Bills

Disability Inclusion (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:37): I rise to speak to the Disability Inclusion (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2023. I want to provide some insight into how this bill came to this house. The Disability Inclusion Act is intended to promote 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 national strategies such as Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031 and other schemes such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which we all know as the NDIS, managed by the federal government. This requires the creation of the State Disability Inclusion Plan, known as Inclusive SA.

The minister introduced the Disability Inclusion (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2023 after there was an independent review undertaken by Mr Richard Dennis in mid 2022. The report was tabled in September 2022. The bill seeks to make changes to the Disability Inclusion Act 2018. As I said, the bill has been introduced after the review.

In regard to the review, there was an independent review done under section 32 of the 2018 act that determines a review be undertaken before the fourth anniversary of the act's commencement. It involved significant public consultation. The review made 51 recommendations for the act, such as adding new 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.

These include a definition of 'barrier' in the context of access and inclusion for people living with 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 the regulations as provisions in the act, and adjusting reporting requirements and time frames for Inclusive SA and state authority disability access and inclusion plans.

Specifically, the bill proposes to enact provisions currently appearing in the Disability Inclusion Regulations 2019 as provisions in the act and include a definition of a barrier in the act, given the significance of the concept of barriers in the definition of disability and within the wider issue of achieving greater inclusion.

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

It will also amend sections within the act relating to the reporting requirements and time frames for the state plan and the state authority disability access and inclusion plan, as well as dealing with the specific functions of the chief executive of the Department of Human Services. It will certainly require consultation with people with lived experience and authorise the formation of groups to facilitate consultation.

Minister Cook stated that 30 recommendations are not legislative and thus outside the scope of this bill. This bill deals with some 14 of the 20 legislative recommendations. The minister has indicated that she may return with another bill to address those not covered in this bill and also to address recommendations from the major NDIS federal review that is expected later this year.

In regard to consultation, Purple Orange has provided a list of seven amendments that they recommend. I note that other parties are looking at moving other amendments. As a group, on this side of the house, we will continue to consult with relevant parties and relevant groups to see what other improvements may be sought along the way.

Working with people with disability or, as some people prefer to say, levels of ability can be challenging, and I just want to take my hat off to some of the groups that operate in the Murraylands and through the Strathalbyn area through my electorate. We have Novita, Genuine Support Services, Equality Life Disability Support Service, Next Steps Murraylands and Community Living Australia. CLASS was an organisation I first met up with operating out of Strathalbyn—Community Living and Support Services—and they were based out of Strathalbyn. I certainly got to interact with that group in my first period of election from 2006 to 2010.

Things have come a long way since then. Certainly, as a member of parliament, as I am sure every member in this place would know, we have plenty of inquiries regarding disability and what services people can obtain, and we make sure that the best can be done for the constituent who requires those services. The introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme—and this is worth a lot of money across the federal sphere—certainly assisted in a lot of ways to get that assistance on the ground where it is needed.

I thought with the introduction of this scheme we would have fewer inquiries coming to our office; and we work with the federal member for Barker, Tony Pasin, on these issues as well. Rightly so, people come to us to see if they can meet the criteria around national disability support, and that's fair enough. The issue you have as a local member is that people might only just fall outside of the criteria on whatever level that is to access support. I get it that you have to have boundaries in place, but sometimes it can be quite heartbreaking for people who, for whatever reason, do not match the criteria.

Apart from those excellent groups that I read into the Hansard a minute ago—some of the major groups who work with disability in my electorate and in other areas—there are a lot of single operators or small companies. I certainly know of one young man who was working in the pool industry here in Adelaide. He had a real idea and I commented he is the type of guy—a caring young bloke—to work in this sector. He like a lot of others has set up his own Australian Business Number, so they can do what they can to assist people.

Apart from some of the basic needs of looking after people—making sure that they can eat properly, live properly and dress appropriately—there are other things that people get to do under this scheme: that is, they get to travel to places. They would not otherwise have that opportunity. If people who are not under the scheme can do it and it matches the criteria, why not? Some have been able to go on various trips around the state. I know people who had an interest in having a look at a field day, they wanted to look at tractors—and good on them. That was facilitated under the scheme. I suppose what I am saying is that it expands beyond the basic needs of humanity, and that is what people need so that they can open up and express themselves. I think it also offers a great opportunity for the carers to interact with people who are eligible for this funding, and I think it is a lot of learning for both parties in the mix.

It also comes with challenges at times. As a local member—and you cannot blame people for having issues that impact on people—I remember, a few years ago now, there was a share house in my electorate. I think there were four people in it most times. Evidently, one person—and they could not help it; it was just the state of their disability—was causing upset to the neighbours and that sort of thing.

We were in opposition at the time, as we seemingly too many times are. To the credit of the minister at the time, I worked with the minister of the day, and we managed to find a more appropriate outcome for that person to live in another property which suited them better, and it certainly helped everyone else as well. You have to make sure that the person who is suffering has support. They do not understand necessarily what is going on around them, and that is not their fault. They are suffering and they need support, and I commend everyone in the mix who can give these supports, because it is vitally needed. Everyone has the right to have that level of humanity, to live their lives and to get the support that is required.

I can remember when CLASS was in place in Strathalbyn, going to their sports day events and things like that and watching people do those extra things, which they may not have been able to do if they were not in that supervised environment. It enhances what they can contribute to society as well. I think we have come a long way over the decades, as we should have, in how we manage disability. A long time ago, people would say, 'Just send them away and put these people in a sheltered workshop and walk away.' Thankfully, we have moved a long, long way forward from that, and we put more supports in place so that people can have a decent life and get on with it.

We will always work with people in our community and point them in the right direction for the supports they need. If there are any challenges around that, if we have to act for someone or someone's caregiver to try to them a better deal if they think that is appropriate—and we have certainly done this—we will ask those questions and hopefully get a positive result so that those people can get the support that they need.

As I said, there are many, many hundreds of people who work in the sector, probably thousands. I take my hat off to them. It can range from a whole lot of different styles of care. It could be looking after people during the day, just making sure that those basic needs are catered for so that they are fed and clothed appropriately, but also that they do get that opportunity to do the excursions and do things that not many years ago would never have been provided under any sort of scheme that was operating at the time.

It is a credit to the people who get involved. Certainly, as I said, there is a whole range of different levels of care, from daytime care to where you have places like the share houses where a carer will stay overnight and sleep in the same property as the people who look after them. That gives people independence as well, and obviously there is a carer needed on site to make sure everything moves along appropriately. In most cases that seems to work pretty well.

That is not to say it is not a challenging sector, but I must say that over time, especially with things like the National Disability Insurance Scheme and other schemes across the ages, we have become a lot better at doing what we can for our fellow man and woman in society, and I think that is just appropriate.

Supports have been given in education facilities to make sure that kids coming through school can get the appropriate mentoring—that could be through a student services officer or education support officer, depending on whether you are in a private or a public school. Yes, it does cost money—and in either the private sector or in the public sector it costs taxpayers money—but it does help these people to get the best value out of their lives and to be able to make a contribution through life as they go along.

I think this bill is certainly a step in the right direction, and I think over time we will see more supports going into place. As I said, it does cost a lot of money—it will be many, many millions of dollars across not just the state but the country—but, as I said, you have to have that empathy for your fellow man and woman and give them those opportunities. I do take my hat off to people involved in the sector, who are caring for these people with the appropriate care to make sure that they can live their lives to the fullest. I commend the bill.

The Hon. N.F. COOK (Hurtle Vale—Minister for Human Services) (15:56): I am really pleased that we have been able to have such a respectful and constructive debate on this important bill, and I look forward to this continuing in committee and in the other place. I am also really pleased that we have had a good mix of people from different parts of South Australia contributing to the important debate. However, despite this place having an increased level of diversity, we are still debating a bill about disability with a very limited amount of lived experience in the room. I hope that in years to come we will see more people with disability elected in South Australia.

In saying that, I deeply appreciate the contributions from all speakers, including the members for Reynell, Newland, Wright, Flinders, Davenport, Adelaide, Waite, Playford, Ramsay, Torrens, Morialta, Heysen, Unley and Hammond. I would like to particularly thank the member for Colton for his insightful contribution, obviously having lived experience. Listening to that, I found it really informative and helpful when we think about how we as able-bodied people portray and speak about, and what language we use, when discussing people with disability and the lives of people in this community.

I particularly value contributions from members with experiences in their community and those who live with disability or who support family and friends with disability. It is so important, because the bill is not just about people with disability, it is about how our government agencies and local councils respond to the needs of people who they serve, to make our community a fairer and more inclusive space.

Since the bill was introduced, we have had reports handed down by our own Social Development Committee, the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, and also the 10-year review of the NDIS. As a number of speakers have highlighted, the original Richard Dennis review included 20 legislative recommendations, 14 of which are included in this bill.

The other legislative and non-legislative recommendations from Mr Dennis are being considered in the context of the royal commission and the NDIS review. Of course, when we tabled this particular bill it was before the winter break last year, so there has been significant progress being made in that space. I completely acknowledge that this bill was not the end of the reform process but the beginning of a long journey that I hope receives broad support across the parliament and our wider community.

I note this government has been making significant investments and reforms around disability, completely independently of this legislation also, with reports from this parliament or major works undertaken at the national level. Without going into too much detail, this does include appointing an Assistant Minister for Autism, as famously she says and we say: it is not just the first one in South Australia, it is the first one in the entire galaxy. So we are very proud of that.

We have established the Office for Autism; appointed an autistic director for the Office for Autism; established autism lead teachers in public primary schools, with an investment of $28.8 million; committed $50 million for 100 wellbeing workers in schools; and boosted funding for the Community Visitor Scheme. On top of this, we are committing $11.6 million to fund disability supports for people who do not meet NDIS residence requirements.

I will very briefly respond to a number of queries raised by the opposition during the second reading debate, but I certainly welcome more detailed questions in the committee if the opposition requires any further clarification. The member for Flinders queried the time frame between the act being reviewed and its introduction to parliament. In very simple terms, there were multiple rounds of consultation to ensure that people did have a chance to be heard. Particularly with consultation around disability issues, they tended to take a little bit longer, at both ends. Before we start the consultations, most documents are also converted into easy-read formats. The time this takes is compounded when we do multiple rounds of consultations, so that is quite a protracted process.

The consultation periods themselves are often longer to ensure that everyone has a genuine opportunity to understand any proposed changes and provide their feedback. The bill proposes to highlight the particular circumstances of those with intellectual disability and our approach to consultation actually reflected that, so that we practise what we preach with our work.

The member for Flinders also queried the proposed definition of the term 'barrier' in the bill. I am more than happy to discuss that in detail in committee, but it is fair to say that within the disability community, and even within my disability ministerial advisory committee, there are very different views on the topic. The short response to this query is that the proposed definition of 'barrier' focuses on a social model of disability rather than a medical model.

As the former president of the Local Government Association, the member for Flinders raised some concerns also about the potential impact on local government. In response to this, I can advise that none of the 14 legislative recommendations being enacted in this bill require significant investment by the state or local government. A number of the non-legislative recommendations in the Dennis review may have resource impacts, but these are considered and supported or accepted on a case-by-case basis by each agency, subject to the act.

I would like to thank the LGA for establishing a disability inclusion advisory group in 2021. That operated into 2022 to provide advice on a range of matters, from emergency management to libraries and elections. The member for Flinders also queried whether some of the language in the bill was vague. The opposition is, of course, welcome to move amendments if they have better forms of words, but I note that there has been a very deliberate approach to use phrases like 'take reasonable steps'. This helps one piece of legislation to be both meaningful and proportionate for different organisations, like small councils compared to large state government departments, which are much better resourced.

The member for Flinders also sought information about when we might see further recommendations from the act review enacted. As noted earlier in my summing up, the remaining six legislative recommendations from the Dennis review are being considered in the context of our own Social Development Committee report, the 222 royal commission recommendations and the 139 actions in the NDIS review. It is quite the piece of work along with other ad hoc feedback that we have received from the community and continue to do so every week. Governments in Australia are expecting to respond to the royal commission in the second half of 2024 and we will consider our next legislative steps after that.

The member for Morialta mentioned the number of people who have come to South Australia after experiencing trauma and suffering in other parts of the world. I am grateful for that compassionate contribution to the debate and the questioning of that. I agree, they are fortunate to have found a new home with us. In recent years, we have implemented targeted support packages for refugees arriving here from Ukraine and also the Middle East to make them safer and more welcome.

Importantly, with regard to disability, the 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Review included an $11.6 million package to support people who need disability supports but do not meet the NDIS requirements around residency and citizenship. This critical funding means that people who have significant disability needs and face even higher barriers due to adjusting to a new home on the other side of the world are included and supported in our community

As I said earlier, I appreciate the member for Colton reflecting on our shared commitment to Special Olympics. It is an event that encapsulates so much of what this bill is about. Sport, employment and the arts are just three areas where a more inclusive community is more inspiring, more productive and simply more fun. Inclusion is not about tokenism: it is about being a better version of ourselves at the community level. Once again, I thank all members for their contributions and I look forward to the bill progressing.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, minister, for the opportunity to be able to unpack a little bit in this committee stage of the Disability Inclusion (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill. In your words just then summarising the debate, I reflect that my contribution to the debate was some six months ago. Even the words that I said I needed to dust off in my own mind, what the focus has been.

It has certainly been a process and I thank the minister, her staff and department for working with me and the shadow disability minister, the Hon. Heidi Girolamo in the other place. I have carriage here in the lower house but I note that there will be the opportunity in the upper house for amendment consideration, and already in my contribution six months ago did moot that the opposition were considering some amendments.

At that time we thought the bill was moving through the lower house so we thought it would be best to deliver those amendments in the upper house retrospectively. We could have just about had that as part of this process but so be it, that is the parliamentary process.

Minister, I note that within all the recommendations that have been made, this process, as you mentioned, started in 2022. It is now two years since that first started and the landscape continues to change in this space. This bill was drafted with the intention of getting this first tranche out of the away more expediently. Like I said, they have been interesting time frames. So, for the record, for the committee, can I get an insight into what groups you consulted with through this process, and the feedback and learnings that you gathered from those groups that you sought feedback from?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Thanks very much for the question. I would like to introduce Ksharmra Brandon, who is the Director of Strategic Policy and Reform in the Department of Human Services. What she does not know about this is not worth knowing, let me tell you. She has a really excellent mind in this space, so I feel very lucky to be supported by Ksharmra.

We have had significant and substantial formal consultation. I will add to that that we have had a bucketload of other consultation, ad hoc conversations during events and a range of conversations that we have all the time in the course of our work. I am very pleased to put on record a list for you of people we have spoken to and of people who were included in the consultation of Mr Dennis' review.

The list includes: Autism SA; Professor Richard Bruggeman; the Commissioner for Children and Young People; Community Centres SA; John Cranwell, who is the CEO of Active Inclusion; Dr Betty-Jean Dee-Price; key senior staff in the Department of Human Services; members of the Disability Engagement Group that sits within or alongside the Department of Human Services; Disability Rights Advocacy Service; the executive director for Support and Inclusion in the Department for Education; Ms Yvette Eglinton from the Department for Environment and Water; Associate Professor Caroline Ellison; Ms Susanne Hendy; JFA Purple Orange; Lifetime Support Authority; Local Government Access and Inclusion Network; Local Government Association of South Australia; Local Government Disability Inclusion Advisory Group; South Australian Council on Intellectual Disability; the Disability Advocate at the time; the Public Advocate; Uniting Communities Law Centre; and Natalie Wade, who is the founder and principal of Equality Lawyers. That is probably it.

Mr TELFER: Are you willing to table those submissions as part of this process?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We will commit to reaching out to every one of those people and checking that it is okay for us to table those submissions. If they have no problem with that, I have no problem at all with doing that.

Mr TELFER: As I alluded to earlier in my first question, there has been a lot of work that has been done and a lot of briefing that has been happening. I do appreciate the work that the department has done in the original briefing that was provided, and also the subsequent refresher that we all needed when we were considering getting closer to this bill again. Minister, in your second reading speech, you spoke about the number of recommendations that have already been actioned and completed—and I appreciate the dialogue that we have had on that. For the benefit of the chamber, can you give an insight into the number of recommendations that have already been actioned and completed?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think first-up I might talk about trying to put into place some of the things that are being done, both within the legislation and outside of that. You may recall that, going into the previous election, we made a commitment to ensure that we did put the voice of community at the heart of decision-making and policy framework for the community. We included three groups of people at the heart of that, namely, people with disability, LGBTQIA+ people and young people. These are three of the cohorts in our community who are disproportionately marginalised due to various reasons. Also, there are most definitely people with lived experience who cross over all three of those sections together or who have ageing or psychosocial challenges—a whole range of generational trauma, etc.—and lived experience in any one or multiples of those areas.

Going into the election in 2022, we made that commitment to have a funded series of ministerial advisory committees or councils, and we put those in place in our first year after coming into government. The really great thing about them is not just the fact that I can go and sit at the table with these groups regularly—they meet around four times a year, each of them; I think I have missed a couple of meetings out of all of those. They get to ask me questions and I get to ask them questions, and they also have their expenses covered. It is not a large fee—it is a small sitting fee—but for groups of people who often have challenges regarding employment and other access issues in the community, transport, etc., I think it is a really useful, beneficial piece of work to fund those.

That was probably the first one that we put in place out of here that happened before even the review, so the review has consequently recommended a range of those sorts of avenues. I am really proud of that because it was an anticipated need and we have managed to put that in place. On top of that, we have also established the State Autism Strategy Advisory Committee and the Disability Engagement Group, and we are already getting reports regularly from the chief executive to myself regarding accessibility and inclusion issues. It forms part of our regular meeting agendas. That also happens informally and formally through the state annual reports in the State Disability Inclusion Plan.

There is a review of the disability access inclusion plans (DAIPs) already happening. We had the See Me For Me campaign that was launched in July 2022. I am not sure if you remember it. There was a young man who liked racing cars. I cannot remember which one it was, but there was also someone who wore Crocs. It was lived-experience disability, but it was this other quirk of their personality that we were focusing on. It was just very clever and so well received and awarded, highly celebrated. These campaigns are rolled out to improve community understanding, attitudes and awareness.

The department is coordinating a community of practice which shares learnings across all state authorities, so that is a really important piece of work that is already in place. I could read the recommendation for you as well, but I would be happy to table this if you wish. It is a more fulsome report. There is also a somewhat standard practice in regard to providing easy read documents online for much of the information and consultation that we do as a department, and some others do. We know that there is improvement to be made, but we are already well on top of that.

We have committed actions under the Australia's Disability Strategy targeted action plan, the section under employment. It is in a priority under the State Disability Inclusion Plan and under the State Autism Strategy, so all of those things are connecting. Recommendation 39 is about state and local councils creating opportunities for people to realise the importance of disability inclusion and how that advice and information gets out. We launched the Pavely smartphone app at the beginning of 2023. It was somewhere around the beginning of 2023. I would have to check that, but it was in that first year or so of government.

That has gradually started to be populated with information around access and inclusion opportunities, to show where accessible bathrooms are and a whole range of other things that are needed for information so that people with disability can attend events and venues. That is promoting businesses as well, I think, to become more inclusive by responding to feedback received via the app. I think that is where we are at the moment. Like I said, we are very happy to table that and provide a more fulsome report on the actions that have already been undertaken.

Mr TELFER: A couple of things on that: you talked about the—

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Clancy): You have one last question on clause 1.

Mr TELFER: Sure. I will ask the same question in clause 2 later on then. You referenced the Autism Strategy. I know that one of the targets of your department for last year's budget was to finalise a State Autism Strategy that aligns with the State Disability Inclusion Plan. How well does the Autism Strategy work in conjunction with this bill? Will more work be needed for the strategy and the disability legislation to align?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The consultation on the final draft of the State Autism Strategy closes at the end of this month and consultation on the state plan has been completed. Essentially, our job now will be to connect those pieces up and provide a report with recommendations out of that as well. We feel it is going to connect really tightly and provide some really good outcomes.

Mr TELFER: Will you allow one more, Chair?

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Clancy): No, because, technically, you have already had four. I already gave you an extra.

The Hon. N.F. Cook: We are very generous; this is the last one, yes? Okay, good.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Clancy): The power of the chair just gets taken from me. Member for Flinders.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, Chair. As a supplementary to what was being asked of the minister before, you talked about what had been put in place regarding recommendations. You also mooted, in the discussion and in our discussion, the potential for an additional bill to be able to address legislative steps—a 'tranche 2', for want of a better term. Now that we are obviously a number of months away from when this bill was first put in, what sort of time frames do you expect for a potential 'tranche 2' bill?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I really do hesitate to give an exact time frame, only because of the huge piece of work that is happening to bring together royal commission and NDIS review recommendations with this also. We have just recently, as part of the Disability Reform Ministerial Council nationally, pushed out the reporting time frame for the Disability Royal Commission because of the comprehensive piece of work that needs to happen. Given we are also a little bit guided by that time frame, that piece of work is going to start happening.

I am not going to deviate, but I am going to use an example of how we respond as a department. We would never knowingly hold back an action that is going to benefit a member of the community and improve their access and quality of life, just for the sake of some bureaucratic process.

Recently, for example—and the chair of this committee knows very well the importance of youth mental health—we consulted on our Youth Action Plan. Young people responded to that survey—more than 80 per cent of the survey respondents were young people; I think it was somewhere near 800 respondents or thereabouts—and their priority was mental health and wellbeing.

Almost immediately we pivoted a grant round to provide the opportunity for community organisations to deliver grassroots programs. I am really passionate about this, as you know, so I could go on for a long time, but I will not. I will simply say that we responded immediately because we know lives depend on that kind of response. In the Department of Human Services, as a team, we take very seriously (a) the needs of people and (b) the power we have to respond to people and provide positive outcomes through service agility.

I would hazard a guess, not looking at the recommendations written, that there would be things that we are acting on already that are part of that. I hesitate to provide you with an accurate estimate because it does depend on the response for those really huge pieces of work that are happening at a federal level as well. You can guarantee that, if there is something we think can be done early, we will be doing it, as we have with some of the other recommendations.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps to carry on from where the member for Flinders left off, and I appreciate what the minister has had to say already about the context in which Inclusive SA and the department are operating, we have in the broader context the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 that has been the subject of its first review and we have all praised Richard Dennis for his work and here we are making amendments essentially to the objects and the principles and then in turn to the consideration of state disability inclusion plans and there will be a whole number of particular aspects of that to go to as we progress.

Even before the objects of the act and the principles are articulated in sections 8 and 9 of the act respectively, the bill is going to introduce, in my view, an important addition by way of a new section 7A, that is the subject of clause 4, that will require the minister to seek the views of people with disability and to that end to form a committee and then the committee will be populated by those with—and I hope this has not become too much of a hackneyed term—lived experience of disability.

That might rather go to the minister's welcome observations in closing the second reading debate about the range of experience of people who are in the chamber for the time being that might not include such a range of lived experience. I just notice that that committee and the obligation of the minister now to engage in that formal way might go some way to serving that purpose.

We will get to it at clause 4. There we are amending the overriding precursor to the objects and principles, the subject of part 2, which until now has otherwise stated that what the act is there clearly all about is to support the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Section 7 of the act sets it out clearly:

It is the intention of the Parliament of South Australia that, to such an extent as may be reasonably practicable, the operation, administration and enforcement of this Act is to support and further the principles and purposes of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as any other relevant international human rights instruments affecting people with disability, as in force from time to time.

That is a lofty object indeed. In the circumstances of that overriding objective, and at a time when we come to make this first round of amendment, I note that we can now make observations about Inclusive SA and the work that has been done in the context of what is now a relatively mature Australia-wide disability strategy: Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031.

In a way, I perhaps just note for the record, because it might fall down to a fairly simple proposition, Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031 is the national disability policy framework. It is driving action at all levels of government to improve the lives of people with disability. We see that the Australian government describes the vision of the strategy to be for 'an inclusive Australian society that ensures people with disability can fulfil their potential, as equal members of the community'. The strategy sets out practical changes that will assist people with disability. That is in line with Australia's commitments in terms of the UN convention. And then, as we have heard, that goes on to spell out a whole high-level strategy and vision for that 10-year period.

At the outset, I just ask to what extent there is consideration in bringing to the parliament in this bill that restatement in section 7 of the act to highlight something directly about the national approach? One is a convention; it has a different status. Another one is an Australian government strategy. We are not taking the opportunity in this amending bill to say something that is more explicitly about lining up, according with the overall Australian strategy. There might be good reason for letting the two run in parallel and it might be that it is simply the view of the government that that is a matter to inform policy—and we can hear about it from time to time in terms of the work of Inclusive SA and the way that government agencies interact, and so on—but there is a question really at the outset in the broad: what particular role does the strategy have vis-a-vis this moment? It might more particularly be a question at clause 4, but why do we not therefore see it articulated in terms of the two being in lockstep?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I seek a point of clarification. I am not going to ask you to repeat the question, I promise, although that would be really funny. I just want to make sure I give you the right response. What I take from what you are saying is that we specifically relate and seek to align our legislation with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability. Why do we not then align our legislation with the Australian Disability Strategy?

Mr TEAGUE: Well, in some way it is highlighted as a light on the hill, if you like, in the same way as we do—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes. The simple response to that question, which is in fact quite simple in the end, is that we seek to align it through our plan.

Mr TEAGUE: With that in mind—and it is perhaps helpful on the occasion of a committee process for a bill such as this to have the opportunity to have these things on the record—there is no indication from the government of anything other than a positive engagement with the strategy. If there is, then I would certainly welcome reflection on that 2021-2031 strategy, but I hear the minister in terms of where that fits in the government's overall approach.

I suppose, just at this early stage in terms of context, I will take one agency, for example, because here we are, we have the Dennis review with 50 or 51 recommendations, and this bill is implementing about 14 of them. There is the balance of recommendations, some of which might find their way into discrete legislation where that is appropriate, and I think I have given some examples of my appreciation of how that might work in the course of the second reading. We are not seeing all of the review recommendations finding voice in this bill, and we are not seeing any more explicit connection being made to the National Disability Strategy. I suppose the point in mind is how different legislation might take on board the Dennis recommendations, indeed how different agencies will apply these recommendations.

We see the Department for Education, for example, when it is stepping through its consideration of disability access for inclusion in the education system, setting out the importance of Australia's Disability Strategy, alongside Inclusive SA, the state government, and then from there the department disability access and inclusion plan. I guess the question might be put in one or two different ways. Is it best to understand what we are likely to see in terms of state disability inclusion plans, as amended by the bill, in terms of being an Inclusive SA-led assistance to individual agencies in the development of their departmental disability access and inclusion plans? Are we going to see some agencies more than others needing to legislate in response to the Dennis recommendations? How are we likely to see further legislation brought to the parliament in response to the Dennis recommendations?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is an insightful question. There are six remaining legislative recommendations, and some of those pertain to items that require specific guidance through those other reviews that I have discussed—the royal commission and the NDIS review—and will require a deep piece of work pertaining directly to policy and the evolution of that out of DHS. But the non-legislative recommendations can cut across a range of responsibilities, through DHS and other departments, to be enacted in their own plans and via our state plan. DHS will provide guidance and direction as needed to other entities who are required to have a plan. We, as an agency, are available to offer that support. Does that help a little bit?

Mr TEAGUE: Thanks, and I appreciate the minister's answer. To further take the Department for Education as an example, then, we see in terms of the current education department disability plan—I stand to be corrected if they have gotten on with the job in 2024 already, but otherwise a plan for 2020-2023—that was the responsibility of Rick Persse as chief executive, we see there neatly encapsulated a statement that:

The department's Disability Access and Inclusion Plan (DAIP) 2020-2023 builds on the Inclusive SA: State Disability Inclusion Plan 2019-2023. Our DAIP has been developed within the context of the Commonwealth and state legislation, state government priorities and objectives, and departmental policy to ensure that it complies with the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Disability Standards for Education 2005, Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) and Disability Inclusion Act 2018 (SA).

It goes on to say:

Our workforce is one of the biggest in South Australia. As a department it is our responsibility to lead by example to improve access and inclusion for children, young people and employees living with disability.

So it is clear: there is an agency that is dealing with lots of people, lots of interaction, and we see that—I've just about lost my train of thought.

Members interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: The member wanders in and their phone goes off.

The Hon. N.F. Cook interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: Well, I've only got this one. So, we know, just to take the Department for Education as an example, that the Department for Education is stating that it has drawn on this wide range of inputs—starting with Inclusive SA, as I outlined earlier, but it is explicitly referring to those various commonwealth and state inputs. I appreciate the answer to my first question about the proper role of the Australian plan. It does not find voice directly in the legislation, but plays an important role.

As I understand the second question, Inclusive SA will lead the way, and then there are these six remaining legislative recommendations that will apply outside of this act directly but stem from the review. Are we to take it that, as a result of these changes, we will still have a situation where individual agencies, as well as building on what Inclusive SA has to provide in terms of support, will be developing their individual plans informed by that range of relevant state and commonwealth legislation? Is that the model the government anticipates into the foreseeable future, and is there a perceived virtue, therefore, of each department navigating its own way to whatever extent may be necessary to tailor its response to the particular functions of the relevant agency?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is like I had a meal in between the start and the finish and then there was a call and we were all a bit distracted, but if I bring it back to this: this piece of legislation has in all its forms had a directive to form a plan. It prescribes what agencies need to form plans and how they are reported. This makes some amendments based on the review. In the case of some agencies, they work quite deeply and in a very connected way with national plans of various iterations, and if they choose to use some of the directives out of those strategies, such as education—you referenced the Australia Disability Strategy, within their work—as long as they meet the requirements of the act and report according to that, in fact other departments, including our own, may learn from that.

We have the community of practice, which we talked about before, which is a formal way for other departments, all departments, to get together and to, if I keep it brief, compare notes and learn from each other. We have not given a directive for other agencies to go forth and use other exemplars within their own plan, but if they do and it improves the outcomes for people with disability, that is what should happen.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr TELFER: Just quickly—obviously it is not a very extensive clause—when does the minister envision the proclamation? I guess it's going to be immediately after the bill passing.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Provided we get out of committee before we rot, I think as quick as possible is the answer. It will go up to the other place. There is a set of principles in regard to it sitting on the table and we will have debate in the other place and then it would be some weeks after that.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr TELFER: Minister, we talked a little bit earlier about the commentary around the barrier definition. Obviously it is part of this aspect here in clause 3, the amendment of section 3, which talks about the interpretation and definition of. I can see that you have lifted the recommendations from the reviewer and inserted barriers into this bill. Was there any contemplation of having any other definitions included in the bill?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think, and I said it in my summary, there are many options and there were options discussed. The norm and the accepted practice is to use social models of definition and description within policy affecting people with disability and legislation as well. So this is most definitely an accepted form of definition that we have chosen. You could survey a hundred people and come up with a hundred different variations of definitions, but this is one that is accepted through the social model rather than the medical model; that is why we have gone for it.

Mr TELFER: I appreciate that as well. You are right; in itself it is quite broad and barriers would vary depending on individual circumstances. I do appreciate that the definition that is included within this amendment is naturally broad to reflect that. That is why I was asking whether there were any other definitions after the fact. We are a fair way down the track now reflecting, but I appreciate the answer. What is the government doing broadly that would improve public perception for people living with disability?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There is a whole range of easy ones that come to mind that I have spoken about in previous answers. I talk about awareness campaign See Me For Me. I think you can look no further than the brilliant work of the member in the other place, the Hon. Emily Bourke, and her leadership around working with the Premier to ensure that South Australians are filled with knowledge around autism and the autistic communities. That has certainly been worked on very deeply in terms of the Autism Strategy. We will see the South Australian government practising what it preaches in terms of an inclusive workplace, with DHS and the Department for Education being the first sites to roll out the autism charter, which we have seen being tabled this week and discussed.

The Office for Autism being led by an autistic person, the discussion and focus on employment as a priority within a range of strategies, and the plans that we put out will connect directly to recommendations that come out of the Disability Royal Commission which ensure that people with disability have the opportunity to participate in work and earn and learn as much as anyone else in our community has a right to participate in. The more that happens and the more knowledge and education that is built up in our community around that acceptance, the better off people will be.

I think we have a long way to go in language—and I am not going to single people out. People from this place make speeches and go to public events, and we use language which, with good intention, is meant to show our acceptance and our understanding but it is ableist and patronising. I think there is a lot more work to be done in that space. I have lent my mind to that at times and wondered how we could actually do that better. With autism being the largest single primary diagnosis within the NDIS, for example, I think we make head road into that as a knowledge base and a cohort for driving change in our community. There will be knock-on positive effects with other diagnostic groups. That is certainly at front of mind for me.

In terms of the disability access and inclusion plans themselves and working in that coordinated way through DHS, local government cohorts and other departments that are smaller and not so well resourced, all of those people will have contact and effect within the community. I think that summarises that as a general piece, but of course we have had Social Development Committee reviews and we are looking at housing.

We all nearly did a hammy getting to the national committees to get the construction code changed so that we have silver building standards and accessibility so that—not so much now but in generations to come—those houses that are getting built now will be more adaptable and ready for people with disability whose life circumstances might change or for people who experience some kind of medical or physical event that, as a consequence, leads to mobility or sensory challenge. We would then have a house that lends itself to upgrading and modification quicker, easier and cheaper than what we have now, when we have houses that are so difficult to modify for accessibility that we have people who are almost, for want of a better word, landlocked or housebound because they simply are unable to use equipment that they require to get in and out.

I think the change to having the silver standard as much as we possibly can—and of course there are some exemptions—has sent out a big signal to the market that South Australia is absolutely open for business when it comes to inclusion and that we are thirsty for opportunities.

We have funded Changing Places within our budgets. I think more people are getting to know about it, and I would encourage people to go to some of the playgrounds and to the airport, for example, to look at the Changing Places facilities. I worked in disability services a few years ago. To take somebody out who had continence challenges was simply a matter of wrapping them up a bit more so that they did not embarrass themselves when they were out, because there was no way you could find anywhere that provided a facility to change an adult. But now you can get on Pavely and other sites and look for Changing Places, and you can go somewhere dignified and maintain comfort.

I think the more we do that, the more conversations we have with all of you—and I know the member for Narungga is in the chamber now. I have had fantastic conversations with people in Wallaroo to talk about accessible tourism. Accessible tourism is incredible. That is really important, and the more we do in that regard the better.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Clancy): I will remind the minister not to refer to whether someone is present in the chamber or not. Thank you.

Mr TEAGUE: In looking at the overview of the act and then at this amending bill, we are focused, I guess for reasons that are perhaps obvious, to a large extent on bureaucratic public sector responses, local government and those with responsibility for applying rules that affect matters like planning and day-to-day oversight and so on in terms of provision of access.

Clause 3 and the introduction of the definition of 'barrier' leads to a consideration of the objects of the act. We are going to see those augmented in terms of the changes in the bill to objects and principles. We have already got objects in the act that include:

…acknowledging that people with disability have the same human rights as other members of the community and that the State and the community have a responsibility to facilitate the exercise of those rights;

It goes on to say:

The objects of this Act include—

…promoting the independence and social and economic inclusion—

I emphasise 'economic inclusion'—

of people with disability; and

…providing safeguards in relation to the delivery of all supports and services…

…a framework to support a whole of Government approach…; and

…articulating and facilitating the roles of the State during and following the transition to the [NDIS].

We are going to add to that in a minute with a particular reference to emphasising 'regardless of age'—so all ages and stages. We will get to that in clause 5, and we are going to add a new paragraph (f) that makes specific reference to the new defined term of 'barriers'. It is then linking us directly back to the UN convention and saying, 'Right, we need to make sure that we are actually removing barriers.'

It is perhaps with that in mind that I shift then to the individual community entrepreneurial and innovative side of all of this to say, 'Alright, what are we doing then? To what extent does this all imply an obligation to facilitate those measures which will enable the innovative development of the means by which those who want to be fully economically productive can do so?'

To take an example, my constituent Tom Carr, at Ashbourne, is an adult living with his family on a couple of hundred acres in the Hills. He has had a terrible accident and is wheelchair-bound. He is a mechanical engineer and is a highly innovative individual. He has gone ahead and invented a vehicle by which much more smoothly and easily—almost to full capacity compared with what might be provided in terms of ordinary access—he can more or less continue doing what he was able to do before. I might come back to it a bit further, but for practical reasons, he is appreciating the debate in relation to virtual fencing and how that might, in his new circumstances, be something that would facilitate his capacity to continue running his farming property.

It is the circumstances of a disability that are leading to, in his case, his own entrepreneurial response, his own appreciation of how technology might permit him to be able to run a farm and to get around. So, in the legislative sense, I have recited the objects of long standing, and we are now going to apply this new definition to an additional object. To what extent is that actually changing the dynamic in terms of the obligation on the government to facilitate those areas of innovation that can be demonstrated to accord with the objects of this act for those people like Tom Carr who are living with a disability?

Hold that thought; we will put it in a practical context. We are having a debate in South Australia at the moment. We have a longstanding commercialisation of virtual fencing for a livestock project in South Australia that is being overseen at present by another one of the government of South Australia's agencies, the Department of Primary Industries and Regions, and SARDI is involved as well. The CSIRO is involved, and we have a national picture in which some states have acted and moved along in terms of virtual fencing.

For the record, and for those who might not be familiar with it, in terms of describing the project, the government of South Australia describes virtual fencing as: '…an animal-friendly system using wireless technologies and sensors to manage livestock and control their location. The commercialisation of virtual fencing for a livestock project will demonstrate the commercial applications of virtual fencing in South Australia and quantify any animal wellbeing impacts'—and then we go on to hear more about the project, which is of long standing.

Someone in Tom Carr's position, and in fact Tom Carr himself, finds himself saying, 'The permission for the rollout of this particular technology, subject to government oversight and consideration, would make my life considerably more resembling of a fulfilment of those objects.'

Leaving aside for a minute the relative merits, the pros and cons, of that implementation, to what extent, by legislating this new definition that speaks to the new object, are we shifting the dial in terms of the state's obligation to take that into account when considering matters? I take, just as an example, PIRSA's consideration of how and in what circumstances to legislate permission for virtual fencing; the circumstances that would, in Tom Carr's view, benefit him in his circumstances.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think what we are grappling with is how this would stifle that innovation. I think it would shift the dial.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Well, I think that is what this is designed to do. It is designed to encourage people to think in a way that promotes innovation to remove barriers, and it is quite the irony that we are talking about a fence, because that is a barrier. I think this, in its purest form, is trying to actually encourage departments to think about ways that they can legislate and do their work so that those, not always physical, barriers are removed. I think that is a positive thing. So I think it is designed to drive that. It uses 'barrier' in the way of a social model definition, not so much a medical model.

I do have some further information in an email about the definition of 'barrier'. We talk about the barrier being something that is:

(a) physical, architectural, technological or attitudinal; or

(b) based on information or communications; or

(c) the result of a policy or a practice.

So it encapsulates all those things. The Dennis review states:

Given the significance of the concept of 'barriers' in the definition of 'disability' and within the wider issue of achieving greater inclusion, defining the nature and scope of the barriers pertinent under the remit of the act will enhance clarity and recognition of barriers that make life undoubtedly harder for people living with disability.

We asked people who were being consulted whether they agreed with the proposed definition. Approximately two-thirds of people agreed with it—I think this goes to the question from the member for Flinders before, as well—one quarter disagreed and the remainder were undecided. So it was overwhelmingly positive in terms of the feedback for it, given that there are hundreds of definitions.

Through the YourSAy survey, overall, people indicated that the proposed definition was consistent with a social model, as we have said, and the regular barriers people with disability continue to encounter. Other feedback included:

They agreed the proposed definition is an accurate interpretation and supports its use throughout the act, specifically where the act aims to address barriers in improving overall access and inclusion outcomes for people with disability.

In one submission, feedback also indicated that the definition adopts the societal model of disability, but does not consider the medical model of disability, which offers insights into what a person with disability needs from health services in order to improve their physical and mental wellbeing so that they can achieve better social connection.

Another point was that, although the medical model of disability is an important consideration, it may be more appropriate for barriers relating to medical or health service provision to be considered by DHW or other agencies through their agency-specific DAIPs. This approach was supported in a written submission that said it should be included in subordinate legislation, related regulations or other guidelines for detailed and technical operation, administration and enforcement of legislation.

Members of the council that we discussed the act with had different views on the detail but a common view was that a definition would be useful. They also noted value in seeking to adopt a consistent approach to defining barriers in different state and federal legislation. I think everyone was encouraged by the discussion and the use of the term and the definition that we used. I think, hopefully, this is going to seek to drive exactly what you are saying. Yes, it was an interesting piece of input.

Mr TEAGUE: I think that answer will indeed be welcomed by Tom. We do appreciate that if one compares objectives (a) and (b) at the moment—particularly (a) and (b)—(a) acknowledges people with disability have the same human rights as other members of the community. That is an acknowledgment. And (b) is about promoting independence and, as I did before, emphasising the economic inclusion of people with a disability. Those are the two existing objects.

By themselves, they are nowhere near as proactive as what we are going to see in the subject of clause 5, which is going to adopt this new definition, because by adopting this new definition of 'barrier'—and great, good to know how we went about landing on what that includes: clearly physical, architectural and technological barriers—the kicker is that this new object is going to be requiring the removal of such barriers. It is not just about acknowledging things and promoting things, it is now about saying that an objective of this act is the removal of the barrier.

If one takes something that we are all well and truly used to: if you went to the footy club 50 years ago, you would climb the stairs and you might get into the stand. These days we have ramps and lifts and all sorts of things, but particularly ramps. That is how you do it.

If we were to translate the environment of 50 years ago to now and the application of this provision, you might argue that this provision could be relied upon to say, 'Righto, you have to go and remove that barrier and you have to go and make this place universally accessible.' I appreciate that it is not quite so straightforward as to say, 'Right, PIRSA, this now comes along and overrides whatever else you were thinking about in your project.'

I say Tom Carr will welcome the minister's response, and I agree with it, that it ought well provide the means by which, if PIRSA were looking around for the things that it ought to be taking on board, it will now have a much more particular reason to think about barriers, in Tom's case partly day-to-day movement, but more particularly the removal of a barrier to him more fully economically functioning in terms of operating a farm and running cattle on it.

If it is a matter of the level of priority that a project of reform on virtual fencing might have or a factor in the balance, if one were to consider the pros and cons of the introduction, it might be that it is more than just a view about what might be likely but a statutory imperative now that could be referred to if Tom is saying, 'I very much enjoyed my life on the farm and my capacity to earn a living on the land. I am now submitting that that ought to be much more central to your consideration in terms of the provision of permission for applying technologies.'

If there is then a slightly more focused extension of that case study, is there any possible conception from the government's point of view that the enactment of the definition, the subject of this clause, and its application in the new provisions of the act might allow or even mandate the provision of permission for these sorts of technologies tailored for the circumstances of those who we already know in (a) and (b) have a right to have the same human rights as other members and to be promoted in terms of their independence but now they also have a right to the removal of barriers. Therefore, is there the capacity for a tailored approach and for there to be any legislative underpinning, even in circumstances where such a thing was not or not yet otherwise regulated, for permission for the sector or the community more broadly?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Again, I might just seek to clarify. The term 'barrier' has been in there all the way through. The feedback was that it had no clarification around that terminology, and what we are doing is seeking to clarify and make it more clear to people in the community and those creating a plan for what a barrier actually is. If I am reading you right, the nub of it is that you are asking whether this creates any issues in terms of compulsion to remove barriers.

Mr TEAGUE: It is more of a clause 5 question, but it arises.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am sorry, there is a bit of free-flying exchange because there are a lot of words, and I am just trying to get to the nub of it. I would be keen for you to point out in the act itself where you feel there might be that challenge of compulsion and any problems that we might be facing because of that, but that has not changed in the course of the amendments, and my advice is that this just actually provides better clarity around that. The points you raise are valid and interesting. I would be very happy to get further advice on that particular line of questioning if you so wish and provide that between the houses.

Mr TEAGUE: I will not ask any more questions but to the extent that I am asked a question by the minister in that exchange I just say, no, there is no sense in which I have somehow built up to a gotcha moment or something—and I am the one who is slow off the mark to any extent. The nub of it really is found in clause 5, and the addition of—

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Clancy): Maybe you can bring this up at clause 5. You have had your three questions.

Mr TEAGUE: I am grateful to the Chair in that regard.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think it appears twice in clause 5.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr ELLIS: I will ask a hopefully succinct question to try to improve upon the glacial pace at which this committee currently progresses. In any case, I suspect I have only one question on clause 4. I would like to commend the government and those who have worked on building this bill for codifying this initiative. I suspect that more assiduous ministers who have held this portfolio over the journey have been consulting with stakeholders already, but to see it codified is a wonderful thing. It is always advisable to consult with the people to whom the bill is related.

I did wonder, though, whether there was consideration given to codifying that the minister should seek views of the carers of people with a disability as well—the people who are already enabling them to lead as fulfilled a life as possible. They might also have some views about barriers that could be withdrawn or removed to improve that quality of life as well. I wonder whether they were given consideration for inclusion in this clause. If they were and decided not to be included, what was the basis for that?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think that is an excellent question. The simple explanation currently at this point is that I read out the list of people who were consulted. You may not have been in the chamber at the time. Some of those people are most definitely carers; they are most definitely in here. Some of the people on our committees—the ministerial advisory committee, the disability engagement group, and the autism strategy committee—are also carers. We are currently in the middle of a process of engagement for the review of the carers act as well. There is most definitely direct engagement with carers.

I think the point you are making is potentially that carers are not specifically written into the legislation. We make sure that carers are part of the check of who is on our committees. I have consulted with and have had many long conversations with a number of people who are listed within our consultation group. I look specifically at Dr BJ Dee-Price, who is a carer and an academic of some regard. She was part of the consultation process.

Mr TELFER: On clause 4, obviously we are talking about the insertion of section 7A. The minister referred earlier on to the minister's council and that process. The minister talked about meeting quarterly. Is that happening? What is the process for feedback through that minister's council?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: In summary, we sought expressions for our advisory committee, including the disability one, in late 2022. The formal meetings commenced last year. I think they have had five meetings now, potentially. The minutes are online, so people can peruse the minutes. I am sure that is one of the highest-hit websites in the whole of government. It was sending a clear message to the rest of government, I felt, across portfolios that people living with disability needed to be involved in the decision-making, and they are.

It is critically important that we make sure, and we do, that we have brought the committee up to speed from a learning point of view to understand the processes of government—legislation and such. We invite various key stakeholders to present at the meetings. I have been to different advisory groups. We have had the equal opportunity commissioner and a range of people. We have ensured now, as well, that the committee is member-chaired so there is somebody with lived experience actually guiding and steering those groups.

The draft bill provided lengthy, detailed and prescriptive arrangements for the council. It was drafted before I formed the current group but, as such, the bill before the house requires me to consult with people with disability and allows me to form groups like the Disability Minister's Advisory Council. We removed highly detailed provisions, so it will allow for change and the committees to be updated and the performance of the committee to be reviewed from within as well, to guide us how best people with lived experience want to run those committees.

Before placing such a high level of detail, I wanted to see how the council operated and seek feedback and guidance from those groups. I think we are practising what we preach in terms of getting that at the heart of the consultation, but also meeting the requirements of the review in regard to that.

Mr TELFER: Thank you for that answer. It is a good starting point for discussion of this clause. You talked about the membership of the council, with many members with lived experience. What about those in the community who wish to raise issues or have their views heard on particular issues? How can they inform the committee? Is there a process for that?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: People are welcome to make representation to the committee, but the process has in general been more that representation is made to us and then we refer it into the committee for discussion and for their perusal. Certainly, on the DHS website there is a means to contact, and if people are interested in providing a representation they can do that. As I said before, we have invited a variety of people—we have had the Hon. Emily Bourke there to discuss the Autism Strategy and charter as well and provide that information.

As we move forward, with the NDIS review and looking at foundational supports and other changes, I feel that we would get someone in to provide better education in regard to that process as well and seek the views of the committee. That is generally the process. There is the contact for DHS on the website, and people can make representation if they wish.

Mr TELFER: Just to clarify: the process, as far as engagement with the committee goes, is more that interested community members would go directly to the department, and the department could then refer to the committee for their perspective on what that process might look like. There is no regular outreach or public forums or anything that the minister's council itself runs? That is left to the remit of the department and then fed back through?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think it is fair to say that there are a range of processes evolving with the council, but the council have raised issues on behalf of constituents that they have been in contact with. These people are highly engaged in the community and in their own networks as well. I am trying to think of an example.

We know that there is an issue with transport, for example, for people in the disability community. The Minister for Transport has been undertaking reviews in regard to taxis and what have you. There have been issues regarding rideshare that have been raised publicly that we are trying to create awareness about. For example, one of the members was certainly approached regarding that and brought that to the committee as well. So it can work in a number of ways and I guess for that reason we have tried not to be overly prescriptive within the legislation, but we have not refused any commentary. We welcome suggestions as to topics for conversation, and I hope that is the way we can continue at this point.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.