It then imposes conditions, under § 82, upon the premises owner of a “residential centre for vulnerable people” that would seemingly violate the privacy and human rights of a disabled veteran (or a disabled person receiving a DSP) by requiring the owner of the premises to report on the activities of the veteran or civilian DSP recipient such as if the absence of the veteran or civilian from the centre is more than 24 hours and the veteran or civilian has not informed the manager of his or her whereabouts the manager must inform Director-General of the Department or face a fine as more fully explained below. In this regard the NSW Privacy Commissioner should be involved in the consultation process.
Apart from the privacy violations of monitoring veterans or civilians whereabouts it would also most likely cause human rights discrimination against veterans and/or civilians receiving any Government pensions in NSW by the probable result of owners/operators of boarding houses declining to rent to veterans receiving a pension so that the boarding house would not fall under the definition of § 35 of the draft legislation.
The definition of a vulnerable person in § 34 is much too broad under the draft language, and will automatically categorise people on pensions (who already have permanent conditions due to the fact the individual was granted a pension in the first instance) as “vulnerable” because it does not take into account whether or not there is an ongoing need for support services. And as explained above, per § 35 of the draft legislation, two or more vulnerable people in a tier 1 boarding house, automatically forces the operator to comply with tier 2 LRC Facility provisions, which include onerous care, compliance, reporting and penalty conditions, like (as per § 82) an obligation to report to Director-General if an occupant that is absent for more than 24 hours, or else face a $5,500 penalty.