Bills

Disability Inclusion Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 May 2018.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:49): I rise to make a brief contribution in support of this bill as introduced by the Minister for Human Services, the Hon. Michelle Lensink. I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on doing so. This is another example of the government being willing to consider ideas from elsewhere. We are aware that this bill was fundamentally introduced in the previous parliament and did not pass, yet the minister has seen fit to run with that in the new parliament, for which I congratulate her.

As the minister has already informed the chamber, the Marshall Liberal government committed to introducing this bill within 100 days of commencing its term in office. As members would be aware, the passage of this bill is imperative in facilitating the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in South Australia, transforming the manner in which our disability services are funded and delivered by transferring administrative responsibility from the state to the commonwealth government, in partnership with the National Disability Insurance Agency.

I note that South Australia was one of the very first states to sign up to the NDIS, and proudly it will be one of the first to complete this important transition and fully realise the practicalities of this scheme in an effort to ensure national consistency of disability support services across all jurisdictions.

One of the primary objectives of the NDIS is to promote and encourage the inclusion of those with a disability, removing barriers to their participation in all aspects of society that many of us take for granted in our daily lives. This not only comprises our daily work but also education, social, sporting and other leisure activities, but in addition also necessary day-to-day tasks that present difficulties for those faced with disability. I am personally very pleased that the Marshall Liberal government is directing energy and attention towards fostering the wellbeing of the most vulnerable in our community.

As members here would no doubt know, I have personal experience in this space as my mother is legally blind. I have therefore not only witnessed the many challenges she has had to overcome in her personal life over the years but I have also been fortunate enough to appreciate how achievable it is to enjoy a very fulfilling and rewarding life with a disability when adequate support and assistance are provided.

I am aware of a number of success stories resulting from a rollout of the NDIS, where those with disabilities have been afforded the opportunity to achieve their unique goals. Entrepreneurs with disabilities, for example, have been provided with assistance to start their own businesses, whilst enhancing their skills through relevant work experience; respite has been accessed by carers, enabling them to pursue other endeavours; people have attained appropriate housing to suit their personal needs and live independently (or more independently, as the case may be); and, parents have received early intervention support for their children—all worthwhile and valuable outcomes.

One of the key characteristics of the NDIS is its flexible approach to the provision of benefits, creating tailored packages of assistance to each of its eligible participants. Customised plans are enabling individuals to develop and pursue long-term aspirations, with the opportunity to alter their arrangements as necessary through the course of their lives: they are in control. This pragmatic approach appears to be achieving real and effective results, and I trust the 15,000-plus South Australians who are already approved participants will experience similar benefits, if they are not already.

Under this bill, I note there is a requirement for our state government to devise a disability inclusion plan every four years, which will provide the framework for departments, statutory authorities and local councils to each formulate specific disability access and inclusion plans. I understand that the development of these DAIPs (as I will call them—disability access and inclusion plans) will be undertaken in consultation with people with disabilities, their families, carers, and advocates, as well as the peak bodies relevant to the situation, which is imperative in comprehensively identifying and remedying shortcomings in current and future operations.

The review of these plans every year, culminating in a statewide annual report detailing the progress of relevant entities in aligning with the principles promoted by the NDIS, is also vital for maintaining government accountability, and ultimately community confidence in this new revamped regime. This, of course, is in line with the Marshall Liberal government's resolve to both prioritise community engagement in the process of change and to enhance transparency in the conduct of its agencies and through the process of change.

There is no doubt that Australia's disability services have been in need of reform for many years, as evidenced by the submissions received in response to the federal government's public inquiry into a national disability long-term care and support scheme. The subsequent development and implementation of the NDIS is certainly a step in the right direction, and I look forward to seeing South Australia lead the way in terms of best practice for our disability sector through the passage of this bill.

I am mindful that there are a number of amendments to this bill yet to be moved by the Minister for Human Services, as well as some that the opposition has. I therefore look forward to further debate in due course on these proposals. However, I would like to go through the amendments very briefly. I think it is important to point out that the minister has met with Kelly Vincent, formerly a member of this place who was a key driver of a number of the amendments to this bill, and had a lengthy discussion, I understand, regarding the specific amendments. I understand there has now been broad agreement reached between the minister and Kelly Vincent with respect to the amendments to be moved.

There are a number of amendments, and they are based on Kelly Vincent's amendments, as I said. The first five amendments by the minister are based on Kelly Vincent's former amendments, and I will go through them very quickly. Amendment No. 1 from [Vincent-2] removes the parenthesis around the words 'including decisions involving risk'. I am informed that the intention here is to ensure that people having the dignity of risk is a well-understood way of giving people with disabilities the right to make choices. Removing those brackets is just to highlight that fact. The government will accept that amendment, which is incorporated in Human Services amendment No. 1.

Kelly Vincent (formerly the honourable) has also expressed her opinion on the second one, and we will also adopt this amendment, which puts the emphasis on the person with a disability having the choice to associate with whom they choose. This was considered an improvement to the existing wording by Kelly Vincent. The government accepts this amendment, and it will be incorporated into Human Services amendment No. 2.

The third amendment, Human Services amendment No. 3, is also based around [Vincent-2] and specifically considers child-centredness. The phrase includes 'the need for the child to be included in decisions about them'. The government accepts this amendment, which is incorporated, as I said, in Human Services amendment No. 3.

The next amendment is Human Services amendment No. 4. The intention of the original amendment by Kelly Vincent was to strengthen the input from children themselves. Rather than 'should be respected and considered in any decisions affecting the child, taking an approach that is developmentally appropriate' the wording will now become 'will be listened to, and they should be given appropriate opportunities to participate in decisions that affect them'. The government will accept this amendment, as I said.

The fifth amendment, also from [Vincent-2], is to bring the word 'developmental' into the clause. The government also accepts this amendment, which is incorporated as Human Services amendment No. 5. There are a number of other amendments, but I will not take the chamber's time in going through them now. They are somewhat more detailed than the ones I have outlined. No doubt the minister will give the government's position at the committee stage or in her summing-up of the debate.

I think this is a worthwhile bill and one that I expect will have broad support across the chamber. As I said, it is something that did not pass in the previous parliament, but the government has seen fit to pursue it because it is indeed worthwhile.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.E. Hanson.