HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-06-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Disability Inclusion Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (16:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In bringing the bill to this house, I note that it has come to us from the other place and it has come to us from the other place in a format that we find acceptable. We thank the crossbench for its support. What I would like to do is to tease out some of the main purposes of this bill, but what I would also like to do is to highlight for the attention of the house some of the debate, especially during committee, that was had in the other place, because it seems very clear to me that the opposition has been fast and loose with some of its amendments, whether or not the community actually supports some of the amendments that the Labor Party was seeking to put.

Potentially, I want to put on record the opportunity for the member for Hurtle Vale to be able to clarify some of the remarks made by her colleague the Hon. Clare Scriven in the other place in relation to the supposed support that the Labor Party believes that the NGO sector has provided in relation to its amendments, but I will do that in due course.

What we are essentially introducing into this house, and has been passed by the Legislative Council, is a Disability Inclusion Bill. It is a bill that will stimulate state authorities to make better provision for South Australians living with a disability. This is an extremely important bill to help further change the culture and improve the lives of people living with a disability and for state government to become an exemplar, to become a leader, in how it makes services and decisions to ensure that there is a greater level of accessibility and understanding of the needs of persons living with a disability.

There is a common misconception in the community that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is going to provide everything that a person with a disability needs. In fact, only last night I was informed that only 10 per cent of those living with a disability will actually be covered by the NDIS. So, while the NDIS is a fantastic solution for those potentially at the more severe end of the scale to be able to be covered, there is a whole body of work that needs to be done to help improve the lives of those who are not only inside that cohort but very especially those outside of that cohort. That is why the Disability Inclusion Bill is important.

When the NDIS problems are sorted and every one who is eligible is on the scheme, it will give people with disability access to the supports and therapies they need. South Australia has been one of the lead jurisdictions in relation to implementation of the NDIS, along with New South Wales, and we are seeing significant teething issues. As a member of a state government that has put $723 million of state government money on the table, handed over to the federal government, we will certainly be watching with interest to ensure that the needs of those who live with a disability and are engaged in the NDIS have their issues dealt with, and ensure that the scheme works for them.

However, the NDIS will not make the local bus stop accessible for people with physical disabilities, or the local health service responsive to the needs of people with intellectual disabilities, or the corrections system able to make accommodation for people with a brain injury or a psychosocial disability. This is the work that the state government needs to do, and this is the work that the Disability Inclusion Bill seeks to help mandate, to ensure that the state government does its bit in helping us move forward in making our society more inclusive and better able to be there for all people.

This bill seeks to make sure that all government departments, statutory authorities and local councils make provisions for people with disabilities who use their services. More broadly, this is a legitimate role of government. Government is supposed to be there for all people in a way that other parts of our society potentially are not. The government is here to provide services to all people. When we have been discussing other parts of the Liberal Party's legislative agenda, we see that we are attempting to be here for the broadest possible cross-section of the community. The Disability Inclusion Bill also helps us to be able to move further along that path.

This bill is about people of all ages with disability; it is not restricted to those under 65, like the NDIS. The bill also covers all of the older South Australians who acquire disability later in life. This is a large issue, given that South Australia has an ageing population. We have a more aged population than much of the rest of the country and, therefore, this is a bill that will help to address those needs in a way that the NDIS has not and will not.

It is extremely important, especially in regional South Australia, where we understand that the age profile is even older compared with much of metropolitan South Australia. Again, a bill like this is extremely important, especially for regional councils to be encouraged to open their eyes and look at what things they can do.

Over 20 per cent of the population has a disability, and this varies from the very mild to the most acute and severe cases. Again, governments of all tiers and all levels need to be doing everything they can to be as inclusive as possible. This bill requires all state authorities to prepare a disability access and inclusion plan every four years and to report progress on their plan every year. This is the central mechanism by which this bill seeks to make the way that government deals with people who are living with a disability proactive.

This is the integral part of the bill. It is about cultural change. It is about trying to make departments look at ways to say yes to being proactive and finding ways that they can improve how they do things. In fact, some of the amendments that have been put on the table by other parties have sought to turn what is supposed to be a positive cultural change into a punitive system which undermines the very reason that we want to go down this path in the first place. Instead of trying to beat somebody over the head and tell them what they have to do, we should provide a pathway and encourage them to look at what they can do.

What is most interesting about this is that these disability access and inclusion plans will force statutory authorities, government departments and local councils to look at what are the quick wins and the easy things we can accommodate. It is not always about tackling the most difficult parts or the most expensive parts of us moving down this reform process; it can be about finding those easy, quick wins.

Because departments or authorities have never asked themselves if they can do things a different way, the conversation within statutory authorities, departments and councils will be started by the provision of these disability access and inclusion plans. This will allow us to actually deliver those quick wins and help to start a cultural change that is positive and positively reinforcing, one that is virtuous as opposed to one that is adversarial and punitive. One would suggest that adversarial and punitive is, perhaps, the modus operandi of a former 16-year administration.

The bill makes provision for regulations for a worker screening regime, a community visitor scheme and other NDIS transition matters. In relation to the worker screening regime, this is extremely important; in fact, it is the reason why we need to get the bill through this house as soon as possible. As one of the lead jurisdictions that is looking to transition its services to the NDIS by 1 July, under a federal system, we need to ensure that new regulations are put in place for worker screening.

This will ensure that people with a disability are not taken advantage of, that they are essentially provided with the same protections that we provide to children and other vulnerable classes, and ensure that people living with a disability are not abused or mistreated as a result of less stringent government checks. This part of it is important, and it is why we as a new government have sought to ensure that this bill is a huge priority and that it passes this place well in enough time for the 1 July transitional start date.

I note that in the other house the Minister for Human Services, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, a fantastic hardworking colleague of ours who has a deep and abiding interest and passion for this area, tabled a number of amendments in light of discussions she had with members of parliament and former members of parliament, specifically former member the Hon. Kelly Vincent MLC.

Essentially, amendments were agreed to in the other house to improve the wording of various clauses in line with amendments proposed last year by the Hon. Kelly Vincent and also to add functions and powers to the chief executive by use of the words 'monitoring the compliance of state authorities and making recommendations about compliance to the minister'. This is about adding accountability to state authorities.

At this point, it would be remiss of me not to say, for those in the house who are interested, that this goes further than the previous bill that was put on the table during the last session of the South Australian parliament. What I find most interesting is that a bill was put to parliament last year that was not progressed through all stages of the South Australian parliament so that it could become law, necessitating our bringing this back with some haste. In fact, the measures that we seek to improve and impose here, which the Legislative Council has agreed to, help to strengthen that.

This approach is very much in line with trying to create positive reinforcement, a positive, virtuous cultural change that will make our society and our government departments more inclusive. We want the bill to encourage state authorities in the goal of improving access and inclusion. To go further risks developing a mindset of compliance, with agencies meeting the requirements set but not changing their culture regarding the philosophy and practice of disability inclusion.

It is for this reason that we plan for the regulations to allow state authorities until at least the end of 2019 to draw up their first access and inclusion plan after consultation with people with disabilities and the involvement and training of their employees. This is one of those ventures where the journey taken is as important, or more important, than the destination. This is about cultural change that will endure, not about filling in the required paperwork.

The Labor Party has put some amendments in the other place in relation to a proposed disability advocate, which would create a new statutory officer with responsibilities that would potentially overlap with the roles of other statutory bodies such as the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, the Public Advocate, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Equal Opportunity Commissioner. There has been no analysis or consultation proposal to create this new statutory office of the disability advocate.

If there is to be a disability advocate, it does not need to be a separate statutory officer. For instance, this is a role that would fit very well within the function of the Office of the Public Advocate. Again, I think this is one of those times when the new government has a very different rule about creating increased bureaucracy as opposed to using current structures to achieve the same end, potentially with less red tape. The disability advocate, as originally announced, was only going to advocate on behalf of NDIS participants. There was discussion in the public sphere during the election campaign around an NDIS disability advocate.

This is something that both parties agreed to. What is interesting is that we committed to agree to a Labor Party proposal, yet, upon coming to government, it seems that this was more of a last-minute idea rather than something entrenched in the way they want to do things. The reason we know that is that there was no budget attached and, if there is no money for this position, then does this position really exist?

We have committed that we will implement this and that we will, in having an NDIS-focused disability advocate, help those people who need to transition to the NDIS and ensure it is done as smoothly as possible and that participants achieve good outcomes in planning and service delivery. At this point, I would like to discuss some of the committee stage in the other place, which did actually tease out the fact that there are potentially a few problems with just coming up with an idea without proper consultation.

Things cost money, and we need to ensure that in this constrained budget environment we use it to do the most good. I quote from Hansard in the Legislative Council, where our dear colleague the Hon. Michelle Lensink was questioned by the mover of the disability advocate amendments, the Hon. Clare Scriven.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, can I interrupt for a moment. I am just letting you know that you should not really reflect verbatim on debates in the other place. You can talk in general terms about the debate but, rather than quote, just generalise your comments.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I will speak in generalisations. It was suggested in the other place, generally, that the Labor Party had consulted with a broad number of organisations. I am given to understand that these organisations include the Brain Injury Network of South Australia, Uniting Communities, Barkuma, Anglicare, Disability Living, Minda Incorporated, Autism SA, Purple Orange, Novita, SCOSA, Orana, Bedford and Inclusive Sport.

It goes on to say, and the Labor Party and their representatives have gone on to say, that these are people who support the disability advocate proposal. I invite members opposite in their second reading contributions to potentially clarify those remarks and suggest to this house whether or not they stand by those remarks, or whether or not there needs to be a little bit of backtracking to understand what consultation really looks like.

It is fair to say that when you send out an email that is not consultation. Consultation is when the correspondence comes back the other way and then you listen to what people have to say. A layman's understanding of consultation would be a two-way conversation, rather than just a one-way conversation. The second part of the two-way conversation is that when you get the response back the idea is that those people say, 'Yes, we agree with your proposal.' That is where members opposite could suggest that they otherwise have that support.

The Labor Party have put on the record that all those organisations have been consulted and support this proposal, and it is in Hansard. It would behove members of the Labor Party in the lower house to use their second reading contributions to clarify which organisations they believe actually support this proposal or whether this was just an email that went out. Also, when you propose ideas such as this, it is normally reasonable to figure out how much things are going to cost. Again, this is where the new government has done some quick work to understand that about $600,000 per annum is what it would cost to institute an office of the disability advocate.

Interestingly, it seems that members of the Labor Party have not heard those figures before, potentially because they did not do any work to understand what the cost would have been. Again, I think that is a little bit slack. In this constrained environment, we need to make sure that, having handed over $723 million to the federal government, our money is used where it can do the most good.

That is why the original intent of the Disability Inclusion Bill is so important—because it utilises existing agencies and existing departments to find ways that we make advances and gains in a way that is not punitive, in a way that does not require a big stick and in a way that helps change the culture of how we include people in South Australia. It is why we will continue to oppose—as did the entire crossbench—those who seek to advance this uncosted, very poorly thought out and very lackadaisical proposal.

In summing up, I commend this bill to the house. I look forward to its speedy travel through the house so that we can ensure that on 1 July we have the necessary and appropriate measures in place to further transition to the NDIS and also ensure that we get on with the work of helping South Australian municipal instrumentalities to get on with the good work we would like them to do.

In relation to councils, and I suppose this is where the bill sits in a broader framework, it is all well and good for state governments to impose new requirements upon themselves in the development of disability access and inclusion plans, but to do so on behalf of local government may seem to some to be more red tape. What we have said, and what we will be doing, is that we will work with local government to help provide them with all the support they need to have this conversation to ensure that it is not just a bureaucratic exercise.

It is about having a conversation with their communities and doing everything we can to make sure that this proposal is not about cost, red tape and bureaucracy but about changing culture. We look forward to working with local government in that broader context, especially as we seek to help them become more efficient in the way they provide services to their local community. With those words, I commend the bill to the house and look forward to its speedy passage through this place. I table a copy of the explanation of clauses.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:35): I rise to speak on the Disability Inclusion Bill 2018 and welcome and acknowledge its introduction in another place in our parliament and the support of members there for it to progress here today.

The bill is part of the government's recognition of and respect for the needs and aspirations of those who have a disability and those who care for them. Clearly, the assumption of responsibility to assist in this regard is by government, as it should be, and the families who live with a member with a disability and, of course, understand everything from the fear and concern for their child, if born with a disability, to the daunting task of providing for the care and cost of that child and the exhaustion in respect of the relentless support required frequently way past the age of majority of that child.

The responsibility that rests with so many of our families in South Australia has been huge, and some, of course, have done it with little other support. Let me express the circumstances of one family. Every one of us, I am sure, has people within their families, within their friendship groups and within their constituency, for whom every day this is a challenge, but let me mention the Everett family.

Perc and Betty Everett have now both passed. Perc was a returned veteran and provided service to us. Betty, his wife, was born with physical disabilities. They married and all their married life they lived in Seaton in a trust home. They had two daughters: Colleen, who grew up, married, had three children of her own but, sadly, shortly thereafter died of cancer; and their second daughter, Suzanne, who was born with an intellectual disability and during her working life worked via Bedford Industries. She is now my age and in the care of Orana, who provide for her residential care and support.

Betty and my grandmother met and stayed friends. They had known each other from Port Adelaide days, and her brother is buried next to my grandmother's father at West Terrace Cemetery. Let's move forward another 40 years or so. Suzanne is living in care; I am her legal guardian. Each of the three grandchildren has the opportunity to have occupancy of their grandmother's home, and one resides there. Each of those children has some challenges in respect of their own capacities, but I am proud to say that each is working either in employment in their workplace and/or has the care of children and themselves and that each is doing as well as they can.

The real heroes of these types of families are not always just Orana or Bedford Industries and the people who provide services for them, or the scant contribution that I make in relation to assistance to this family, but people like Cynthia Caruso, who lives in the same street as Betty and Perc Everett did. They were friends, and she has kept an eye on these children and grandchildren and will continue to do so, notwithstanding that she has an extensive family of her own to care for with her own contribution in that regard. She is a decent South Australian to make that contribution.

All of us need to appreciate in this house the need for us to ensure that, as best we can, we provide for those who have a disability, whether that is from birth, or through a circumstance that has been inflicted on them, usually by some adverse event in their life, or sickness. I am proud to say that the bill promotes the rights and inclusion of people living with disability in South Australia. South Australia and New South Wales have been the trial states under the scheme, which was really the brainchild of the Australian Productivity Commission many years ago.

I remember meeting with a member of the Productivity Commission who himself had adult children with severe disabilities, in consideration of what should be taken into account. I raised with them at the time my concern that there was no reference to, or provision for, the housing needs of those living with a disability. Clearly, that was going to be a very expensive extra addition to what I think was estimated at the time would be about a $60 billion a year exercise in providing the level of other services, let alone housing services.

Nevertheless, this bill establishes now a high-level framework to ensure that a coordinated and consistent planning approach is taken across state and local government that provides for greater equality and access to services and facilities. As members know, the NDIS, after New South Wales and South Australia, is now being rolled out across the country. It is to be administered by the National Disability Insurance Agency.

The scheme itself is a new way of providing support for Australians. The commonwealth government should be commended for their leadership in this area, but, as has been outlined by the lead speaker, it is not without complication, especially in the expected time within which this will be undertaken and implemented. Ultimately, it will provide about 460,000 Australians under the age of 65 years with a permanent and significant disability the reasonable and necessary support they need to live as best they can in their lifetime.

As an insurance scheme, the NDIS takes a lifetime approach, investing in people with disability early to improve their outcomes later in life. The NDIS gives all Australians peace of mind that they will be able to get the support they need when they need it most. It is to support people with disability to build skills and capability so that they can participate in the community and gain employment where able. This bill, following the implementation of the NDIS, will fill the gap where the Disability Services Act 1993 becomes redundant. That act was previously required to regulate services and provide funding mechanisms but, through the NDIS, this will no longer be needed.

One of the key components of the bill is requiring the state government to develop a state disability inclusion plan, which will be reviewed once every four years and requires annual reports in its operation. The bill also requires all state departments, statutory authorities and local councils to develop disability access inclusion plans. The plans must align with the six outcomes of the National Disability Strategy (NDS) and adhere to those guidelines and regulations.

Whilst many departments and a few local councils already have a plan, the bill prescribes that agencies produce an annual report from which a statewide summary will be presented to the minister. Plans can be updated at any time and must, at the very least, be reviewed and a report submitted once every four years.

Essentially, this is about a new way of providing a service for those who need it, deserve it and want it. It is not all about sentencing, but I want to draw members' attention to the fact that from time to time people do exploit circumstances where they are required to set certain standards for those who are vulnerable as a result of having a disability, so the bill will provide a number of penalties for those who do the wrong thing.

I think most members would appreciate that people who work in the disability area usually have a level of human compassion that is beyond the realm of most of us. They are people who are dedicated to providing the best they can for those in need in this area, but from time to time some employers, service providers and others do the wrong thing. Firstly, this bill will provide a continuation that any person working with a person living with a disability, who does not hold a current screening check, will face a maximum fine of $20,000 for a first or second offence and $50,000 or imprisonment for one year for a third or subsequent offence.

This is a powerful provision and ensures that only those people appropriate to be working with those with disabilities have the appropriate power to do so. It is important to note here also that there is a huge skills shortage—and other speakers, I am sure, will refer to this—in relation to where some of the services are to be provided and, speaking geographically in South Australia, in some of our regional areas. We do not want people to walk away from an opportunity to work in this area and to be upskilled to be able to do that, but please be alert to the obligations in relation to working with vulnerable persons legislation.

Furthermore, any person who has been deemed to be a prohibited person who is found working with a person living with a disability will face a maximum of a $50,000 fine or one year imprisonment. An employer who employs or continues to employ a prohibited person will face a maximum penalty—that is for a natural person—of a $50,000 fine or one year imprisonment or, for a body corporate, a maximum of a $120,000 fine.

I would hope these offences will never need to be prosecuted, but I suspect they may from time to time. I ask members to be aware of them and ensure that they support those who are providing services to abide by them and to certainly insist that there be compliance in relation to the hopefully rare occasions that these provisions will be required.

As the Hon. Michelle Lensink MLC, the proponent and essentially sponsor of this bill, has outlined in another place, the bill seeks to clarify South Australia's role in supporting people with a disability. It sets the state government's future direction, focused on rights and inclusion, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the National Disability Strategy.

It has been a pleasure to see this bill reinvigorated from 2017. There is more to living a fulfilling life than simply being able to access disability services and support. The bill, with this parliament, will confirm that people with disability also have the right to be included in all aspects of the community on an equal basis to other citizens. The disability inclusion plan will help to achieve this.

Inclusion covers ordinary things that might otherwise be taken for granted, like driving, going shopping, working, attending concerts or any other activity. This bill will give a very clear focus. It places at the forefront of the parliament that embracing inclusion and removing barriers is the key. This means that where previously broader community access and mainstream services and opportunities were not available, through this legislation dedicated planning and action are occurring to ensure attitudinal and physical barriers are being broken down.

In relation to the consultation on the bill, which as has been pointed out was scant, there was a consultation which initially occurred through the YourSAy site in 2017. I have identified previously my concern about simply placing something on a site and expecting that people out there in the real world are sitting around waiting to be consulted on matters and have any idea what is actually happening with it. But in any event, 67 people, at least, through the community meetings came to hear more information about the bill, asked questions and provided feedback, and the Disability Policy Unit received 19 written submissions from stakeholders.

Having read those submissions, I note that it is great to see varying comments from a broad range of groups, including councils, departments, disability service groups and otherwise. I note particularly the submission of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of SA & NT, which concluded their submission with the following information:

When the most recent data indicates that nearly 20% of the population lives with some form of disability, it is a social and economic imperative that government at all levels demonstrate and 'road test' ways to support inclusive and accessible communities and workplaces;

Diversity in the workforce makes good business sense;

Access to sustainable employment is critical to people living with disabilities and to facilitate this, some changes to the recruitment processes may be necessary;

Reflecting the composition of its community is a reasonable and even desirable requirement of government and can normalise the participation of people with disabilities in the workforce and therefore cultural shift in the way that people with disabilities are seen (and heard) in the general community.

The Office of the Public Advocate, which is part of the Attorney-General's Department, plays a huge role in the lives of people living with disadvantage, and it has also commented on the bill. The office particularly noted in its submission:

We welcome the recognition of the need to improve inclusion of people with disability in all areas of life rather than just in respect of specialist disability services. The National Disability Insurance Scheme will cover reasonable and necessary supports for people with a permanent disability. The object is broad enough to recognise the need to improve inclusion of people with disability in the domains of education, transport, health and employment among other things.

They also consider that the role of the state in this bill is vitally important by stating:

We consider this to be a very important object of the bill during transition to the NDIS where there needs to be clear delineation of roles of the state government with respect to support for persons with disabilities. This will assist in avoiding gaps in support, particularly for people with high and complex needs or vulnerabilities such as young people with disability leaving the care system.

Finally on the submissions, I note that the Local Government Authority expressed concerns regarding adequate resources to produce the disability access and inclusion plan. In response to this DCSI has stated that it will provide templates and additional resources to local councils to assist in accessing the Disability Policy Unit for knowledge and information. Providing such support to these groups is integral to ensure the plans properly come to fruition and cover all aspects, as required by the legislation.

Broadly, as detailed in the engagement summary report, the feedback has largely been positive. People can be nervous about a new scheme and we want to make sure they are supported through the introduction and establishment of this scheme. Aligning the bill with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the National Disability Strategy was widely acknowledged. Essentially, the great aspect of this bill is to have a set of rights-based principles which elevate issues faced by people with disabilities to state legislation.

I want to thank David Caudrey for making himself available to my office and to other members of the government to provide a comprehensive briefing on this bill. David has also detailed that further work will be undertaken regionally. This is important, given the service provision that will be occurring in regions for NDIS, ensuring regional state authorities are properly briefed on their requirements under the act.

I acknowledge the significant work of representatives—like you, sir—who have the responsibility of trying to identify where there are gaps in service provision in regional areas and where the general community and families and friends will be called upon, as they have been in the past, to continue to provide support.

Finally, I note the amendments that were attempted in the Legislative Council and filed by the Hon. Clare Scriven MLC. The amendments are surprising given that this bill is an exact mirror image of the 2017 Labor bill but for the date at the top. I accept that she is a new member and that she might want to put her stamp on something, but it does seem a little curious that that should have been raised. Nevertheless, I commend the bill and welcome its receipt in this house, and I look forward to seeing its passage. It will be a joyous occasion.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (16:53): I would like to make a contribution to the second reading of the Disability Inclusion Bill on behalf of the opposition in this place. The opposition, when in government, ensured that South Australia was one of the first states to sign up to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is something our state can be very proud of.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hurtle Vale, are you the lead speaker?

Ms COOK: Sorry, I am; I indicate that I am the lead speaker. Thank you for the reminder. Through the NDIS, the amount spent on the disability sector in South Australia is expected to double, with funding to the sector to equate to around $1.5 billion every year. Of this, South Australia is expected to commit some $723 million every year.

I understand that, through this transition, it is expected that the number of people with disability in our community who will access support is expected to double; that is 32,000 South Australians receiving support once the NDIS is fully rolled out. What a great achievement this will be for some of our state's most vulnerable people. It includes some 9,000 people who will receive support through the NDIS for the very first time.

The NDIS equates to better care, choice, control and participation in everyday life for people living with a disability. It is focused on ensuring that every community member can participate in every aspect of everyday life and in our economy. As we transition, we recognise that South Australian legislation must also be updated, and that is why we are today considering the Disability Inclusion Bill 2018. The bill better articulates and better clarifies this state's ongoing role in providing support and assistance for people with disability as we transition to the commonwealth NDIS.

The bill before us broadly focuses on rights and inclusion for people with a disability. This in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the National Disability Strategy. The bill legislates to ensure the issues faced by people living with disability in South Australia are integrated into policy and programs that impact them. The bill has a strong focus on disability inclusion planning.

The requirement that a state disability inclusion plan be developed every four years is an important element to this piece of legislation. The requirement that state government departments, statutory bodies and local councils are required to develop and implement their own disability access and inclusion plans every four years is a welcome element of the bill.

The opposition recognises that disability access and inclusion plans are essential to achieving key policy priorities for people with disability in South Australia. These plans will seek to address the barriers and specify the action required to ensure that people with disability can contribute to and participate more fully in their communities. It is important that there is provision to make regulations for a community visitor scheme, particularly in light of the review into how such a scheme may be impacted at a federal level under the NDIS. We support the inclusion of part 7 for the establishment of a scheme for a community visitor or visitors should the need arise.

The opposition moved two separate amendments to this bill in the other place. The first amendment sought to establish an independent disability advocate to safeguard the rights of people with a disability and ensure South Australians get the support they are entitled to. The second amendment sought to increase the number of state government employees with a disability, currently sitting at around 1.4 per cent of the state public sector workforce that identifies having a disability. This amendment sought to have the government commit to increase the proportion of state public sector employees with a disability to just 3 per cent.

We know that in South Australia more than one in five people, which is around 350,000, or 21 per cent, report having a disability. We know that financial security and employment have been identified as key policy priorities by people with disability in South Australia, so it is imperative that meaningful employment opportunities that provide security for people with disability are available in the South Australian public sector.

The two amendments reinforce the opposition's vision for policy around disability that promotes inclusiveness, capacity building and the opportunity for people with disability to access meaningful employment to support their future. It is unfortunate that the amendments have not been supported.

It comes at a time when the disability community finds itself concerned about the impact of the implementation of the NDIS in a time frame that is currently uncertain and at a time when we are making them now wait for a much-needed advocate. In preparing the amendments, I consulted with the sector and consumers in the disability community. As a result, we were keen to see the support for the calls for an advocate to assist in giving the people in the disability community a voice.

As many in this place would know, the Hon. Kelly Vincent is a strong supporter of the position of disability advocate, and her advice was keenly sought and followed throughout the drafting of the amendments to the government bill. When the human services minister introduced the Disability Inclusion Bill 2018 last month, we seized that opportunity as a way to try to maximise the benefit of that bill early in this term.

We also remember that the Liberal Party in opposition committed to the position of advocate prior to the state election. Throughout the speech yesterday, and following the indication of the crossbench of its support for the principle of an advocate, we look forward to working with the crossbench and with the government to deliver an advocate in as timely a space as possible. I hope to see the support of the crossbench and the government as we work towards a bipartisan solution in this space.

The previous minister for disabilities, now the shadow minister for other portfolios, consulted widely prior to the 17 March election with many non-government organisations and consumers about not just the position of advocate but also the policies for the disability community moving forward. Also, along with the position of advocate as a commitment moving into the election, we had a commitment of the target of a 3 per cent Public Service level for employees with a disability. Both these things are vitally important and we are completely committed to them.

Of course, we are disappointed that we are not yet ready to pass those amendments, but we are comfortable with the outcome, and we look forward to working with the government and with the crossbench in a way to get this as soon as possible. I am not sure at this stage, obviously, how long we will be waiting for that and for the NDIS to be fully rolled out. It is incumbent on the government to be clear to the sector and to the broader community just exactly how it plans to establish the disability advocate and the time line for doing this.

We understand that the Minister for Human Services in the other place has actually done a budget bid for this, so we look forward to seeing the details. We must also remember that, coming to the end of June, many state-funded services are now coming to a close. There is uncertainty moving forward as to how these services will be delivered with the fact that the NDIS full rollout is not happening on 1 July. We call on the government to provide some assurance that people in need will not be ignored and that they will not be left without the much-needed supports and services they require.

I thank the house for enabling me to put these remarks on the record, and I indicate that the Labor opposition will support the passage of this bill.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (17:03): I rise today also to speak on the Disability Inclusion Bill. I was very, very proud to introduce this legislation last year on behalf of our former Labor government and, whilst I was very disappointed that we were not able to progress it before the parliament was prorogued, I am very pleased that it is being dealt with now.

In that regard, I want to note and thank a couple of people for their efforts in the original drafting of the bill, and particularly in that regard I want to thank David Caudrey and also Natalie Wade to whom much of the drafting of the previous bill and, indeed, this bill can be attributed. I am very pleased that this bill is being dealt with now, and I thank and pay tribute to the efforts of the Hon. Michelle Lensink in the other place and also the member for Hurtle Vale and members of the crossbench in that regard.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is the biggest reform since Medicare. It represents huge opportunity, but it is also complex and comes with some challenges, as does any reform of this size. As other members have mentioned, as a former state government we invested an unprecedented $723 million into the rollout of the scheme. South Australia was proudly one of the first states to sign up to the scheme as we, the previous Labor government, saw how an individual, person-centred approach had the potential to improve the lives of those living with disability and their families, enabling them to choose the supports and services that would mean they could actively and equally participate in every aspect of community life, employment and the economy.

As the previous minister for disabilities, I saw how the NDIS had begun to change many people's lives for the better as they have choice and control over the services and supports they receive and are helped to achieve their goals and aspirations. However, I also saw the challenges being faced by some people with disability and the sector as we grapple with such a huge change in the way disability services are delivered.

After talking with community members, and bringing together stakeholders to talk honestly and openly about their experiences with the NDIS, I went to Canberra to advocate for South Australians with disability, their families and service providers, and I told the federal minister what is needed to make this rollout effective and efficient. Our party made sure that people with disability and the sector had a voice on what was important to them and what would ensure a successful transition to the NDIS.

One issue that our former South Australian government secured a win on, with and for people with disability, was a commitment to moving back to face-to-face planning. We found that many people were wrongly having their NDIS assessments conducted over the telephone, a practice that simply does not work when you are planning for the future with and for someone with complex needs. To respond to these needs, it is crucial that their planning meetings occur with them in their home so that they are properly heard and that there is a deep understanding developed of them, their environment and what they articulate is needed to improve their day-to-day life.

A big change that comes with the NDIS is that the state government, which has always been responsible for disability services and has directly funded these services, moved this responsibility to the federal government as the NDIS rolls out across our state. It is a transition process that, as a state, we must continually advocate to be well funded and well resourced so that no-one falls through the cracks. In this regard, it is absolutely crucial that we pay particular attention to how transition to the NDIS progresses for those in our community experiencing mental health issues.

South Australians with mental illness must have continuity of service. They must have care and service that are flexible and that recognise changes in their mental health at any given time. They must not be abandoned by this government. Gaps in funding and service must be filled. State Labor took to the election a mental health service guarantee to ensure that any South Australian ineligible for the NDIS or ineligible for all their services under the NDIS would continue to receive their current service.

The Liberal government must step up and make the same guarantee before we see some of our most vulnerable South Australians who need support missing out and before we see jobs lost in the mental health sector and workers who are incredibly compassionate and experienced at supporting and empowering people with mental illness move away from this work and from the many trusted relationships they have with those whom they currently support.

As we move away from providing all services through our state system, the Disability Services Act 1993, which outlines the current role of the state government in the provision of disability services, will not be needed once transition to the NDIS has been completed. This Disability Inclusion Bill represents a shift away from legislation focused on the delivery of services to a framework that outlines the state's role in supporting and empowering people with disability beyond transition. Fundamentally, and rightly, it focuses on how all South Australians should be included in our community and in our economy.

The bill represents a call to action to state government departments, local councils and statutory authorities to focus on inclusion, requiring them to develop disability access and inclusion plans every four years. These plans will ensure there is a focus on making services and programs accessible to everyone. This will cover building plans, events, how consultation processes are run and so much more.

Everything these organisations do needs to be as accessible and as inclusive as possible if we are to be a state that ensures every community member can fully participate. I very much look forward on the passing of this bill to seeing councils across our state working with our community to develop those plans and bring those plans to life.

It is hoped that by leading the way in accessibility and inclusivity, the private sector will follow suit. We want all members of our community to be able to fully participate and have the opportunity to reach their full potential. One initiative of our previous government that focused on inclusion and accessibility was funding for Changing Places facilities, including Marveloos, portable toilets that met Changing Places specifications.

Some people have to plan their day around when and how they can access a toilet. Spending a day out is not always an option for all South Australians because of the lack of appropriate toilet and changing facilities being available. The Marveloo has been developed as a portable accessible restroom that meets Changing Places specifications. Changing Places toilets and the Marveloos enable people with disability to participate in society with more independence and dignity. By making Marveloos available for festivals and community events, more South Australians will be able to enjoy all that our state has to offer.

People with disabilities should never be left behind. They need to be empowered to have the adjustments they identify that they need to be able to access and enjoy our state on an equal basis with others. I hope that those opposite continue with this plan for Changing Places facilities and Marveloos, and I dearly hope that the disability access and inclusion plans that result from this bill will include such initiatives.

The bill also rightly ensures that people who volunteer or work with people with disability are appropriately screened. It is the responsibility of us all to ensure that anyone who is more vulnerable for any reason is protected and never put in harm's way. I am pleased to commend the bill to the house, and I thank all who have worked on its progress.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (17:12): I rise to support the Disability Inclusion Bill 2018, and I commend the Minister for Human Services and the Attorney-General for advancing this bill. The bill is the fulfilment of a pre-election commitment to reintroduce this legislation within the first 100 days. We are delivering real change, as promised, getting on with the job and work of helping all South Australians and service providers. The Marshall Liberal government is committed to laws to bring about tangible measures that recognise and enshrine rights and responsibilities for people with a disability. The bill demonstrates that we care deeply about all members of the South Australian community.

The Disability Inclusion Bill aims to promote human rights and improve inclusion in the community for South Australians with a disability. It is an important piece of legislation in the context of significant change taking place in the disability sector at the present time. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is transforming the way disability support is funded and delivered across Australia. The NDIS presents a major reform and heralds a new era in provision of services and support for people with a disability, with the emphasis on individual choice and control. South Australia was one of the first jurisdictions to sign up to the NDIS, and will also be one of the first jurisdictions to reach full scheme implementation.

In the context of these major reforms, the Disability Inclusion Bill seeks to clarify South Australia's role in supporting people with a disability. The bill sets the state government's future direction, focused on rights and inclusion, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the National Disability Strategy.

The bill is so important to our South Australian community because people with a disability have the same human rights as other members of the community, and the state and the community have a responsibility to ensure that people with disabilities can fully exercise their rights so that every person has every chance of reaching their full potential and feeling included.

As a community representative and as a new Liberal state government, we are committed to assist people with disabilities to achieve their full potential as equal citizens. We will promote improved access to mainstream supports and services, provide for the screening of persons who want to work and volunteer with people with a disability and prohibit those who pose an unacceptable risk to people with a disability from working or volunteering with them. We will remove barriers to full participation in our community.

Our commitment is for every member to realise and feel included. We believe government should work to remove barriers to equal opportunities wherever they present themselves. We believe South Australia needs sustainable and innovative solutions to provide better outcomes for vulnerable members in our community. I am dedicated to listening to and helping people in my electorate, and I have had people raise many issues related to disabilities. I want to acknowledge some of these examples to highlight challenges in my electorate for which I will advocate for real change in the future.

Let me share some of the challenges raised. A King resident asked for this government to investigate the wait times for disability parking permits when discharged from hospital. My resident asked if there could be consideration of temporary permits. This gentleman said it took over two weeks to issue a disability permit, which held up his recovery and held him up from getting back to work. He could not make and get to appointments until he had his permit. He raised this issue with me so that I could explore how to improve this process for others in the future. I am so proud of the caring community I live in where many people look out for others.

Many King residents raised with me the need for more support for children with disabilities in classrooms so that every child has every chance of reaching their full potential. One such discussion was with a mother who had spent a year advocating for her primary school-age child to be put in special education. She shared with me that her child's first year of primary school was a nightmare because the school staff accused her daughter of being violent and so she was sent home on a regular basis. Then she told me that the past two years, when her daughter was in a special ed. class with a small supported class of four to six, had made significant and important differences to her and her daughter had thrived and was happy, and this is where she needed to be to get the education suited to her developmental needs.

Then, last year, this mother was informed by the previous Labor-led education department that her daughter no longer met the criteria for the special class and that she would have to return to mainstream. Now, a couple of terms later into this year, her child is not coping, has reverted to some of the previous disruptive behaviours and has now been suspended from school. This change has impacted their family life, the classroom, her developmental experience, and also has disrupted the experience of learning for her peers in a new mainstream class. This is heartbreaking for the mother and a huge step backwards for her daughter's confidence and her ongoing development.

A number of parents told me that they believe the education department has a duty of care to provide children with a suitable education that meets their developmental needs, and I heard many stories of where this has not been happening under the leadership of the previous government. I will investigate every one of these challenges on behalf of my constituents and thank them for bringing their stories to me and letting me learn from their experience and their situation so I can become more aware of the importance of the support services they need. I am so proud to be part of a government that is listening and acting across all 47 electorates in South Australia.

Other issues raised by King residents who are participants in the NDIS included the speed of decision-making in the new process, helping people obtain what services best suit them, finding the right providers for services and identifying who can help people navigate the new system. On this, parents who had more than one child with a disability said that they were able to access much better support for the second child, as they had learnt lessons the hard way about the services available, and about budgets and how to navigate the system in the process of helping their first child. This often meant that they also learnt what their first child missed out on during these important developmental years.

Another issue that was raised with me, on which I sought help, was about delays and gaps in funding. This is difficult for families, who are committed to and can see the benefits of existing support, to deal with. When this delay in money comes about, it can also be difficult for the service providers, especially if they have built up relationships with the family. These issues will help us build better support in the future, now that we know about them.

Lastly, a concern raised by a King resident was the difficulty and cost of accessing appropriate rental housing if the housing has to cater for specific needs of individuals with disabilities. I note all of these issues raised and will certainly be looking to ensure that there are solutions in the future and better services. I encourage community groups and individuals to continue to provide me with examples of lived experiences so that I can best advocate for and represent their needs.

I commend the member for Reynell for her previous comments in regard to the Changing Places facilities, which I also advocated for as a councillor for the City of Tea Tree Gully. As outlined in my maiden speech, I will be a very persistent advocate for the safety of South Australians. I am so pleased that one of the key components of the bill, part 6, is the establishment of an updated disability screening scheme, which will apply to service providers operating under the NDIS as per the national Quality and Safeguarding Framework.

The details of what this entails will be outlined in the regulations, which will be dependent on the commonwealth and the NDIA. However, our state government has indicated that they will not accept any standard below that prescribed for people working with children. Under the bill, any person working with a person living with disability who does not hold a current screening check will face a maximum fine of $20,000 for first or second offences and $50,000 or one year imprisonment for third or subsequent offences.

Furthermore, any person who has been deemed to be a prohibited person—part 6, section 21—and who is found working with a person living with a disability will face a maximum fine of $50,000 or one year imprisonment. An employer who employs or continues to employ a prohibited person will face a $50,000 fine or one year imprisonment, or a maximum $120,000 fine. I am so proud to be part of this caring Liberal government, which is steadfast in making change to protect the most vulnerable people in our community, especially children.

In summary, it is expected that the number of people receiving disability support in South Australia will grow from around 17,000 to more than 32,000 people. Funding for disability support will grow from $760 million to $1.5 billion and the state government will contribute $723 million annually. The disability workforce will also double from 6,000 to 12,000 FTEs. This presents a lot of opportunity for better support for South Australians, for new and diverse businesses and for more jobs for South Australians.

We are a caring government that wishes to enable people with a disability to access their community services and achieve better education, service provision and employment opportunities. It is vital that those people with a disability, not just advisory groups, are involved from the very beginning. It is great that we have seen so much involvement to date in disability inclusion and access plans and I will advocate for this to continue.

The Disability Inclusion Bill 2018 promotes the rights and inclusion of all people of all ages living with a disability in South Australia. I commend the bill to members and commend the Hon. Ms Lensink, the Minister for Human Services, for the work she has done to prepare this bill and to advocate on behalf of all South Australians.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (17:24): I rise today to indicate my support for the Disability Inclusion Bill 2018. Fundamentally, this important bill aims to promote human rights and improve inclusion in the community for South Australians with a disability. This is my first time speaking on the issue of disability in this chamber and I note, for obvious reasons, the importance of this issue to me. I hope that I can take a couple of moments to make some high-level comments with regard to disability generally.

Disability—and I want to put on record my personal aversion to the word, although my aversion may well be due to connotation, rather than the word itself—is an issue that is often misunderstood, a word frequently misconstrued and a descriptor for a group of people as diverse in ability as we are in our view on how best to address the issue.

I would like to acknowledge that in the past others in this house and in the other place have talked with reference to my adherence to, and embodiment of, the social model of disability, a model that acknowledges that it is often society that creates barriers for people with a disability succeeding, not disability itself. While I am happy to confirm that this model to a large degree accurately outlines my views on disability generally, I acknowledge that there are other models, models that others support just as passionately.

In regard to the overall picture of disability, I want to make one point. I am sure that I will contribute in a much greater fashion to this high-level debate into the future, but it is very clear to me that in general people with a disability want to be treated no differently from anybody else in society. We simply want to be presented with an equal opportunity to others and are happy to work hard to take advantage of those opportunities presented.

It must also be noted that it is very difficult to accurately determine the true level of disability, both in terms of broad stats or within agencies, sporting clubs or other community groups. Not all disabilities are visible. Not all disabilities are known and not every person with a disability seeks to classify themselves as having such.

I also wish to acknowledge the contribution made to this debate by a previous member of the other place, Kelly Vincent. While I have not spent a large amount of time with Kelly, I respect the work that she has undertaken, and I respect the work that she continues to undertake and the contribution that I am certain she will make to the future of our state.

I want to mention the history of disability services in South Australia. Prior to the introduction of the NDIS, services were provided by DCSI and its predecessors under the Disability Services Act 1993. I was lucky enough to be one of those people who received a range of those services. In fact, I was provided with a number of arms under the limbs scheme—words I am sure probably have not been said in this house before. I am very, very thankful for the opportunity that I was given to receive such things.

Many other people I grew up with who obviously had a disability were provided with other similar supports, whether it be mobility limbs, prosthetic supports or any other services. Delivery of those services, as a state, in general I think was very positive over a long period of time, although, as I am sure everybody is aware, disability is not something that is black and white. Every disability is different. Every person with a disability is different and the needs of every person with a disability are different. Not everybody receiving those services from service providers had the same level of positive experiences perhaps that I had. This was fundamentally one of the key drivers behind the introduction of the NDIS here in Australia.

The introduction of the NDIS was obviously a very clear and substantial change to the approach of disability service provision in Australia and within state jurisdictions. It was fundamentally about empowering people with a disability to give them the right to choose their own supports and services that they sought and saw best to be delivered to help them achieve their own goals in society.

The change that came into place is not unsubstantial both in terms of the service provision aspect and for people with a disability. There were also the added complexities of dealing with heavy unexpected demand in terms of the number of people seeking to access the NDIS and also the substantial change to service providers in terms of their model and business plan.

In terms of the significant change for people with a disability, it was very clear, as I said, that everybody with a disability is different. Everybody, in terms of the services and supports they need, is generally very different, and it is very hard to build a system to accurately and positively help every person with a disability without first asking what that person themselves as an individual wishes to access and wishes support for.

That fundamental change cannot be underestimated in terms of what it means to people with a disability and the positivity those people turned towards when the change was introduced. The level of expectation of people with a disability was of course quite high when the change was introduced. The ability to choose one's services and one's provider, and what one wished to have access to, was a substantial change from the previous arrangements and certainly heightened expectations and, I am sure, in some way drove the increase in demand. That is not necessarily a negative, but it is something that government obviously needs to respond to in an appropriate way.

The transition for service providers has also been quite difficult in relation to the substantial shift in funding arrangements. Previously, most service providers submitted to government a request for block funding that was done on an annual or biannual basis. They were given an amount of money and then they provided those services to the people with a disability who accessed those services. Fundamentally, from a business structure or back office perspective, it is quite simple that a single block funding grant involves only one invoice, only one instance of processing of an invoice and only one application.

The shift in the NDIS to then having so many people individually coming to and invoicing a service provider, and the considerable change in how service providers have to report their service delivery—on a one-on-one basis, the per-unit cost for their service provision—is a substantial change that I think was underestimated by many within the industry. It is certainly something that I think the previous state government did not act quickly enough on. I believe that more could have been done, as there was in other states, with respect to preparing service delivery organisations for the change, which was coming for a long time here in South Australia, noting that we were one of the first states to sign up to the NDIS and will be one of the first states to see a full rollout of the NDIS as well.

Having said that, however, I do believe that the move to the NDIS is a substantially positive change for people with a disability in South Australia, I believe that it is a substantially positive change for people with a disability in Australia more generally and I believe that the issues, particularly from the service providers' perspective, will be worked out in the entirety of time. I hope that we maintain a good level of competition across service provision in South Australia; that is incredibly important.

The basis of the NDIS is a good strong market where people are able to source the services they require, as I have said—the supports and services that help them best achieve their goals in life. Having a truly strong market of service providers in South Australia is incredibly important, and I think this state government—and this applies to other state governments around Australia in terms of their states—will need to make sure that we are vigilant about and supportive of keeping a truly strong market of service providers in our state.

Turning to the bill, the Disability Inclusion Bill, this change is obviously on the back of the substantial change, given the introduction of the NDIS here in South Australia. It is significant, and the disability sector has not seen change to this extent for some time; in fact, I do not think there has ever been a more substantial change in the disability service provision and disability sector in South Australia. Being in this transition, there are certain things that must be taken into account now that the previously state-administered service provision is being shifted and will from now on be delivered by the commonwealth government.

Obviously, with the creation of the NDIS and the NDIA to cover that service provision and that area, and being the first jurisdiction to sign up and the first jurisdiction to see full implementation, we are one of the first jurisdictions that has to consider the ramifications of what that means from a legislative perspective in terms of removing legislation that provided funding for the delivery of services here in South Australia as well as seeking to understand what we need to do in terms of changing legislation around other areas of disability in our state.

That is exactly what this bill does: it clarifies the role that South Australia has moving forward in supporting people with a disability. This clarity is something that is very important and something that people with a disability in South Australia have wanted for a very long time as well. As I have said, the responsibility and the transition have brought on this change in legislation, and people with a disability, from a broader perspective—as I am sure we all support—have a right to be included in all other aspects of the community on an equal basis, not just in regard to service provision by any means.

Inclusion covers ordinary things that may otherwise be taken for granted, and we acknowledge that these are things like the public transport network, attendance at community events, and mainstream services that otherwise, without significant planning, would not be accessible to people with a disability. I note that these factors that prevent inclusion and prevent opportunity are not always just physical.

Many of the barriers presented are often attitudinal and easily preventable as well. The member for Schubert spoke earlier about the real intent of this bill, citing that what we are really trying to achieve here is positive cultural change, a change in the mindset of what people with disability contribute to our society and how we can best make sure they are able to contribute into the future. That is what we are really trying to achieve here.

In terms of what the bill achieves from a more practical standpoint, it will require that a state disability inclusion plan be delivered every four years. State government departments, statutory authorities and local councils will need to develop and implement disability access and inclusion plans (DAIPs), which will sit under the overarching framework included in the state disability inclusion plan. The access and inclusion plans will be there to address and identify barriers, as I have mentioned, specifically to ensure that people with a disability can equally contribute and participate more fully in their communities.

There is a need to involve families of people with a disability, their carers, advocates and peak bodies in the planning of these plans—I hate to say the words 'planning of these plans', but I am sure everyone understands exactly what is involved—the pertinent thing being that inclusion, in terms of going out and talking and engaging with people, is incredibly important in these areas. As I said in my opening remarks, every person with a disability is different and the view of every person with a disability on how to address the issue is also quite divergent, so the more we include people in our engagement around these issues the better.

Another substantial thing that this legislation does is shift the legislative basis for worker screenings to this new bill, the Disability Inclusion Bill, away from the Disability Services Act 1993, where it previously sat. The disability sector and many other sectors have to deal with this issue of pre-screening people working in these arrangements. Although it is not common, it does often happen that people take advantage of the vulnerable. We saw examples of that under the previous government, and it is certainly something that we are not looking to repeat anytime soon.

We are very keen to ensure these arrangements keep happening, and keep happening as quickly as possible in terms of making sure that they are adequate, that the screenings are conducted in a timely manner and that, where possible, we try to mirror the working with children check scheme to ensure that all vulnerable people and those working with vulnerable people are subject to the same safeguarding framework and national quality scheme. The bill also puts forward an opportunity for the Community Visitor Scheme, something that I think is also very important. The ability to make sure that our organisations and the places that look after people with a disability are appropriately checked at times is also something that needs to happen.

Lastly and most importantly, in many ways the bill enables the drafting of general regulations to fill the gaps that emerge as the implementation of the NDIS continues. Something we must also note is that the true extent, the true impact and the true change that the NDIS has and will have in the future for people with a disability, service providers and organisations still has a level of the unknown in terms of what it means for our service providers and for people with a disability more generally.

The transition and the introduction, as we know and as have been said, have been so substantial that what we once knew as the landscape is now very complex and difficult to understand at times and very difficult to navigate, which is why I certainly welcome this government's actions to introduce the NDIS participant advocate. The complex nature of the NDIS system has certainly leant to the creation of this advocate to assist where possible those who are struggling to appropriately access the NDIS scheme. At the end of the day, one thing that I think every person in this house is committed to is ensuring that people with disability access those services that will help them in the future. We certainly do not want process to get in the way of that access by any stretch of the imagination.

Lastly, I want to thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for introducing this bill to the other place. I believe the haste in which we have had to move this through to ensure the screening provisions are appropriately managed is disappointing, but certainly I think everybody welcomes what this bill seeks to achieve. The reasons why it is there are needed.

I will say again: every person with a disability is different, and every person with a disability deserves to be treated with respect and as an equal. For these reasons, I wholeheartedly support the bill and commend it to the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (17:43): May I say at the outset that I am humbled and honoured to follow in my remarks in support of this bill the member for Colton, who is a member of this house and a member of our South Australian community of great distinction and achievement. He exemplifies much that all of us would endeavour to do in our lifetime. I have listened carefully to the remarks of the member for Colton as I have followed the remarks of other members of this place.

In making my remarks in support of the bill, I want chiefly to highlight the change that is in the process of taking place within our national and state legislative environments. As is clear and understood, the introduction of the NDIS is a major change in terms of the funding and delivery of services to people with disabilities across our country. South Australia proudly signed up early to the new structure. That is something that in South Australia we can be proud of in this place, and we continue to follow the process of transition. It is a major implementation process. It is not without its difficulties, but transitioning we are, and that is very much about the delivery and funding side of service provision.

The NDIS tells us that the process is well underway. We are told that, for quarter 3 of 2017-18, the South Australian statistics as at 31 March indicate that 16,221 people from South Australia are taking up NDIS services and 8,823 people in South Australia are receiving support for the first time. There is growth in the order of 10 per cent in the number of participants through this quarter. So there is a transition still very much underway, but there are a significant number of people now receiving services via the NDIS.

The NDIS further tells us that 179 children between the ages of zero and six are receiving support through early childhood early intervention. In dollar terms, an amount of $834 million has been committed to participant supports to date. In illustrating the delivery and funding side that the NDIS is now in the process of picking up, the NDIS emphasises further that, so far as young people are concerned—that is, children aged from zero to 14—a large majority of families and carers of participants in that age range are feeling confident or very confident supporting their child's development. That is encouraging.

Similarly, the NDIS tells us that a large majority of participants have rated their satisfaction with the planning processes as being good or very good. I will come back in my remarks to the experience of some of my constituents, in particular, in the perhaps fraught circumstance of the care of people with a disability in the older age ranges, but it is encouraging to note that the NDIS is reporting those encouraging figures in relation to children aged zero to 14. That is the funding and delivery side in which we are experiencing a transition under the new NDIS arrangements.

The bill before the house this evening, in facilitating the transition from and leading to the repeal of the Disability Services Act 1993, is very much an opportunity for the state to move from being the primary funder of these services to being the source and driver of systems and structures that will foster a culture of both inclusivity and possibility for all South Australians. That is very much what this legislation is all about, that is, the long-term vision we all share to bring about an inclusive society and one in which our culture is driven not solely around processes of funding and delivery but, rather, around being able to ensure that we all have full and complete access to being the best that we can be in all our day-to-day endeavours.

While highlighting that aspect of this change, I observe that this is something that we in South Australia have a long and proud history of doing in so many areas. We in South Australia are proud of having fostered a culture of openness and inclusivity over the course of the better part of the last century. South Australia has so often led the way in terms of increasing liberalisation, increasing recognition of diversity, and looking for ways to further and foster our culture of promoting and looking for inclusivity, understanding and possibility for all people across our society.

This is the sort of shift and the sort of legislation that in South Australia we might say comes naturally to us. In willingly handing over the funding and delivery side to the commonwealth, I look forward, in this place, to increasingly participating in this space with a view to the ongoing fostering of a leading culture of inclusivity across the board.

We make this change at this time in circumstances where we now have an opportunity to set in place structures for public bodies to think about in a structured way, and to publish and review and be accountable for the ways in which they go about ensuring that people, including people with disabilities, are able fully to live their lives, including doing all the things that many of us take very much for granted but which for some people cannot be so easily taken for granted due to their personal circumstances.

Those things include many of the activities that have been adverted to by others already, such as the day-to-day transport arrangements, catching buses, attending events, going to shops or sport, getting out and about socialising, participating in educational activities, and so on. It is about access to broader community activities and services across the board and it sometimes requires a level of dedicated and proactive activity by public authorities in order to ensure that inclusion is enhanced and that barriers, where they exist, either naturally or by omission or by the failure to proactively act, can be removed.

Quite appropriately, the bill before the house provides primarily for the preparation and publication of plans, chief amongst those being the state disability inclusion plan, which will be the overarching and guiding document for state disability inclusion activities. The bill also provides a requirement for each of the state government departments, each statutory authority and each of the local councils to develop and implement a disability access and inclusion plan every four years. For those who are affected by or engaged with any and each of those bodies, a list of the bodies will be prescribed and then will be found in regulations once the legislation is passed.

The state disability inclusion plan will be the overarching framework and the disability access and inclusion plans will provide those agencies with an opportunity to detail the particular ways in which they will go about improving access to their services and programs. I emphasise that this is about endeavouring, in an organised way, to bring about a culture of steady improvement. It is to be contrasted with elements in the approach that we see in the amendments moved by the opposition.

Importantly, and I do not raise this to score points in this regard, I want to particularly emphasise that what we are about is ensuring that everybody in this state is able to get on board with the incremental improvement of culture in this state. The amendments that have been proposed by the opposition—

Mr MULLIGHAN: Point of order: I am loath to rise on a point of order, particularly when the member for Heysen is speaking, given he is such a good contributor to this chamber, but he does debate amendments that are not yet being considered by the house. When he continues his remarks after the dinner break, I ask him to confine his remarks to the bill. He will have an opportunity to debate the amendments when they are before us.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Lee. The member for Heysen will contain his remarks to the intent of the bill.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the short time remaining, rather than reflect upon the amendments as such, I want to emphasise, immediately before the break, that this is about a positive and incremental change to culture. It ought not be about penalties and compliance. I will continue by remarks after the break.

Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:30.

Mr TEAGUE: This legislation is very much about the development and the furthering of a culture of inclusivity, and that is the kind of thing that we here in South Australia have a long and proud heritage of doing extraordinarily well. So, to the extent that the transfer and restructure of the delivery and funding side has been transferred to the commonwealth, which presents this opportunity for us as a state government to shift the focus to culture, that opportunity is before us and that is what the legislation is addressing.

I have indicated that the primary purpose of the legislation is to provide for the plans. The legislation also does a number of supplementary things, including providing for a national Quality and Safeguarding Framework, that is, to provide a means to ensure that the delivery process of the NDIS is rolled out as effectively as it possibly can be. I referred to and adverted to some of the statistics that have been provided to us by the NDIS, particularly in relation to the delivery and the high level of satisfaction that has been reported by those in receipt of NDIS services for children in the zero to 14 age range.

I wish to refer to some of the particularly difficult circumstances that are faced by families who are struggling to provide the very best of care to an adult—a grown son or daughter cared for by parents—and the particular challenges that are associated with that. There are families throughout the state who are in that very situation, and the tremendous dedication shown by parents to continue to provide a framework for adult children in particular is something that I have been very much aware of in the course of travelling throughout my electorate.

What has been raised with me is something that I hope we might all be conscious of in this transition: that families and parents have worked very hard, and often over decades, to reinforce and to build the competency, confidence and capacity of those in their care within the family scenario. They have had provision by the state under the old scheme and they are now being required to transition into the NDIS environment. It is reported to me that that often involves having to reconstruct or revisit from scratch the circumstances that that particular person may face in order to justify the benefits that may flow.

As others have referred to, I think it is very important that the NDIS assessment process is done in a very thorough way, personally and very much with an awareness of the particular circumstances of not just the person with a disability in receipt of those services but also the broader family context and those who are endeavouring to do all they can to maximise the opportunities that an adult in their care faces.

In concluding my remarks, I again wish to draw attention to the stark contrast between what this legislation is setting out to do in requiring public bodies to set out, in a formal way, a framework for how they are going to go about maximising opportunities for all of us in our society. It is not legislation focused on compliance and penalty. We should never approach this space driven by an overriding sense of compliance and penalty. Rather, we should look to create an environment and a culture within this state that maximise opportunities across the board for all of us to live full lives. With those words, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (19:35): I also rise to speak in support of the Disability Inclusion Bill, which comes from the other place and was introduced by the Minister for Human Services. Hopefully, with the support of this house—which we have heard members from both sides speak of—we will seek to introduce a bill that will promote the full inclusion of people with a disability in the community. Furthermore, the bill aims to:

assist people with disability to achieve their full potential as equal citizens;

promote improved access to mainstream supports and services by people with disability;

provide for the screening of persons who want to work or volunteer with people with disability;

prohibit those who pose an unacceptable risk to people with disability from working or volunteering with them;

provide for a community visitor scheme; and

provide for responsibilities of the state, during and following the transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

This Disability Inclusion Bill has a whole-of-government approach. This means everyone in state government and includes things like public transport, education, justice, health care, housing, community events and public spaces, all of which are elements the state government touches on and is seeking to address in this bill. The Disability Inclusion Bill aims to strengthen the current requirements for ensuring services and facilities are accessible and responsive to people with disability.

This new focus is driven by the National Disability Strategy as well as Australia's international obligations to those suffering from a disability, which are included in, but not limited to, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is transforming the way that disability support is funded and delivered across Australia. We are currently in a period of transition from the state administrative system to a national scheme delivered by the commonwealth government.

The NDIS represents a major reform and heralds a new era in the provision of services and supports for people with disability, with an emphasis on individual choice and control. As others have touched on, South Australia was one of the first jurisdictions to sign up to the NDIS and will also be one of the first jurisdictions to reach full scheme implementation by mid year.

With the rollout of the NDIS in South Australia, it is expected that people receiving disability support will grow from around 17,000 to more than 32,000 people, that funding for disability support will grow from $760 million to $1.5 billion and that the disability workforce will double, from 6,000 to 12,000 full-time equivalents. Referring back to the latest NDIS quarterly report as at 31 March, it further reinforces that there has been growth in this area over and above those 32,000 people.

In South Australia now, 8,800 people are receiving support for the first time, and 16,000 people are benefiting from the NDIS. I will refer back to these figures a bit later and touch on them further. The final part before I proceed is that $834 million has been committed to participate in support to date. So funding is coming, and you can see that this transition is occurring, hence the reason why we need to address it so urgently. It has come back as the Marshall Liberal team's plan for the first 100 days.

The emphasis on individual choice and control presents challenges for participants who live with a disability. Some of these challenges include how to obtain what they need in their own plan. They need to find the right providers and also identify who can help them navigate the system. I have had some experience with these transitionary programs from my time on council in terms of aged care. Originally, the aged-care provision was done through the Home and Community Care program, which was a block funding program. This moved to the Commonwealth Home Support Programme.

This is the same sort of methodology that gives the individual choice. However, sometimes for certain segments of the community, this choice presents challenges. These participants in the program need to be guided and helped through this program so that they can transition, because it is confronting sometimes to actually try to identify who can help you navigate the system and also to find those right providers.

While it is a challenge for the participants, it is also a challenge for the providers. At present, in this sector in South Australia there are close to 1,500 registered NDIS providers, with approximately one-third being sole traders. They are also facing challenges with the introduction of the NDIS insofar as there is no more block funding. As providers of the service, they now are competing effectively against other providers for the people with disability to use their services, because they are now operating in a commercial market.

It is also true that there is low pricing that has been set by the NDIA, so they are constrained a bit by the price they charge. This presents challenges from the staffing point of view, as to how they staff it, but also with the increase in providers I touched on before, looking at growing from 17,000 up to 32,000, more staff will need to come online. I think I spoke before about the figure of 6,000 FTE moving up to 12,000.

Again, touching on the NDIS quarterly report up to 31 March, in terms of the providers there has been growth from 1,500, which I referred to previously, to a newer figure of 1,695—so close to 1,700 providers, an 11 per cent increase. These providers are providing a good service, and 93 per cent of the families or carers of children, especially, aged between zero and 14 feel confident or very confident supporting their child's development. Also, 77 per cent of those families or carers of participants aged between zero and 14 feel that the NDIS has improved their ability to help them and their child develop and learn. It is important that the transition occurs smoothly because the benefits are certainly there.

The bill seeks to address that. It does so by considering and putting in place a wideranging set of principles to be observed in not only the operation of this act but also the administration and enforcement of that. I would just like to highlight some of those that were addressed. It is by no means all, but they are some that really do resonate.

People with disability have the same fundamental human rights and responsibilities and the same right to autonomy as other members of the community. That speaks to the inclusion that this bill seeks to encourage. People with disability have the right to participate in and contribute to social development and economic life and should be supported to develop and enhance their ability to do so. People with disability have the right to live free from neglect, abuse and exploitation. At the same time as introducing this bill, the government is also introducing other bills to protect children and vulnerable adults, so this bill works in unison with that.

Another point is that the crucial role of families, carers and other significant persons in the lives of people with disability, and the importance of preserving relationships with families, carers and other significant persons is to be acknowledged and also respected. The Attorney-General spoke about some of the sacrifices that families and carers make. They are very compassionate and dedicated people, who are providing support in sometimes quite demanding and exhaustive circumstances. I would also like to acknowledge the crucial role that families play in assisting people with disability.

Introducing this bill will achieve an inclusive society as the long-term vision, but it will also require consistent efforts. The bill aims to support this by ensuring that appropriate planning takes place in a coordinated manner, both across the state and also with other agencies, including local governments. In fact, one of the key components of the bill is requiring that the state government develops a state disability inclusion plan, which will be developed every four years.

This requirement will provide this state's disability inclusion plan with the overarching framework that other agencies can base theirs upon because, while there is also a requirement for state governments to introduce this plan, it is also a requirement for state government departments, statutory authorities and local councils to develop and implement what is known as a disability access and inclusion plan every four years. These plans must align with the six outcomes of the National Disability Strategy. They will detail how agencies will improve access to their services and programs and specify the action required to ensure that people with disability can participate more fully in their communities.

As the member for Schubert stated, in a way these plans are meant to be proactive. They are not trying to be based on compliance but, rather, to implement a cultural change to improve and make positive change that is enduring, and to make agencies look at their current plans to see if it can be done a different way to hopefully see some quick wins as well now that this becomes part of their focus in terms of how they go about things.

Another key component of the bill is the establishment of an updated disability screening scheme, which will apply to service providers. Where possible, the bill mirrors the new working with children check scheme that is being established through the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016. The idea here is to maintain a standard that is, at the very least, equivalent to that which is prescribed for people working with children so that they are protected. We have seen that the Liberal government is focused on the protection of children in other legislative bills we have discussed so far this week.

Under this bill, any person working with a person living with a disability who does not hold a current screening check will face a maximum fine of $20,000 for the first or second offence and a $50,000 fine or imprisonment for one year for a third and subsequent offence. Furthermore, any person who has been deemed to be a prohibited person, who is found working with a person living with a disability, will face a maximum $50,000 fine or one year imprisonment. An employer who employs, or continues to employ, a prohibited person will also face a maximum $50,000 fine or one year imprisonment for a natural person, or should it be a body corporate, a maximum $120,000 fine.

Hopefully, this level of enforcement is not required and it will ensure that people working with disabilities are appropriate to deal in that field, but it is also there for the protection of others. As the member for Heysen stated, it is not about compliance and penalty. It is actually trying to enact a cultural change to organisations to provide inclusion for all people.

At the same time, this bill also includes the ability to make regulations for a community visitor scheme. As I have discussed previously, at the moment we are transitioning to the NDIS and currently there is a South Australian disability Community Visitor Scheme that operates under the Disability Services Act 1993. This scheme will continue to operate during the transition to the NDIS.

In summary, I conclude by saying that the Disability Inclusion Bill aims to improve inclusion in the community for South Australians with disability. It is an important piece of legislation in the context of significant change that is currently taking place in the disability sector. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (19:50): I rise to address the Disability Inclusion Bill. The bill has six principal objectives. The first is to promote the full inclusion in the community of people with disabilities. The second is to assist people with a disability to achieve their full potential as equal citizens with equal rights. The third is to promote improved access to mainstream supports and services by people with disability. The fourth is to provide for the screening of persons who want to work or volunteer with people with a disability and to prohibit those who pose an unacceptable risk to people with disability from working or volunteering with them.

There is also the objective to provide for a community visitor scheme. I also mention the objective to provide for and to outline the responsibilities of the state during and following the transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which, as you know, Mr Speaker, is underway. There are certain other purposes which I will not reflect on now but which are also important and can, of course, be gleaned from the text of the bill. As the minister has made clear in the other place, the bill seeks to clarify South Australia's role in supporting people with a disability and sets out our future direction.

That direction is clearly focused on the rights and needs of disabled South Australians and on Australia's international obligations in that respect. One of the essential components of the bill is an obligation cast on the state government to develop a state disability inclusion plan. Importantly, the bill also casts an obligation on state government departments and councils to develop disability access and inclusion plans. I observe that several departments and some councils have adopted disability access and inclusion plans already and we recognise the work these departments and councils have performed. It may be necessary for those plans to be revised to ensure they are consistent with the legislation now before us.

The bill also contemplates the establishment of an updated disability screening scheme. It is intended that the scheme will apply to service providers operating under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I observe that there are certain offences in the bill. I do not wish to dwell on them as there has already been sufficient commentary provided in this house as to the nature of those offences. Certain other offences apply to prohibited persons, and I refer to part 6 and clause 21 of the bill in that respect.

The bill also has a provision for the establishment of a community visitor scheme, as I mentioned. I have in mind part 7 of the bill. In my first remarks in this place, I reflected that I am committed to being an advocate for the rights and needs of disabled people. As you know, my stepmother has multiple sclerosis. It is a hard disease. She uses a wheelchair and from time to time she loses her sight. You will know, Mr Speaker, that multiple sclerosis is a disease which, in part, attacks the nervous system. I also reflect on the fact that my uncle is a disability care coordinator. I am familiar with some of his work. It is significant and important work.

I will briefly address certain local disability concerns raised with me. The township of Mount Barker, and other townships in the Hills and Fleurieu growth corridors, are growing rapidly. In my electorate, the growth is a direct consequence of the previous government's decision to rezone large areas of farming land for a housing development. It was a shameful decision made despite the objections of my community.

Those objections were very clearly expressed to the government of the day. In Kavel, we are dealing with the consequences of that decision. One consequence is the pressure placed on parking in the main streets of many towns. I mention Mount Barker in particular. Similar pressures are faced by the residents of Nairne, Woodside and of course Hahndorf, which comes under particular and unique pressure from tourist traffic.

I acknowledge that the local council, the Mount Barker District Council, has been working to improve disability parking. The availability of disabled parking in the township was raised with me by Mr John Cornaggia, the past president of the Blind Sporting Council of South Australia, who lives within Kavel, and who I met when I was doorknocking during the course of the most recent state election campaign.

John's family discovered that he had glaucoma when he was four. When doctors operated on his right eye it haemorrhaged, and he suffered blindness in that eye. At the age of 16, John was successful in obtaining his driver's licence in consequence of the sight which he continued to enjoy in his left eye. He drove predominantly on the farm. Later, I understand, John's eyesight in the eye that remained deteriorated further and he was informed by a leading eye specialist that nothing more could be done to restore his sight.

I thank John for his advocacy and for raising the matter of disabled parking with me. It was a pleasure to meet and speak with him. His life is an extraordinary one, and he has given substantial service to those with disabilities in our state and in Kavel. He deserves better recognition than speaking on this bill on this occasion naturally allows. However, his story, as I have briefly shared it with you, is one example that motivates me to be a strong representative for the rights and needs of those with a disability who live in our communities.

I commend the minister in the other place and the Attorney-General in the house for advancing this legislation. I commend the bill to the house and hope that it will pass speedily.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (19:56): I am very pleased to rise today in support of the Disability Inclusion Bill. I also would like, as many others have, to commend the Minister for Human Services in the other place for her efforts and advocacy in this very important area.

Ultimately, what this bill seeks to do is to promote the rights and improve inclusion of those in our community with a disability. In everything that we do here in this place it is important to ensure that everyone in our community is included and that people are not left behind. It is about equality of opportunity and empowering people to reach their full potential. What people decide to do with an opportunity is a matter for them, but it is essential that we do everything we can whenever we can to ensure that those opportunities exist. This is indeed the essence of what this bill does.

This is all happening in the context of a great deal of change occurring in the disability sector at the moment, as the model for providing support is being fundamentally altered. This shift is leading to a transition from a state-administered system to a national scheme, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is being delivered by the federal government. The national scheme brings about a significant change in that funding is provided to the individual through a care package to then be used to purchase services from a selection of providers, personalising that support and providing much greater choice and much greater control over the support that is provided to individuals and, ultimately, over their own lives.

Crucially, this change is also coming about with a dramatic increase in the total quantum and also the range of disability services that is available. It is expected that the number of people in South Australia receiving disability support will grow from around 17,000 to 32,000. Funding for disability support will grow from $760 million to $1.5 billion, $723 million of which will be contributed by the state government. The disability workforce will double, from 6,000 to 12,000 full-time equivalents.

While there have been some teething issues in rolling out such a large program, it is undoubtedly a fact that it is very positive that we are seeing greater resources and support for people in our community. However, this bill recognises that there is more to leading a fulfilling life than having access to disability services, that is, by ensuring that measures are taken right across multiple tiers of government to ensure that people living with a disability are included in all aspects of our society.

The bill promotes the rights and inclusion of people living with a disability in South Australia. It establishes a high-level framework, ensuring that a coordinated and consistent planning approach is taken across state and local governments to provide for greater access to services and facilities. A key component of the bill requires the state government to develop a state disability inclusion plan that would be reviewed once every four years and require annual reports on its operation. The bill also requires all state departments, statutory authorities and local councils to develop disability access and inclusion plans. These plans must align with the six outcomes of the National Disability Strategy and adhere to those guidelines and regulations.

While a number of councils already produce such plans, the bill requires that agencies produce an annual report that will be collated to produce a statewide summary to be presented to the minister. Such plans can be updated at any time, but at a minimum they must be reviewed every four years. Another key component of the bill is the establishment of an updated disability screening scheme, which will apply to service providers operating under the NDIS as per the NDIS national Quality and Safeguarding Framework.

The details of what this entails will be outlined in the regulations that will be dependent on the commonwealth and the National Disability Insurance Agency. However, the state government has indicated that it will not accept any standard below that which is prescribed for people working with children. Under the bill, any person who does not hold a current screening check will face a maximum fine of $20,000 for the first offence and $50,000 or imprisonment for one year for third or subsequent offences.

Furthermore, any person who has been deemed to be a prohibited person and who is found working with a person living with a disability will face a maximum $50,000 fine or one year imprisonment. An employer who employs or continues to employ a prohibited person will face a maximum fine of $50,000 or one year of imprisonment for a natural person or a maximum of a $120,000 fine for a body corporate.

Whilst we would hope that such penalties would never be needed, it is important to send the signal and make the point that only those people who are appropriate should provide services to people who may be vulnerable in our community. The bill also has a provision for the establishment of a community visitors scheme, which is in part driven by the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework. It will also provide for regulations to be made in relation to the transitioning to the NDIS. A review of the act must be undertaken and a report tabled after the third and before the fourth anniversary of the act.

The NDIS is an issue that has certainly come up frequently amongst constituents and providers, who vary in concern over understanding how the process works and various other issues relating to that—essentially, getting used to what is a fundamental change in how such services are funded and provided. I also hear the very positive and hopeful thoughts of people who are involved in these areas and who can see the enormous potential of this scheme once it is fully rolled out and some of the kinks have been straightened out.

Of course, a number of people in my electorate care for a member of their family who is living with a disability, and a number of them have spoken to me about various issues, particularly local issues. One of the key things this bill really goes to is that part of the ordinary thinking of decision-makers is to ensure that people with a disability are included in that thinking. Some of the issues raised are over things that would not immediately come to mind for many of us. They can include things like access at bus stops, the positioning of pedestrian access, even crossings on some local roads; in fact, even traffic light sequencing at particular intersections has been raised as an issue that can affect some people.

There are other issues beyond these which should be addressed in the future but which will not necessarily be addressed at this point. Earlier, the Attorney-General raised an issue about housing, and this has been raised with me as well. I do hope that it is on the agenda into the future. It is often from families who are concerned about security of housing for family members, particularly for their children when the parents are no longer with us.

I have also heard a lot of very positive stories about some of the innovation that has gone on in this area. A particular example raised with me recently was of a local couple who have a grandson who has low-functioning autism. He was one of the first people in the state to have an autism assistance dog. Essentially, if a young child is walking down the street with their family and they have a dog that is trained in very much the same way as a guide dog would be for someone who is vision impaired, the child is tethered to the dog and the dog, if it is concerned that the child is perhaps straying off the footpath, will just plonk itself on the ground like an anchor and literally stop the child from straying.

This was such an innovative application that the International Guide Dog Federation magazine Visionary, in one of its editions—I think towards the end of 2016—actually had a picture of this gentleman's grandson with the dog on its front cover. That was a wonderful thing, and he was incredibly proud of his grandson's being part of that.

This is all part of what this bill is ultimately seeking to do: as many others have said, it is to drive that broader cultural change so that when we are making decisions across the state it is automatic to think about how the decisions will impact on people who live with a disability to ensure that ultimately everyone is included and everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed and live a long and fulfilling life in whatever manner they wish. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (20:08): I rise to speak to the Disability Inclusion Bill 2018. I note we have had quite a few speakers from this side of the house as well as from the other side, and there seems to be quite a consensus to get this legislation through in good time, and for good reason—because we need to do whatever we can to support people living with a disability.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is currently being rolled out. Under the scheme the state government will no longer directly fund disability services. Instead, these services will be administered by the National Disability Insurance Agency, which will work directly with eligible participants to establish personalised plans based on their needs and goals, giving them choice and control over their own lives. Following the full implementation of the NDIS, the Disability Services Act 1993, which was designed to regulate services and provide funding mechanisms, will become redundant.

The Disability Inclusion Bill promotes the rights and inclusion of people living with a disability in South Australia. The bill establishes a high-level framework to ensure that a coordinated and consistent planning approach is taken across both state and local government and provides for greater equality and access to services and facilities. One of the key components of the bill is the requirement for the state government to develop a state disability inclusion plan, which will be reviewed once every four years and will require annual reports on its operation.

It also requires all state departments, statutory authorities and local councils to develop disability access and inclusion plans (DAIP). The disability access and inclusion plans must align with the six outcomes of the National Disability Strategy and adhere to those guidelines and regulations. Whilst many departments and a few local councils already have a DAIP, the bill prescribes that agencies produce an annual report from which a statewide summary will be presented to the minister. The plans can be updated at any time but must, at the very least, be reviewed and a report submitted once every four years.

The other key component of the bill is the establishment of an updated disability screening scheme, which will apply to service providers operating under the NDIS as per the national Quality and Safeguarding Framework. The details of what this entails will be outlined in the regulations, which will be dependent on the commonwealth and the NDIA. However, the state government has indicated that it will not accept any standard below what is prescribed for people working with children, which is obviously very serious.

Under the bill, any person working with a person living with a disability who does not hold a current screening check will face a maximum fine of $20,000 for the first or second offence and $50,000 or imprisonment for one year for third or subsequent offences. Furthermore, any person who has been deemed to be a prohibited person who is found working with a person living with a disability will face a maximum of $50,000 or one year's imprisonment. An employer who employs or continues to employ a prohibited person, as a natural person, will face a maximum of a $50,000 fine or one year's imprisonment or, as a body corporate, a maximum of a $120,000 fine.

The bill also has a provision for the establishment of a community visitor scheme, which is in part driven by the national Quality and Safeguarding Framework. The bill also provides for regulations to be made in relation to the transitioning to the NDIS. A review of the act must be undertaken and a report tabled after the third and before the fourth anniversary of the commencement of the act.

The Disability Inclusion Bill undertook an engagement process via YourSAy, with 67 people attending the public meetings and 19 written submissions being made. All people were supportive of the broad principles of the bill. The Local Government Association expressed concerns regarding adequate resources to produce the DAIPs. In response, DCSI have stated that they will provide templates and additional resources to local councils to assist, and they will give access to the disability policy unit for knowledge and information. Council areas, for example rural areas or small councils, will also be able to produce a joint DAIP with permission from the minister.

Certainly, we on this side of the house are supporting the legislation. We note support from the opposition, but we note that there were some amendments attempted in the other place, tabled by the Hon. Clare Scriven. The proposed amendments sought to create a disability advocate—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Point of order: there are no amendments before this house, and it was ruled earlier that discussion is not allowed on that.

The SPEAKER: On what, sorry? The point of order was for—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Amendments that were defeated in the upper house.

The SPEAKER: The point of order is for reference to debate in another place. Could the member please return to the second reading substance.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In a general way, some people propose that there be a disability advocate and that the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment be required to take such steps as may be reasonably practicable to ensure that at least 3 per cent of the persons employed in the Public Service are people with a disability. A commitment was made by others to establish a disability advocate role, which was valued at $200,000, the idea of which was, in a general sense, to assist people living with a disability and their families to transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There was a general idea of another $400,000 for community advocacy support.

On this side of the house, we support the bill as it is because it aims to promote the absolute human rights and improve the inclusion in the community for South Australians who live with a disability. There is significant change taking place right now, which we see right across the country, whether in the local government sector, state governments and, obviously, at the federal level where they are directing the scheme. Obviously, it filters down through the other two levels of government. In the main, it seems to be getting pretty good results across the way. Like anything, it can have its teething problems but, from what I understand, it opens up avenues for some people who may not have been able to access funding before.

I note that, initially, the federal government were going to increase the Medicare levy, but they realised they did not have to because they had built up enough surpluses in the Turnbull Liberal government to fund the scheme. I commend them for their budgetary measures and controls. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is absolutely transforming the way disability support is funded and delivered across Australia. As I was saying, it is in a period of transition from what has been a state-based system to a national scheme delivered by the commonwealth government. The NDIS represents major reform, and it heralds a new era in the provision of services and supports for people living with a disability.

The emphasis—and this is very serious—is on individual choice and control, so that people can have those individualised contracts, and carers, or the people themselves, can manage the money in the appropriate way for whatever services the person living with a disability may need. I think it will give the right outcome, and that is certainly the aim of it for everyone living with a disability.

We were one of the first jurisdictions to sign up to the NDIS, and we will also be one of the first jurisdictions to reach full implementation with the scheme from mid next year. In the context of these major reforms, the Disability Inclusion Bill seeks to clarify South Australia's role in supporting people with a disability. It sets out the state government's future direction, which for very good reasons is focused on rights and inclusion in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the National Disability Strategy.

As stated before, at the state level previously the state government was responsible for funding providers to deliver services to people with a disability. In 1993, the Disability Services Act was created for that very purpose. It is therefore a service-oriented act, established to administer funding and regulate the state disability services sector. While services are in transition, the South Australian government is progressively handing over responsibility for disability services and support to the commonwealth government and the National Disability Insurance Agency.

Once the transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully realised, the Disability Services Act 1993 will not be required because the state government will no longer directly fund the services. Instead, the NDIA will work with eligible individuals to create a personal budget, as I indicated before, to pay for their chosen services and supports. That could involve gym sessions, physiotherapy and a whole range of other supports that may be needed on an individual basis.

We know that there is more to living a fulfilling life than simply being able to access disability services and supports. People living with a disability also have a right to be included in all other aspects of the community on an equal basis with other citizens. Inclusion covers ordinary things that a lot of people will take for granted, things as simple as using public transport, attending community events, getting out to do a bit of shopping, having a social day out at the football, or participating in educational activities or specific training, for instance.

The scheme also means broader access to community and mainstream services and opportunities that without dedicated planning and action are not always easily available to people with disability, due to various factors like attitudinal and physical barriers. This is what the Disability Inclusion Bill is all about. It is enhancing inclusion and removing these barriers. They are the focus of this legislation.

As part of the NDIS, these challenges were recognised, and this was Australia's response to the ratification of the UNCRPD. The state government will have a role in the future in implementing the aims of the NDIS and the UNCRPD once the NDIS is fully rolled out. The principles and vision of these landmark documents set the policy foundation for the Disability Inclusion Bill. The bill is underpinned by a range of rights-based principles that reflect the tone of the UNCRPD and the NDIS.

These principles are based on a recognition that, whilst people with disability have the same fundamental human rights as others, they often feel undervalued as citizens and experience difficulty finding a place in the wider community. That is why this bill, with these principles, will give visibility to the issues faced by people with a disability. The overall purpose of the bill is to ensure that these issues are considered and the views of people with disability are incorporated into policies and programs that affect them.

Also, the legislation is there to articulate a range of rights specific to certain groups who, it is generally accepted, face additional challenges and vulnerabilities. This includes women with disability, children with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability, and culturally and linguistically diverse people with disability. These principles will be brought to life through disability inclusion planning, another key feature of the bill.

Obviously, the long-term vision is that we achieve an inclusive society, and it will take some consistent effort over time to achieve that goal. The legislation, through this bill, supports this by ensuring that appropriate planning takes place in a coordinated manner across both state and local government. This planning will then underpin a more inclusive community, which provides a quality of access to mainstream services and facilities for people with disability in line with the six outcome areas of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Every four years, a state disability inclusion plan will be developed under the bill and, as I mentioned before, there is the requirement for state government departments, statutory authorities and local councils to develop and implement a disability access and inclusion plan. The statutory authorities required to do this will be prescribed through regulations at a later stage once the legislation has passed both houses, and this will obviously be done in consultation with affected organisations.

The state disability inclusion plan will be the overarching framework, and it will set the state government's disability inclusion agenda and provide guidance to agencies for developing disability access and inclusion plans. There is a lot of work to do. I wish the bill a speedy passage through this place so that we can get the work done on the ground to make life a whole lot better for people living with disability and let them have the inclusive rights that they deserve.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (20:29): I rise to conclude the second reading stage of this bill and thank all speakers on both sides for their contributions. This is gladly one of those times when this parliament can, to the largest degree, work together towards a very sensible outcome. We look forward to putting in place the bill as it stood last year with some minor amendments around improving the power of chief executives and not progressing other amendments which might get in the way of the culture change that this bill seeks to enact.

We look forward to those provisions being put in place, especially around the checks to ensure that people who work with people with a disability have the appropriate clearances and that we can safeguard them against being abused or mistreated by those who have a criminal history. I also look forward to the Disability Services Act becoming redundant sometime in the medium-term future and I look forward to repealing a piece of legislation, perhaps something we should try to do a little more of from time to time. With those words, I thank everybody and look forward to the speedy passage of this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (20:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT