Bills

Disability Inclusion Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 May 2018.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:20): I rise today in support of the Disability Inclusion Bill. Very briefly, the bill will establish a disability inclusion plan for the state and require all government and local government agencies to establish disability access and inclusion plans. I am very supportive of this and am heartened to see that principles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will be enshrined in law.

The bill also outlines that those working with people with a disability will need to undertake screening to ensure that they are appropriate. I understand part of the urgency for this bill to pass is to ensure that the deadline for a 30 June start date for these screenings can be met. Again, I am supportive of this. Some people with a disability can be amongst the most vulnerable in the community and it is imperative that appropriate people work with them to minimise the risk of abuse or exploitation.

In terms of the screenings, I understand that some people are required to apply for three separate screenings through DCSI: one for working with people with a disability, one for working with children and one for working with the elderly. The government should work towards a system whereby one clearance would cover an individual to work with all vulnerable people. I understand the three were separated to adopt the highest benchmarks; however, having the highest benchmark for all three should surely be possible and take a lot of pressure off DCSI.

Further to this, as the system is now a dynamic system which monitors information from other agencies in real time, I do not understand the need for screenings to have an expiry. If a person is deemed to be unsuitable to work with vulnerable people, they and their employer are notified immediately. This is a much better system and it does not make sense that a renewal is required as any matters which would deem a person ineligible would be flagged immediately. I raised this with the previous government and hope that the new government will give consideration to this.

The bill has the ability to establish a Community Visitor Scheme whereby visitors will visit and inspect facilities, advocate and promote the rights of individuals and refer issues of concern to the relevant bodies. I am also supportive of this measure and I believe that the more eyes there are watching out for vulnerable persons the better it is.

The Community Visitor Scheme is similar to a community guardian scheme which was piloted in 2011-12. The scheme matched volunteer community guardians with vulnerable persons who did not have anyone else in their lives who could act as a guardian on their behalf. A review of the scheme in 2013 recommended that the scheme be expanded; however, this was not something the former government adopted. I have spoken to the new Attorney-General about this and I understand she is considering the program.

With regard to the opposition's amendments to introduce a disability advocate and a 3 per cent threshold of people with a disability in the Public Service, I am concerned that the introduction of such a body is included in this bill. It does not seem to fit the scope of the bill, other than the fact that it relates to people with a disability. I do not have an issue with establishing a disability advocate and I am supportive of the idea; however, I am not convinced that this bill is the appropriate place for it.

The amendments do not provide for the advocate to have investigative powers and, instead, relies on state authorities preparing reports for the advocate upon request. I am not confident this would be the best model as I cannot see a full and frank report from state authorities being provided to the advocate, especially if there are major systemic issues.

I believe it would be best if the advocate had the power to investigate matters, much like the Ombudsman, and I would be eager to hear the opposition's response to this. With regard to the suggestion of a 3 per cent threshold of people with disability in the Public Service, I have raised privacy issues with the government. I understand that requiring people to disclose their disability would be a breach of privacy, and that this threshold would be based upon those who disclose voluntarily.

I have asked the government if this information is currently held for the Public Service, and if so, what the current proportion of people with a disability currently employed by the South Australian Public Service is, and I await their response. Given these comments and outstanding questions, I reserve my position on the amendments and look forward to discussing these matters further with both the government and the opposition.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:25): I rise to speak on the Disability Inclusion Bill 2018 and indicate from the start that SA-Best wholeheartedly supports this bill. As we know, this bill originated in the 53^rd parliament, yet was not completely dealt with by the time parliament was prorogued. With the introduction of the bill, the Marshall Liberal government has fulfilled its pre-election commitment to do so in this parliament.

This bill aims to promote human rights and improve the inclusion of South Australians with disability in the community through the implementation of disability inclusion plans across the whole of government. The bill is required as the sector fully transitions to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Prior to the introduction of the NDIS, each state was responsible for funding providers to deliver vital services to people with disability. For that purpose, the Disability Services Act 1993 was enacted.

However, when the NDIS is fully rolled out, there will no longer be a need for the Disability Services Act. Once the NDIS is fully realised, the South Australian government will no longer directly fund services for people with a disability. Full transition to the NDIS started in July 2016 and is expected to be completed by 2020. At its capacity, 475,000 people will be NDIS participants. South Australia was one of the first jurisdictions in the country to sign up to the NDIS and, while it will also be one of the first jurisdictions to reach full scheme implementation, it certainly has not been a smooth transition.

Indeed, the transition period has presented significant challenges. Services like the Cora Barclay Centre have been forced to merge with CanDo4Kids because of gaps in NDIS funding. It is deeply disappointing that the renowned Cora Barclay Centre, which has operated as a crucial service provider for deaf and hearing impaired children for more than 70 years, is being forced to merge because of a lack of adequate funding since the commencement of the NDIS. The Cora Barclay Centre is unique, working with children from all over South Australia from birth to adulthood and providing vital holistic support, including early intervention, student services, peer support programs, audiology, speech pathology and child and family counselling.

More could, and should, have been done by both the current government and the former Labor government to assist the centre in avoiding the necessitated merger. This week, about 60 Cora Barclay members unanimously approved the merger at its AGM. I note that, while the merger is voluntary and while the minister has told us that no services will be lost, it is still a sad by-product of the NDIS that the legacy of Cora Barclay is lost.

There is concern among other disability service sectors that jobs are at risk because of funding gaps under the NDIS. The Mental Health Coalition of South Australia has recently stated that care providers have already begun giving notice of layoffs at the end of the financial year. It claims that this is due to the federal government withdrawing funding that is currently delivered for mentoring programs and respite services for patients and carers. It comes amid a restructure that is to support similar programs under the NDIS—something that has now been delayed to mid next year. This is not acceptable and the government should assist with funding shortfalls to ensure continuity of services and secure at-risk jobs.

Recently, the federal Minister for Social Services, the Hon. Dan Tehan, had to admit that the way people accessed the NDIS was being reviewed as part of ongoing work. This follows the NDIA accidentally publishing for all to see the beginnings of a plan to remove people with level two autism, considered to require substantial support, from automatic entry to the NDIS. Minister Tehan was forced to write to organisations that support people with autism advising them that there has been no change to the current levels of access to the NDIS for people with autism. The minister has said that no changes would be made unless they were informed by research, evidence and extensive consultation with stakeholders and the community. I intend to hold him to that.

There have been many other issues associated with the rollout of the NDIS. The Senate inquiry into transitional arrangements for the NDIS reported in February that it received evidence of delays in accessing the scheme as well as delays in plan approvals, plan activations and access to services. As a result of the delays in the intake of participants against bilateral estimates with states and territories, there were over 34,500 people in September 2017 who should have already been participants who were here to access the scheme. These delays are unacceptable.

In addition, the inquiry heard that the plan review process is too lengthy and is potentially jeopardising participants' ability to access services. There have also been boundary issues and funding disputes which can lead to reduced access or no access to services for both NDIS participants and people with a disability not eligible for the NDIS. State, territory and federal governments must work together to resolve these boundary issues and funding disputes. Current NDIS participation rates for people with a disability from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds are significantly below what has been anticipated, and an NDIS CALD strategy must be implemented and published as a matter of priority.

The NDIS was designed with the intention to provide better outcomes, more choice and greater control and participation for those accessing the scheme. We all want it to succeed and SA-Best urges the state, territory and federal governments to work collaboratively to address the issues raised and move forward with the scheme that truly delivers on its stated claims for people with a disability. Returning to the bill, there will continue to be joint responsibility between the federal and state governments for particular aspects of the national disability services framework, including worker screening.

The bill provides for the establishment of a worker screening scheme through regulations. It will be required, given the current worker screening requirements contained in the Disability Services Act 1993 will no longer have any force once the NDIS is fully implemented. SA-Best supports the requirement that state government departments, statutory bodies and local councils will be required to develop and implement their own disability inclusion plans which will be reviewed every four years and a report produced each year as to their progress.

The state government has introduced a series of amendments which address many of the concerns former Dignity Party MLC, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, had raised with the bill, and we are broadly supportive of these amendments. The opposition has also introduced amendments to the bill, which we are continuing to work through, and will have more to say about them during the committee stage of the bill. We have witnessed how the political landscape and discourse can be elevated with a diverse and inclusive membership.

The Hon. Kelly Vincent made an outstanding contribution to this place during her time here, and Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John is making a difference in the often volatile environment of the Senate. He has raised many issues with access in the people's house, with many issues still to be worked through for him even though he assumed office in November last year. As he noted, Parliament House in Canberra is spending billions on a security upgrade to keep the wrong people out and we wait and see how much they are prepared to spend to get the right people in. There is much work to be done across government and we look forward to the changes that will flow with the passage of this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.