supported Accommodation of any type in NSW be it: private, CMO or NGO run group home and the participant recieves NDIS funding (or is eligible to have NDIS funding) their accommodation should not be subject to becoming a NSW Assisted Boarding House. NDIS should establish their own physical monitoring system that is reflective of current trends. Other considerations and recommendation in the interim: • that the NSW Boarding House regulations that defines the number of 2 or more persons living with a disability in the same house is deemed an Assisted Boarding House should consider raising the maximum number participants to 7, while other regulations are sort.
- Should the exclusion that currently applies to specialist disability accommodation for the purposes of the NDIS be extended to other NDIS service types, such as where residents are in receipt of SIL packages?
• Answer: YES - As the answer above has explained all NDIS commonwealth funded participants, whether they are residing in NDIS SDA accommodation, NDIS SIL accommodation or receiving any types of NDIS accommodation supports should be exempt from the NSW Boarding House regulations. I believe that this is a federal matter and state run FACS BH Enforcement Team should have no jurisdiction over this. As all accommodation providers have been approved through the quality safeguards commission to provide services. Fernlea Accommodation Services Recommendation: That if a person wanting to live in SIL Supported Accommodation of any type in NSW be it private(CMO) run SIL group homes ,or charity (CMO) run SIL group homes and the participant has NDIS funding (or is eligible to have NDIS funding) the group home should not be subject to being tagged as an (Assisted Boarding House) because of NSW BH regulations.
- What are the benefits of the two tier system in NSW? How does it compare with systems in other jurisdictions? Please provide comments.
The two tiers system should have more distinction between the names especially for the Assisted Boarding House sector. This name should have never been given to Assisted Boarding Houses. It has generated negative connotations from the start. We know this was the intent. It has not only defamed the participants and been discriminative towards the disadvantaged people who reside in them but also their families and the proprietors. Wearing this tag has only further discriminated against an already vulnerable group of people. This is the first time I’ve heard of a 2-tier system. ABH’s should not be under state legislation most participants are NDIS funded and now have Federal Legislation.
- Should anything be changed in, or added to, the list of information provided to the Commissioner?
The name Assisted Boarding House should be changed. The BH legislation should be dropped, as ABH’s proprietors are NDIS providers and we should come under Federal NDIS legislation only. There is enough public registration information, such as our businesses are registered with the Quality Safeguards Commission, which providers are required to go through stringent audits to stay compliant. This information can be found on the NDIS portal. The portal provides general information, provider registration groups, the business names, phone number and addresses. The quality safeguards commission already has this information and more. In an ABH, clients are required to go through a Screening Tool, this is lengthy and cumbersome, and we are finding in the industry that disadvantaged people are being screened out and then must go to unlicensed places. So, why shouldn’t they (BH) be licensed well and go through the same process, or why do ABH’s need to be licenced? This is clearly double standards in the industry.
- Is the information on the public Register sufficient? Why or why not?
Yes, there seems to be enough information.
- What other information could be added to, or removed from, the public Register?
There is adequate information provided on the register and all information should be removed when a BH has ceased operations.
- Should the Commissioner have the power to remove the details of a boarding house from the public Register under prescribed circumstances, if it has ceased to be used as a boarding house?
Yes, they must be taken off the register
- How could we improve the local regulation of boarding houses?
General Boarding Houses are currently under regulated and should come in line with the same legislation as Assisted Boarding House or remove these regulations all together. Assisted Boarding Houses currently are overregulated with conflicting legislations. It is impossible to have both that providers must comply with, both NDIS Federal and State BH legislation as explained in question 1.
- Should councils be required to let NSW Fair Trading know of enforcement action against boarding houses, so that it can be recorded in the Register?
NO not unless it is a convicted criminal offence and it is for public record. This can be used as another defamatory tool there needs to be real safeguards around this. NSW BH Enforcement team could put up minor infringements. It could ruin people’s reputations in other sectors of there life. Only if convicted of an offence.
- Are there any provisions of the Standard Occupancy Agreement which should be changed, or are any additional provisions required?
No, the name Occupancy Agreement is adequate, how the fees for services are labelled and invoiced should be as the proprietor charges for example: room rate $$$, Groceries $$$, additional expenses $$$ invoice. Under the occupancy agreement it states the obligation of providing services. How those services are delivered can be multitude of ways. We as proprietors just have to meet that obligation. It can not say that the only way is through the DSP that again is discriminatory towards the NDIS participant. That they cannot utilise their funds. Also, not everyone in an ABH is paid through the DSP
- Do you have any comments on the use of either the Standard Occupancy Agreement, or other occupancy agreements?
There are no current issues or problems with the Occupancy Agreement, it meets all requirements of what an ABH business can provide. It covers everything that is required of living in rented places.
- How aware are you of the occupancy principles?
Very aware of the principles, we have so many principles now, I think there is enough, that covers everything needed.
- Should the occupancy principles be handed separately to each resident when they enter a boarding house or is it enough to include them in the Occupancy Agreement?
They are provided (handed) a copy of these principles upon commencement of accommodation tenancy, which is all outlined in the Occupancy Agreement, which states all the principles. Handing to individual principals to some residents, would become an overload to all.
- Should the occupancy principles be clearly displayed on a notice board in a common area in the boarding house?
NO there is no more wall space left. This should be the discretion of each individual home, there are enough rules and regulations required & displayed on walls. It needs to be a home, not a notice board.
- Are the occupancy principles useful and appropriate?
Yes, the principles are clear.
- Are the occupancy principles being complied with? If not, why not?
- Should any other information be provided to a resident when they move into a boarding house? For example, a fact sheet with information about access to outside services, such as dental, Housing NSW, casework psychologists.
Most Assisted Boarding Houses provide above and beyond information to their residents. The participant already has a team of professional people that come with them. Then once settled the NDIS co-ordinator’s & the proprietors establish any deficits of service. Enough!
- Should any information be provided to operators of boarding houses, for example, a fact sheet outlining their responsibilities?
ABH’s, responsibilities are already outlined in the Act (Section 30, Schedule 1) Also highlighted within occupancy agreement. This is already in place, it is all in NDIS/FACS occupancy agreements, being told by NSW Enforcement officers, by community visitors & PWD Advocacy we don’t need more. We get told on a regular basis by every person that walks through the door who has an opinion.
- Are the occupancy principle provisions for termination and notice working or are there any changes which should be made?
ABH – No charges need to be made we are well aware of our obligations and are told continuously on a very regular basis by NSW BH Enforcement Team, Community Visitors, Local Council, Advocacy services.
- Do the suggested notice periods in the Standard Occupancy Agreement constitute “reasonable notice” for terminating an agreement by either a proprietor or a resident? If not, why not?
• ABH – Yes – agree as it stand now it is very reasonable notice provided.
- Should a proprietor be required to provide a reason for terminating an agreement? Why or why not?
• ABH – No, however most people would volunteer that information to NSW BH Enforcement Team. Especially if it has been an immediate termination there would be an incident report written and sent to Enforcement.
- Do the current provisions provide sufficient security for residents of boarding houses?
• ABH – We are very heavily monitored and accountable
- How aware are you of the dispute resolution mechanisms available for house residents and proprietors?
ABH – very aware, well documented process they are in the ABH policies and procedures and updated accordingly with new information coming through be it NSW BH Enforcement Team or NDIS. Also, most proprietor are NDIS approved and the NDIS require an in-depth resolution process, it would be duplicating setting up a new process.
- How effective and appropriate are the current dispute resolution processes?
Clear guidelines are already in place from the NSW BH Enforcement team e.g. by email each time there is a serious issue. Most proprietors have not been through a formal resolution process; however, most minor issues can be resolved. More serious go through the NSW BH Enforcement team. Also, most proprietor are NDIS approved and the NDIS require an in-depth resolution process, it would be duplicating setting up a new process.
- Do you have any other suggestions to encourage the early resolution of boarding house disputes and to reduce the number of boarding house disputes?
ABH’s promote and encourage early in-house resolution. It is the best practice, if it cannot be resolved then the process of escalating to the ABH management (small minor issues were usually resolved immediately). Also, most proprietor are NDIS approved and the NDIS require an in-depth resolution process, it would be duplicating setting up a new process.
- Is the definition of a “person with additional needs” clear? If not, why not?
No more labelling: If a person has access to NDIS funding and are NDIS approved or have been accepted into the NDIS, then they should not come under the BH labelling legislation as “person with additional needs” The terminology: The NDIS participant should not be discriminated against and should not be singled out as different. Again, naming and labelling does not help the participants that reside in ABH’s they are already discriminated against enough.
- Does the definition need to be more detailed?
The clients are heavily discriminated against not only because of the labelling, but they are burdened with the current name Assisted Boarding House label. A name change of the premise should occur at the same time. The NDIS is individualised and the NSW BH regulations it is extremely stigmatising to the participant does not need the label “person with additional needs” at all. Definition: if you have NDIS funding your additional needs should be meet through that scheme so the labelling is not in the spirit of person centredness.
- Should it make reference to the Disability Support Pension as an indicator that the person may have “additional needs”?
No, The Disability Support Pension (DSP) does not (and never did) define a person or there service payment within the ABH. This is has been also brought up over the past 3-6 months, an NDIA Engagement Officer together with the NSW FACs Enforcement Team representatives were held meetings with proprietors of Sydney’s ABHs to discuss what the DSP should cover and what the NDIS should cover (it certainly does not cover a definition of a person). During these meetings the NDIA Engagement Officer often referred to the DSP, ABH’s & BH Screening Tool as a point of reference during these meetings. “If the participant comes into an ABH the support services are paid from the ABH fee structure”. This is totally incorrect information as Appendix 11 of the Assisted Boarding Houses Authorisation and Monitoring Manual shows. DSP and ABH Fee Structure are separate. It was said that should cover every aspect of the service? The ABH fee structure cannot sustain, nor could it ever sustain, the participants additional supports needed. Occupancy fees for ABHs cover weekly rent for furnished rooms, groceries, “reasonable” cleaning, maintenance and utilities. They do not cover any extra support services required by residents because of their disabilities. Prior to the introduction of the NDIS, NSW ADHC provided block funding for these additional supports via service providers (ALI, Homecare, Australian Unity etc) who were sent to ABH premises to provide these supports to the residents who required them. Those same services are still required by residents because of their disabilities, however, ADHC funding for these supports has been replaced by individual NDIS funding for the same supports and services. Those supports and services were never paid for through the residents’ DSP or the Occupancy fees paid to an ABH. Additionally, and very importantly (referring to the power-point document used in the meetings ‘ABH presentation 2019, “there is no legislation either Social Services, Centrelink or the Boarding House Regulations that state that a participant living in an ABH can only purchase support services through their DSP”. This would be considered discrimination towards the DSP recipient and not in the spirit of NDIS’s choice and control. Our cliental have many ways of being paid not just via the (DSP). Not any-where in any of these legislations does it say that the Disability Support Pension (DSP), Centrelink New start payments, Veteran affairs payments, self-funded retires are required to pay for extra services out their funds. One thing that is evident & so clear to all proprietors is the clear prejudice of NSW BH Enforcement Team and all that are funded through them. Which has reflected onto the clients themselves, we as providers have seen this time and time again. Again, reinforced at one of the Sydney meetings, an ABH proprietor was told by a particular ABH Enforcement person (rather than working collaboratively with ABH proprietors to find best solutions for all involved). Suggests every time you try to speak to him closing down if ABH’s proprietor is not in agreeance with the Regulations)
- Should it be linked to, or make reference to, NDIS eligibility where those NDIS funded supports are to address a disability support need which is permanent, or likely to be permanent (i.e. not a one-off package for equipment or for where the support is time limited and is not intended to be permanent)?
- Should it be made identical to the definition in Section 24 of the National Disability Insurance Act 2013 (with a provision to also include people with an age related disability as people aged 65 years and over are not eligible for the NDIS)?
• Yes, continuity of supports for over 65 this is already in place. Until they enter an aged care facility. • Should get the same funding packages regardless of age
- Should the present two-tiered system of “assisted” and “general” boarding houses remain unchanged, and only “assisted boarding houses”, as presently defined, be allowed to accommodate a person with “additional needs” under the legislation? Why or why not?
• The assisted boarding house name should be changed. • It has been negative from the beginning; it has stopped people from getting good NDIS packages.
- If you think that some general boarding houses should be allowed to accommodate some people with “additional needs” provided certain safeguards are met, what should these standards and safeguards entail?
• GBH – this does not pertain to ABH’s • ABH – has safeguards in place, compliance ABH Act where the unlicensed bh • GBH – should be expected to provide the same and be managed by on external body, as well as SIL houses
- Should the general boarding house be allowed to accommodate a person with “additional needs” but only if the person has a “package” of supports such as under the NDIS, or provided by NSW Health?
• Yes, everyone in NSW who has a disability regards of where they live and qualify for the NDIS should have an NDIS package and be able to use it.
- If the general boarding house is allowed to accommodate people with “additional needs”, should a condition of that be that they are subject to certain requirements?
• GBH – Should be able to accommodate additional needs if they have the personnel and facilities to do so and are regulated in the same way as ABH’s.
- What other safeguards, if any, would be needed, and why?
In ABH’s there are many Safeguards now to comply with, NDIS, FACS, PWD, Local Council, Community visitors, Office of Ombudsman….
- What is the impact of specifying that only one person can be the applicant to be the licensee?
• Each ABH could nominate a key worker as a manager and this would cover going on holidays for any length of time? Or if they were sick? Some case there is already 2 licensees in ABH’s • Impact if licensee unavailable for period of time should have a key registered person.
- Should corporations and companies be excluded, given that a company can be purchased and sold, in order to prevent a buyer of a company which holds a licence of an assisted boarding house circumvent the requirement to apply for a licence?
• Absolutely not if a person buys the company with an ABH licence this does not change the running of it. The BH rules and BH regulations remain the same. The manager would likely to remain as would the staff. The enforcement stays the same. So purchasing a company should not be excluded. • Should not be excluded as most could be bought under company name.
- Is 28 days adequate time for a licensee to give notice of closure and to allow for alternative accommodation for the residents to be secured?
• YES • YES • YES • Yes
- When a person is asked to answer questions, should the warning be simplified to state that the person must be advised that: (a) they have the right not to answer the question or produce documents only if they believe such answers or documents will be self-incriminating; and (b) if they do choose to say anything, anything they do say may be noted; and (c) if they say anything which is self-incriminating, it may be used against them in future legal or administrative proceedings?
The enforcement officers are aggressive, enough to say such arresting dialogue. Enforcement Team are seen to be discriminatory towards ABH’s providers and their residents.
- Is the current requirement that one person be specified as an “authorised service provider” adequate? Should the definition of “authorised service provider” be broadened to include any employees of a named organisation providing services to an assisted boarding house?
• No, they are employees and should not be subject to be named, they are general employees. Under Fair work Australia this would be illegal (my obligation to my employee is to keep their personal information private in a locked area see below reference). Definition of an employee and their obligations to the place of employment would not allow this. If there are any breaches are then are always referred up to management regardless if an employee has breach. There would be confidentially and privacy issues for the employee. Safety for the employee is up most, if this was published others could potentially find them e.g. social media this is not acceptable or legal. Fairwork Australia Employee Privacy https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-guides/best-practice-guides/workplace-privacy#thirdparties
- Is the maximum number of 30 residents appropriate? Why or why not?
• I have no comment • No, it should be per building and space.
- Are the current arrangements adequate in meeting privacy needs of residents?
• ABH proprietor do there upmost to keep information private and confidential I think this question should be for external services. The residence have a lot of intrusion & data collecting from all services e.g. BH enforcement team spread sheets, Mental Health, Ombudsman, NDIS, consent forms on consent forms any government dept. that they come in contact with, Community visitors etc. The client’s privacy when at home is very well protected. Then in-house data collection & storage this is also placed upon proprietor to have consent forms between licensee, resident and other service providers.
- Where two residents have decided to share a bedroom, should it be enforced that an additional room not less than 7.5 square metres be set aside for the exclusive use of those two residents only?
• From experience I have had an extra room set aside for approx. 10years and nobody used it. So, no, however if it is required there should be funding made available for this. Full assistance should be given to accommodate any changes, if they occur. • Clients have a choice to share or not some are happy to share.
- Is the current requirement of 11 square metres adequate for a room that two residents choose to share?
• Yes, it is more than adequate.
- Should there be a minimum size for the private or quiet room? If yes, what should this be?
• ABH – No, • No, as long as you can sit 3 people.
- Should a minimum size for a communal living space be specified? Why or why not? If yes, should this be based on the number of residents accommodated e.g. a specified number of square metres per resident?
• ABH – No: not everyone sits in areas at the same time. All ABH’s have large enough spaces to accommodate reasonable usage per person. • No – as long as there is enough seating for 80 – 90 % of residents that should be sufficient.
- Are the current provisions of the Act in relation to young persons adequate? Why or why not?
• ABH – No one under 18 years • No difference to Act required i.e.; provision • No, it should not be the same for all over the age of 18, we do not have anyone under 18
- Is the current purpose of the Screening Tool still valid?
• No. Too cumbersome. Open to miss interpretation • Discriminatory because SIL houses do not have use this process to get obtain clients referrals • Screening Tool needs reviewing, but the Screening for drugs/Alcohol/violence still extremely valid. • NO, the BH screening tool should be abolished! As each ABH provider becomes registered with the NDIS and comes under the NDIS legislation the screening tool should cease. Also, if the current BH screening tool was applied to NDIS SIL accommodation recipients, and was enforced by the current NSW BH FACS Enforcement team, no one would gain entry to any types of accommodation in NSW. The Boarding House Screening tool in its current form would exclude all that were looking for accommodation. We would have people on massive waiting lists. People backed up in Psychiatric Hospitals and never being able to make the criteria of the ABH screening tool, so where do they go? The Screening Tool threshold questions (Threshold questions are questions if answered incorrectly will screen a person out, hence deemed ineligible to enter an Assisted Boarding House but not to an unlicensed Boarding House), which most social workers have indicated that, that is where they send clients after being discharged from hospital. The increasing number of threshold questions without consultation is a serious problem. The fact that no ABH proprietors are ever informed of changes is unacceptable. ABH proprietors should be notified of and should be consulted with, to be able to review questions like: • why they are being increased? • who increases them? • with what authority? Screening Tool Comparisons over a 9-year period: (We asked Australian Unity for the latest BH screening tool however it has not been sent to us). Extracts from an actual Screening Tool written 29/4/2010 11 threshold questions Extracts from an actual Screening Tool written 7/5/2016 18 thresholds questions Extracts from an actual Screening Tool Written 5/6/2019 50+threshold questions The original purpose of the Screening Tool was to assess a person’s (living with mental health or disability) suitability to reside in an ABH depending on their functional capacities. Initially, most genuine and professional ABH proprietors were in agreeance to the introduction of the Screening Tool and the relevance of it. It had a place and purpose in the industry at the time, before the introduction of the NDIS. With the introduction of the NDIS in NSW, the Screening Tool should be made redundant as participants with a disability are now assessed and determined via the NDIS assessment process and service providers are required to go through a rigorous approval process as well. ABH’s proprietors have seen the boarding house screening tool be increasingly used we feel as a ‘weapon’ to significantly restrict the participants entering an Assisted Boarding Houses. The ABH Enforcement Team have used it beyond its original intention. BH Screening Tool Blockage to Business Improvements and Growth The boarding House screening Tool should not apply to NDIS participants wanting to reside in an Assisted Boarding House The ABH Screening Tool screening has been incorrectly and discriminatively used to limit any potential business options over the years for ABH Proprietors. The Screening Tool was never intended to, and should NOT be used to, stop private ABH businesses from providing or claiming NDIS services and supports if they are approved NDIS registered providers. To grow, diversify and improve business opportunities within the NDIS sector the Screening Tool must terminate. The ABH sector is in desperate need of an independent party who is NOT involved with FACs (the BH Enforcement team), who can assess these issues, inform ABH proprietors (without bias) of any alterations to key rules, regulations, amendments and decisions that impact the Screening Tool and the ABH structure. In any other business sector, this lack of information and lack of transparency would be considered unlawful. The ABH Screening Tool is no longer relevant and should be discontinued. As proprietors move under the NDIA (Quality Safeguards Commission) and NDIA Federal legislation under which they are certified to provide NDIA supports to participants. Recommendation 1: That if a person seeking accommodation in an ABH and has an NDIS package or is in the process of getting an NDIS package they do not need a Boarding House Screening tool done. Persons who are not eligible for the NDIS they are still subject to the screening Tool. Recommendation 2 is: That if a person wanting to live in Supported Accommodation of any type in NSW be it private run SIL houses, charity run SIL house or ABH’s SIL houses, and the participant has NDIS funding (or is eligible to have NDIS funding) they should not be subject to the Boarding House screening tool
- If an assisted boarding house resident, actual or proposed, has a package of supports which meets their needs, should he or she be considered eligible to live in an assisted boarding house regardless of their level of need? (For instance, if a person needed daily personal care but he or she had an NDIS package where he or she could purchase those supports, could this be delivered in an assisted boarding house?)
Yes. it already is being done successfully except for the ABH screening tool restrictions. An ABH proprietor who is a registered NDIS provider and is qualified to provide individualised services, then they should be considered by the participant as a service provider. Once a company or a person becomes verified or certified with the NDIS, they should be able to offer the participant in-house support services if the participant chooses. Moreover, not giving this choice and control to participants simply because they live in an ABH is discriminatory towards not only the participant but also the ABH proprietors. Recommendation: The support is already provided in ABH’s by the way of NDIS funding. However, the conflicting regulations and the misinformation given to the NDIS is a concern.
- Are the current provisions of the Act adequate in relation to abuse and neglect?
• Yes, ABH’s have the Community Visitor, Local Council, NSW BH Enforcement Team, Ombudsman, Advocacy… we/the clients are over scrutinised.
- Should there be a clause in the Regulation which states that in a boarding house which is authorised to accommodate a person with additional needs, a receipt for any money received from, or on behalf of that person, must be issued to the person and a copy of all such receipts kept? This includes details of the purpose of the receipt of money or payment.
• Under the NDIS there are clear policies financial management structures to be put in place to pass the auditing each approved ABH NDIS provider will have this in place. Only If financial assistance is required, the resident can go under TAG, receipts should be provided/kept on record as any other business. People who can manage their finances should.
- Should there be a clause in the Regulation which specifically covers financial exploitation? If yes, given many residents of assisted boarding houses have difficulty managing their finances, how would “exploitation” be defined and differentiated from “assistance”?
• Residents in ABH have an assessment for TAG either if they have NDIS package
- If yes, should the clause also cover the management and delivery of the resident’s NDIS Plan?
• No, there are external NDIS services that cover this already such as coordinators of supports this is there primary work. This is clearly a service delivery section and should remain separate. As the ABH NDIS provider has been approved by the Quality Safeguards Commission to provide section of the plan management. • No – the NDIS plans should be the coordinators/Accountants/families & advocacy handle their plans.
- Are the current provisions of the Act in relation to record keeping adequate?
• Yes, ABH’s are already administration heavy in record keeping and the Quality safeguards commission also oversee administration, it is enough.
- Should the records required to be kept by an assisted boarding house, and which are therefore available for inspection by a Department of Communities and Justice boarding house enforcement officer, be expanded to include: a) Occupancy Agreements? b) NDIS Plans and NDIS Service Agreements? c) Payments to a service provider under the NDIS Plan? d) Any other record or document?
a) Occupancy Agreements? They do already b) NDIS Plans and NDIS Service Agreements? NO, they are already overseen by NDIS so why? There is a whole Federal body set up for this. c) Payments to a service provider under the NDIS Plan? NO, they are already overseen by NDIS so why? There is a whole Federal body set up for this and safeguards in place d) Any other record or document? No: this should remain as it is there is so much information available already. The ABH Enforcement team has access to everything to do with the ABH such as including documentation. NDIS safeguards are in place e.g. NDIS service agreements that are subject to NDIS auditing and overseeing. Quality safeguards auditing requirements. Coordinators of supports that oversee services. There also there is privacy and confidentiality considerations and I ask the question what is the purpose and why do the NSW BH enforcement team need to see this? • No – The NSW BH Enforcement Team are about monitoring the condition of the building and that what is stated in the occupancy agreement is being met. It does not nor should it extend to the NDIS. There is already a consent process in place, if the participant so chooses which requires approval and consent given by them. • No – if they are a different regulating body e.g. NDIS. We are private businesses, why and for what purpose? This is already governed, regulated, audited by the NDIS auditing and their compliances, NOT other bodies. The NSW BH Enforcement team have already smothered any growth for the clients in the ABH’s by the way of onerous regulations and aggressive licencing. They should never have that opportunity with NDIS participants.