Disability Inclusion (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 September 2023.)

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Tourism, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (16:48): I rise today to contribute on a very important issue: the Disability Inclusion (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill. Since being elected to this place, I, like others in this chamber, have engaged with many in our community who have varying levels of disabilities and abilities. From campaigning for the seat and later becoming a member, we are all given insight into the challenges that face many South Australians.

A lot of the issues we hear are challenging, and what is often not talked about is the emotional toll that people living life with disabilities go through. We cannot forget the fact that families are often primary carers and go through so much as well. I think many of us would say that, in terms of individual issues, matters relating directly or indirectly to disabilities would be a significant number of the people who come through the doors of our electorate offices.

When I was first elected as the member for Ramsay, the National Disability Insurance Scheme was not even legislated in federal parliament, so we have definitely come a long way in respect to the varying issues that impact South Australians with disabilities. What has been clear since the legislating of the NDIS is the importance of making our society a more inclusive one. It gave us a lot of perspective that more needed to be done across the board: federal, state, local and generally in the community. Particularly, we have had a lot of focus on business and employment and a recognition that people with disabilities have challenges in gaining and sustaining employment.

That is why in 2018 this parliament passed the Disability Inclusion Bill. It was a major step forward in dealing with the challenges of promoting human rights and improving inclusion in the community. This bill and subsequent act sought to clarify South Australia's role in supporting people with disability, with a focus on rights and inclusion in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the National Disability Strategy.

With respect to my role as Minister for Multicultural Affairs, the act has a number of principles that are observed in the operation and enforcement of the act, which include:

(g) people with disability have the right to access information in a way that is appropriate for their disability and cultural background, to enable them to make informed choices;

(h) people with disability have the right to respect for their cultural or linguistic diversity, age, gender, sexual orientation and religious beliefs;

These principles in the act are vital because they highlight that often those from a multicultural background do not have the linguistic ability or the cultural connectivity that would allow them to be included, even if they did not have a disability.

Going back to the essence of the act, it promotes the recognition of essential human rights in South Australia in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and interacts with Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031. This is very much a good thing. Many people may be born with a disability; other disabilities are acquired through injury, accident or disease. We know that each and every one of us may need this accessibility. We are often familiar with increased mobility issues as we get older. We may face hearing and eyesight challenges. This is why these conversations are important: how we include people, how we recognise that barriers we might not even think about prevent people from involving themselves in all aspects of life.

Part of the act was the State Disability Inclusion Plan, also known as Inclusive South Australia. In addition to the overarching statewide plan, the act requires almost 100 state authorities, including government agencies and all 68 local councils, to develop their own disability access and inclusion plans, which are referred to as DAIPs. This is an important step in making sure that the state government, as a model citizen, looks to make sure our communities are included and, above all, has the ability to respond to the ever-changing needs of the community.

The benefits of Inclusive SA and the disability access and inclusion plans have seen requirements that agencies consult with the community, critically analyse their services and processes and commit to actions that improve responses to people with disability. But in this area, there is a continued need to make sure things are working well and any other considerations that need to be contemplated. Particularly in this area, there is a need for review, because as our society adapts to widespread changes, we need to make sure that the act is current and that we remain an inclusive society.

It was really interesting, in my other portfolio of tourism, that just last week the Fringe Festival won the Australian Tourism Award for accessibility to a major event. How we define accessibility has changed over time. Traditionally, it might be about mobility issues or wheelchair access, but it is also about making sure that there are ticket prices at lots of different levels as well, so that it is accessible for people on lower incomes or fixed incomes to attend. We think about the autism charter that has been tabled this week, about the awareness of space and time out and quiet rooms to give people who want to enjoy different experiences the opportunity to do so and be supported at the same time.

We have some really great leadership in this area, and to be awarded the gold medal just last weekend was fantastic, but we must keep asking ourselves: what does inclusion mean; what does accessibility mean? That is why, when we do these reforms and look at these reviews, we should ask ourselves these questions as we go on.

Before the fourth anniversary of the act's commencement, a review was undertaken by Richard Dennis AM PSM, which included consultation with the community. The report that came out of this review proposed some amendments. As I understand it, 30 of the 50 recommendations were not for legislative change and so are outside the scope of the bill. A number of them have already been actioned and completed. Since the Dennis review, the minister and the department worked with parliamentary counsel to deal with 14 of the 20 legislative recommendations leading to this Disability Inclusion (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill.

The development of the bill also brought about further consultation. What was important in coming out of the consultation was that the draft bill had no significant changes that were required. This is a testament to the work done in the report, and the department have made sure to reflect the needs of those whom this impacts the most. As the minister discussed in the house, these are the key tenets of this bill:

to enact provisions currently appearing in the Disability Inclusion Regulations 2019 as provisions in the act;

to include a definition of 'barrier' in the act, given the significance of the concept of barriers, the definition of disability and the wider issue of achieving greater inclusion.

to include new paragraphs within the act to provide expressly that people with disability, regardless of age, have a right to be safe and to feel safe through the provision of appropriate safeguards, information, services and support;

to amend sections within the act and to enhance clarity and/or definitions as they relate to people with significant intellectual disability who have high levels of vulnerability due to their disability;

to amend sections within the act relating to the reporting requirements and time frames for the state plan and state authority Disability Access and Inclusion Plan, as well as the specific functions of the chief executive of the Department of Human Services; and

to require consultation with people with lived experience and to authorise the formation of groups to facilitate consultation.

I would like to take the opportunity to talk about a couple of these changes. I believe the minister, in her second reading speech, touched on barriers, detailing why this definition was included. As I mentioned, there are many barriers that impact the community. This is not just important to the local community but also to those in multicultural communities, because there are barriers that need to be considered. Acknowledging these barriers by way of defining them will ultimately mean that the act will be more inclusive.

Barriers that I have seen, and continue to see, in the multicultural communities include language and cultural understanding. Not having information provided in a way that is understood because of language and because of cultural differences is a known barrier to the multicultural community, and this can be further advanced if you have a disability.

For example, in the multicultural space, we are looking into the underutilisation of skilled migrants. It is an election commitment to conduct a report into this. I am keen to see the results of the report, because we know that people in diverse communities are facing barriers in getting employment in their field or being underutilised in their fields. When you have additional barriers as well, this could increase that challenge.

I do support the defining of the word 'barrier' in the act. Another key proposed area of amendments relates to the right to participate in the design and delivery of inclusive policies and programs. This also fits with what I have been talking about with respect to barriers with multicultural communities. Specifically, it has been proposed additional paragraphs be included under section 9(1) as follows:

(p) people with disability, and their families and representatives as appropriate, have a right to participate in the design and delivery of inclusive policies and programs;

(q) insofar as people with disability may not be able to find out about their rights, or may not be able to understand their rights, because of their disability, State and local government should take reasonable steps to assist them to learn about their rights and to develop ways in which they can, or their families or representatives can, report violations of those rights.

This seems a reasonable move and should be fully endorsed. When reflecting on the essence of this amendment and the act, as I said, let's talk again about accessible tourism.

As minister, I am constantly wanting to do better in terms of inclusiveness. I want to take this opportunity to invite those interested to visit to southaustralia.com website, where you can look at options for planning a trip around South Australia that caters for specific needs. When entering the website, if you click on the 'Plan a trip' bar and it will expand a list of options to click. From there you can you can click on 'Accessibility'. The southaustralia.com accessibility page has collated some of the best places to see or stay if you have accessibility needs. Some of the information provided has been collated by accessibility experts, who have written very informative blog posts of what to see and what to do.

The website provides attractions to visit, potential accommodation that caters for accessibility needs as well as transport options. It is an excellent tool to assist people in planning their visits, whether you are a local, interstate or international visitor.

There are also companies that provide holiday planning assistance, including Holiday Explorers and Leisure Options. Leisure Options offer a dedicated holiday planner with a list of upcoming planned group tours available and the ability to search for tours with filters such as extra assistance mobility, extra assistance personal care, independent and physical disability. Holiday Explorers has a focus on assisting people with intellectual disabilities and offers seniors and teams tours.

Additional assistance can be found when planning your trip to South Australia through downloading the Pavely app. The Pavely app is a known tool in the community, which provides a look at South Australian venues and the accessibility features of the venues. For example, are there stairs or lifts? Are the entrance doors automatic or sliding? What is the width and length of the doors? What material is it made of? What are the amenities that are available? Users of the app can provide ratings in terms of their overall experience, staff attitude and mindset and whether the information provided through the app was informative and accurate. Obviously, like all things, we need to continue to look into this space, because this can also present the state with an incredible opportunity.

In December last year, Austrade published an analysis into the accessible tourism opportunity. Data from Tourism Research Australia's national visitor survey showed that in 2021, travel groups, including people with a disability or a long-term health condition, in Australia accounted for: $13.5 billion (17 per cent of total) of total domestic day and overnight trip spend; and one million domestic trips (19 per cent of total). We cannot ignore the numbers and nor should we.

We need to make sure our state is accessible to our community, but it should also be open to those who want to travel to South Australia—something that more and more people want to do. We want to make sure they are not forgotten. When reflecting on this amendment and the act more broadly, this is an area that needs to be continually improved because we can always make improvements. We know that changes in technology offer us great options.

When I look around the chamber today, as some of us increase in age, we know we sometimes have to have larger handwriting or larger screens and texts. It is always a bit of a shock when that happens. Sometimes it is harder to hear, or, if you are a bit like me and you have a bit of a bung hip, all of a sudden things that you could do so easily become more complicated, and you make decisions around those limitations. It catches us sometimes, quite unsurprisingly. Technology also offers many solutions, and we need to make sure that people know that this is available and accessible.

The changes in this amendment have been professionally reviewed and well-consulted and, I believe, will make a significant impact in terms of disability inclusiveness in the state. I look forward to broader reviews, whether federal or state, that will help shift the needle for those with a disability. There has been a lot of movement made with respect to the disability sector. Can I recognise, Deputy Speaker, your role as the former minister for disability. In fact, I recall the day we signed the agreement for the NDIS with the federal government. We were one of the first states to have a particular cohort of people—I think children—to transfer over to the federal system. It was a big decision; there was some nervousness.

We know the costs are substantial. What we often see, particularly in South Australia, is the opportunity for us to get in earlier with intake assessments, for people to be identified and assessed earlier, and then provide the kind of therapeutic support that they require to maximise their opportunities in life. Whether it is language support, hearing or the ability to control one's emotions and anger, these are great opportunities, particularly for children. South Australia has that opportunity in that area to transfer that to children first.

Ultimately, what we want to see is inclusiveness at the heart of how we live in Australia. To some extent, these are some of the great reviews that federal Labor has brought in over time, whether it be the National Disability Insurance Scheme or, of course, My Aged Care. We know that, in terms of ageing in place, ageing at home, many people would like to spend their remaining years in the comfort of their own home, but that will only happen if they get the support they need.

When I look back at major reforms that have happened—Medicare, superannuation—they are key reforms that federal Labor have put forward. Just last week, of course, there was the expansion of paid parental leave. We are still not equal to Canada or the UK, but we are getting there. These are fundamental reforms. Sometimes they are challenging. Sometimes they take time to implement and transition. It is when we do these reviews and look at amendments in the recommendations that it shows us what progression we have made. For me, enabling people to live their best life and be supported to have their best life is the most important thing that we can do.

When we look back at these massive changes, with national disability and particularly My Aged Care, other nations will talk about us and they will look to what Australia has done. They will look to the leadership that we took as a nation to support people when they needed the help the most: when they were young, to see their potential to develop; and as we age, to make sure that we care for people adequately at the right time and when they need it. I support the bill.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:09): I am pleased to support the Disability Inclusion (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill, although in doing so I note that the opposition has kept open the possibility that we may be open to supporting amendments in the Legislative Council, depending on further consultation, but, certainly, we are happy to support this bill.

The minister's speech encourages me to reflect on a couple of things. I sometimes observe that there are, in many ways, few people in the course of human history as fortunate to be living in this time and in this place as a South Australian right now. In any number of places around the world at any other place in time—despite the complexities of modern life, despite the difficulties of mental health and anxiety challenges that seem more prominent in this day and age than they have in the past, despite the trauma experienced by many people who come to South Australia from places in the world with great difficulty, and despite the particular plight of certain segments of our community—by and large, at any other point in time in history and at any other place in the world, similar experiences for most people would be experienced, and similar difficulties would also be experienced. I feel fortunate to be in South Australia.

At this time, it is a particular area of consideration for people living with a disability in our community. A child born today in South Australia compared to at another time or in another place—not in every circumstance, but in many cases—will have a much better chance of living a fulfilled life, living their best life and fulfilling their potential in every way. That is a good thing, and it has not been without the efforts of a large number of people along the way seeking at every point to have their voices heard, whether as a person with a disability or with a family member with a disability, or people who seek to support people with a disability or have sought to support people with a disability in terms of their rights and expectations in society.

The opportunity for inclusion to be not just a goal but an expectation in life was behind the work done by the Hon. Michelle Lensink as minister on behalf of the Liberal Party as government, on behalf of the whole parliament which supported the bill and on behalf of so many advocates and people within South Australia who had endeavoured to have the original bill passed in 2018. That expectation of inclusion carries with it responsibilities of government, of local government and of many people in our community. That act also expected that there would be a review; a review that was conducted by Richard Dennis, as we have heard, in 2022 and was tabled in September 2022.

Reflecting back slightly to when I was elected 14 years ago today—along with the member for Chaffey, the Hon. Jing Lee, the member for Elizabeth, the Hon. Tammy Franks and if there is another, then I forget—when I first became the member for Morialta, government was still working in many ways to improve our expectations, to improve our anticipation and to improve the inclusion that we expected.

I had the great opportunity to be the shadow minister for disability services, appointed by former Leader of the Opposition Isobel Redmond. Along with families and communities and housing and youth, she asked me to be the shadow minister for disability, and it was a privilege to be able to be part of that portfolio. At first, I was shadowing the Hon. Ian Hunter, from memory, and secondly shadowing yourself, sir, as a minister. I recognise the work you did in disability law reform, particularly after my time as the shadow, when I think Duncan McFetridge was the shadow minister. I am sure that he provided the support that was necessary to ensure that work proceeded in a sensible fashion.

I reflect on this briefly to express my gratitude to all of those people who gave me education and advice as a new shadow minister, as I was then, to inform me in this portfolio of how I could best support South Australians with a disability and, indeed, all members of our community to have the best support they could from the government. The topic of the NDIS had then been the subject of a Productivity Commission review, but it was very early in those discussions. Indeed, as I recall from my discussions with Stephen Wade, who was a former disability shadow, it had been an iterative process. Many people worked towards what we expect for people with a disability in their interactions with government.

I thank all of those people, not all of whom I would agree with on every aspect of policy, not all of whom would agree with us on every aspect of policy, but who all gave generously of their time, people like Rick Neagle, David Holst, Sam Paior, Judy Curran, Dell Stagg, Simon Schrapel, Robbi Williams, and Phil Menz from the Physical Disability Council. There were others as well. That is just off the top of my head, the people who immediately occurred to me, who gave me hours of their time in helping provide useful advice. That has informed my perspective.

The work that was undertaken by the Hon. Kelly Vincent, former member of the Legislative Council, also bears regard. Kelly was also elected on this day 14 years ago in that election. At 21, she was the youngest person ever elected to this parliament and the impact that she had as a member of the Legislative Council was significant. I pay tribute to her and those who supported her in her election.

Obviously, the circumstances of her election were tragic, as she filled a role that would have otherwise gone to their first candidate, who passed away during the campaign, but Kelly's election was significant and she worked very hard to be a voice and a legislator of power and integrity. I think that the work she did over the course of her eight years in the parliament certainly saw fruit in a number of legislative reforms during her time and post her time as well.

At the time that this legislation was being drafted initially in 2018, the earlier iteration of it, it is worth noting that Kelly was working in the education department as a senior adviser in our disability support area. It is with that in mind that I want to turn my attention more directly to the bill at hand. I will come back to education; it is the point of segue, I guess, I was just making.

The bill is looking to make changes in response to the Dennis review, the review that was required by the act. It made 51 recommendations, including adding paragraphs to expressly state that people with disability regardless of age have a right to be safe and to feel safe through the provision of appropriate safeguards, information, services and support, including the definition of 'barrier' in the context of access and inclusion for people living with a disability; clarifying the principles of the act as they relate to people with significant intellectual disability or high levels of vulnerability due to disability; enacting provisions currently appearing in regulations as provisions in the act; and adjusting reporting requirements and time frames for Inclusive SA and state authority disability access and inclusion plans.

As you can gather from the tenor of the list I have just read, some of these are more significant reforms and some of them are modest but necessarily potentially worthy. Specifically, the bill will enact provisions currently appearing in the regulations as provisions in the act in terms of what the government has actually chosen to proceed with.

Fourteen of the 20 legislative recommendations include the definition of 'barrier' in the act. They include new paragraphs within the act to provide expressly that people with disability regardless of age have a right to be safe and so forth. They amend sections within the act to enhance clarity or definition of principles. They amend sections within the act relating to reporting requirements and time frames. They require consultation with people with lived experience and authorise the formation of groups to facilitate consultation.

I am not criticising the bill when I say that there is more to do. There are recommendations that have not been addressed in the bill, and it is going to be critical for the government to be clear about whether there are going to be further legislative changes proposed or whether they do not propose to go down that path. It is going to be important for the government, in my view, to respond to the non-legislative recommendations.

As Minister Cook has stated, 30 recommendations are not legislative. Some of those are very important and I believe that some of them, potentially, could be included within the context of the legislation. It would certainly not be novel for the parliament, should it choose to do so through an amendment to this bill or consideration in a further bill, to enhance what we do for people with a disability in South Australia, and indeed working with people with a disability in South Australia, that we would consider those. I note Purple Orange, for example, has already suggested amendments. I am sure that there will be further discussion in the Legislative Council in terms of specifics.

I want to turn my attention to a particular recommendation, recommendation 46. It is not an unreasonably long passage from the report, and I think it will set the scene perfectly for a commentary I would make about education. Page 51 of the report states:

An important aspect of disability inclusion is highlighted by the Commissioner for Children and Young People's report, being that children and young people living with disability want to blend in and engage with other children and young people their age. The report continues:

When young people with disability are placed in situations where their differences are highlighted over their shared experiences or common interests, their capacity to blend with kids their own age becomes problematic.

This is particularly relevant when it comes to issues associated with children and school, and during the course of the review it was noted that an inclusive education (with any necessary and appropriate support for the child) not only benefits the child, but also allows other children at the same school to gain a better understanding of the challenges facing children living with disability.

It is clear that it is essential that children living with disability must be given the best opportunity to receive the best education so that they can maximise their potential and make the most of life as they advance into adulthood (so, for example, to have the best chance to apply for, and compete for, a job like any other person). In connection with this, other children around the child living with disability may be given more of a chance to develop into adults who respect people living disability, and who have a much better understanding of social inclusion. The more that this occurs, the more community attitudes in relation to disability inclusion can change over time.

As has been said, social inclusion is more than physical presence—it's also a sense of feeling that you belong, are connected and are surrounded by a range of relationships. An important part of the experience for children at school is therefore to focus not only on their education, which is of critical importance, but also on their well-being and the social aspects of school.

The reviewer appreciated the opportunity to discuss the work being undertaken by the Education Department to implement its Disability Access and Inclusion Plan, and various other initiatives, procedures and policies that the Education Department has in place to improve the learning and development outcomes for students living with disability in South Australia. This work is also consistent with Priority 10 in the State Disability Inclusion Plan.

A significant factor in recent times has been the work of the Royal Commission in reviewing the experience of children and young people with disability in different education settings.

It is obviously not for this review to replicate or pre-empt the work of the Royal Commission, or to provide advice in relation to specialist areas associated with the education of children and young people living with disability. However, there is no doubt that the more that the Education Department can support these children and young people to have an educational experience that occurs within the mainstream of education, the better.

As previously mentioned, children constitute a specific priority group under section 9 of the Act, and this report includes recommendations that are intended to improve the focus on these groups, including in relation to addressing the principles and risks identified, in the case of children, under section 9(3) of the Act. In view of the interest in the extent to which mainstream activities and support has generated interest as part of the review, it would be an excellent outcome if the Education Department could provide a specific report on the work of the department to support and enable children living with disability to successfully participate in mainstream learning and social experiences and outcomes while at school.

The recommendation goes on to say, and this is also listed as recommendation 46 of the 51:

The Chief Executive—

and I assume the Chief Executive for the Department of Human Services, but it could be read as cabinet, for all that it would make a difference; I think the point is the action—

should request the Education Department to include specific information in its annual report on the operation of its disability access and inclusion plan for the 2022/2023 financial year on the extent to which children living with disability are able to participate in mainstream learning and social experiences at school. It is requested that this information include: (a) an outline about how the success of initiatives, procedures and programs designed to assist children living with disability is measured, especially in relation to learning outcomes and wellbeing; and (b) recent results against those measures.

It may well be that the reviewer was talking about the education chief executive. I note the education chief executive is actually responsible for the publication, through the minister, of that report, so in any case it is more than possibly within his power—I say 'his' because it is Martin Westwell at the moment.

The recommendation is a good one. It may or may not require legislative reform to do it; it may be that this is something that the government can undertake without it needing to be included in the act. I certainly hope that it does so, because I think that one of the key parts of this is not just in terms of outlining a priority of the success of reforms to support students with disability, but their effectiveness: helping our young people to live full lives. That is not just for supporting children and students with disability, but for all children. We want to ensure their education system is best equipped to enable them to reach full lives, their best potential, get the most out of their potential pathway towards a job, a career or whatever it is they wish to do in life.

I am not exaggerating when I say the Department for Education is responsible for thousands of programs throughout schools, preschools and central office to assist us to do that. The settings for a child with a specific disability or a specific set of circumstances in one town may be an entirely different response from the education department if they are in a suburb in the city or a different suburb in the city, depending on a range of factors: the built environment of the school, how old it is, the programs that exist in that school, the specialisation and the experience of the teachers in that school or preschool, the support staff that are relevant, the proximity to a regional office with appropriate expertise. Indeed, regional offices have vacancies at high levels in some areas and low levels in others.

The point is that there is a vast swathe of programs operating, and when a government implements a new set of programs, particularly in this area, the experience for young people is going to be very different. I note that the government has the Autism Inclusion Teachers program, a day or half-a-day a week, in a range of primary schools around South Australia. Such a recommendation, if implemented, I think would provide very useful advice about the efficacy of those roles and that expenditure. It may well give them a big tick; it may well identify how they could be improved or enhanced. At any rate, I think analysing new policies and new approaches is always worthwhile.

In my experience, during the four years that I was the Minister for Education I particularly pay tribute to a public servant by the name of Ian May, who was the Director of Disability Policy and Programs throughout most of that four years, if not all of it, and who has recently retired from the department. He is an excellent public servant.

The Gonski agreement that I signed with the federal minister, Dan Tehan, in 2019 unlocked automatic extra funding going to the department for students with disability. Until we signed that—until the state Liberal government under Premier Marshall and myself as education minister signed that document—such funding might be anticipated to be applied to a school after the fact, once they applied to head office. But the department would have a series of processes to go through that were much more complex than they are now, now that we can automatically get from Treasury the funding that is required if somebody is eligible under the nationally consistent collection of data and the Gonski funding flows automatically.

That enabled us to reduce the number of students awaiting a placement in a junior primary school, a primary school or a high school at the beginning of the school year—whether they required extra support through assistance in the mainstream classroom or a special class if they needed an extra bit of support or a placement in a special school or a disability unit if they needed that extra level of adjustment to their program. That flowing automatically was very important, and being able to place those young people early was very important.

There is still a discussion to be had in education about the nature of inclusive education, and there are complex, difficult and controversial discussions to be had there. I do not propose to present a solution to any of those discussions right now. However, as the starting point, what we expect, each one of us, for the outcomes for young people through the schooling system—as for people with disability in any circumstance within our society—is that they be able to live full lives, unencumbered and supported as necessary to live their best life. This is a great starting point. I support the bill but acknowledge that there will be further discussion, potentially about amendments and in committee stage, in due course.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.