HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-04-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Disability Inclusion (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 10.

Mr TEAGUE: I might just recap. Section 32 of the act, as it presently stands, is the section of the act that provides for the review. We have established that the review is a one-off. My analogy to the spacecraft heading into orbit, jettisoning the section 32 review in the process and now heading off into its own territory now leaves us with a regime for ongoing review of the State Disability Inclusion Plan from time to time.

Before I come back to the State Disability Inclusion Plan itself and the means by which there is ongoing oversight and review, this overall review of the State Disability Inclusion Plan is to be undertaken at least once in every four-year period. In terms of the obligations, including the functions of the chief executive that now include being aware of systemic or emerging accessibility inclusion issues, what are the ongoing processes for review and opportunities to improve on the State Disability Inclusion Plan outside and beyond the regime that is provided for in section 15?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We talked earlier about the chief executive officer's obligations in terms of reporting. This is more pertaining to the every four-year review of the plan. We just need to do all those checks and balances to make sure everything aligns with the Disability Strategy and all the other missions that we are doing and any reports that have come in. There might be other reviews that have happened. For example, this time we are looking at where the Disability Royal Commission and the NDIS review interfaces with any of the things that we are working on. We then trigger that review and go out for consultation. We are obligated then to include those contributions and report on them.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of the new subsection (3) under section 15, we see a provision that almost might be expected to speak for itself in that the report does not mandate that there must be changes recommended to the plan each time it is reviewed, but what must occur is that any recommended changes must be the subject of a recommendation of the report.

The overall question is: why the necessity for subsection (3)? In terms of the way that it is framed, is the minister able to assure the committee, or will the minister assure the committee, that to the extent that the report is accompanied by, as opposed to including information 'about any changes recommended to be made to the State Disability Inclusion Plan' that that accompanying document is also caught by the requirement in subsection (2)?

That is, that there is no legislative intent here to somehow provide for an either/or where on the one hand there are recommended changes but they are carved out from what needs to be tabled under subsection (2), and on the other, that these are changes that are included in the report submitted for the purposes of subsection (1). Is there an assurance that for all purposes the subject of section 15, the report and those mandatory express recommendations are going to find themselves tabled within six sitting days after receipt of the report from the chief executive?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: That report you are referring to is not a legislated report, but those encompassing changes and detail would naturally be occurring within the state plan review that we conduct anyway. There is not an extra legislated report. I think you seem to be referring to an extra one, are you? I am happy for you to clarify.

Mr TEAGUE: To be really clear, section 15, as it stood for the first four years, requires that the minister must cause a review of the plan to be undertaken every four years.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: And that gets reported on.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, and a report on the review is to be prepared and submitted to the minister. As it presently stands:

The Minister must cause a copy of the report submitted under subsection (1) to be laid before both Houses…within 6 sitting days after receiving the report.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Right. So far so good. Along comes subsection (3) that is the subject of this clause, clause 10. What this is now stipulating, and I kind of couched it in terms: how necessary is this really because you would expect that if there were recommendations then they would be in the report, but here we are setting out that they must. But included in the provision now is a requirement that the changes, such as there are, recommended must be—on the face of this provision—either included in the report or be accompanied. So on the face of this subsection (3) there is the report, which we already know subsection (2) requires to be laid before both houses, and then there is this provision now that is coming along saying you can do something that accompanies the report.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am happy to answer. My expectation is that the accompanying information would be tabled. That would be my expectation. I think we have got there in the end—great.

Mr TELFER: Just a quick one on that. In relation to recommendations from the department as part of this process for any changes to be made to the State Disability Inclusion Plan, there cannot be any recommendations separate from this process that are actioned previously. Any recommendations that get made to the State Disability Inclusion Plan must be included either within the report or accompanying as an addendum. There is no scope for additional changes to be happening separate to this process.

The report that happens at a point in time every four years is the opportunity to be able to change it because, potentially, if there were changes that were allowed to be made as you roll along and recommendations from the department to the minister to be able to make changes, then at a certain date and time—you may have, only a month before, made a series of changes to the State Disability Inclusion Plan and then you get to the line in the sand where the review must happen, and then there may not actually be any changes that are included in it.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The defined words are 'at least once' every four years. We could do more, and if we did another one, we would report on it.

Mr TELFER: And that report has the same reporting structures to—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Mr TELFER: That's interesting.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Mr TELFER: Clause 11 is the amendment of section 16 and that is talking about the individual disability access and inclusion plans for each state authority. There is an obligation within subsection (1) that each state authority is to have a disability access and inclusion plan and in the latest state budget we learned that 99 state government authorities had a published disability access and inclusion plan. In the context of this section 16, how many state government authorities actually do not have a DAIP in place in reflection of the 99 number which we referred to?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We will get you up-to-date, accurate information between the houses.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

Mr TEAGUE: Because it came up at clause 9, is it a similar rationale? We are talking about people, and this is a convenient opportunity to change that reporting timing. Is it the same purpose as clause 9?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

Mr TELFER: Clause 13 is looking at the amendment of section 18. Section 18 is talking about the review of disability access and inclusion plans. We have talked a bit already about the obligations on different state departments for their access and inclusion plans. The proposed amendment, subsection (3) states:

(3) If the State Disability Inclusion Plan is varied, a State authority must, within 6 months of the publication of the plan as varied in the Gazette—

Is the six-month time frame going to actually be achieved without the need for extra resourcing? Has there been an assessment on the ability of those departments where there is the obligation for them to be obligated for this six-month update? Is it going to create a strain on resources or the need for extra resources to be put in with that six-month period?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The authorities are well aware of the state plan and the vision, and they are working all the way through that from start to finish. We do not necessarily think it will be resource intensive. I think this is one of those things where people actually want to get it right and want to participate in it, so I would not expect it to be arduous.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister indicated earlier, when we were considering the machinery—the subject of section 15 as it is going to be amended in clause 10—that that might occur more often than once every four years.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Potentially.

Mr TEAGUE: Potentially. It might be only every four years but it might be more often. In circumstances where it happens once every four years, it is almost necessarily not going to synchronise itself with the timing of the four-year reviews that are occurring, because the time frame will come along separately for each department according to a whole variety of reasons as to why they initially did it at one point, I presume. Assuming that is the case, is there any reason or thought from the government's point of view about the desirability of having those two sets of time frame reviews line up? They both talk about a review every four years.

What we are now going to be applying is a requirement that, where the plan is varied, that is going to impose a six-month time frame on the relevant authority. While I am at it, if that is imposed, is that then a reset of the four years or are they on their own time frame anyway, even though they have complied with this six-month obligation on the overall plan? I mean, they will have done a change but not a review.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think we will be looking for some consistent partnership with the state plan being reviewed once every four years. We could reflect on the fact that there was an interim report done in 2022, which did not move the reporting out for another four years—we have done it at two—so I think the alignment would be much better to be a congruous synergistic approach.

Mr TEAGUE: That is helpful for the committee and for the record, I suppose. Is there any practical action that the government has in prospect to cause that to occur? Is there somewhere a table of authorities and deadlines for review that is centrally kept and monitored by anybody or is that really freestanding for reference by each relevant state authority to conduct in their own way and their own time and according to their own record keeping and that, when the two interact, they interact but only for that purpose or is there already oversight and if not is there a possibility to apply it?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Overall, the main intention is to ensure that the line-up occurs between the state plan and the DAIPs. People can update their own DAIPs as they see fit, as they need to, and currently, as we know, because it was the first time, they are all going to line up and expire simultaneously. There is a buffer period, obviously, for providing that report, so I do not think there are any other requirements in terms of the timing just to try to keep that working together.

Mr TELFER: Just on that, obviously there is the obligation on the different state government departments to make sure they have these reports and 99 did it the last time, but there are obviously some departments whose DAIPs are going to be a lot more complicated than others. There are obviously some that have more levels of interaction.

Do you envision there being a necessity for your department to play a significant coordination role when it comes to not just communicating the changes which get made once every four years but as far as that overall understanding between departments, because I suspect there will be varied levels of resources that each department will have to put in? The education department is going to have a different sort of level DAIP to transport, etc. Is this a role that you see is going to be crucial to be played as far as coordination of the ongoing refreshment of these DAIPs?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think it is a great question. It is inciteful. It already is happening. DHS takes great care and responsibility and maintains a sense of accountability in terms of making sure this all lines up. Obviously, the department also provides support to other departments that are not as well resourced or local government agencies that do not have the resourcing. The short answer is yes, and the big answer is that piece of accountability and sense of responsibility shown.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [–1]—

Page 6, line 24 to page 7, line 21—Delete Schedule 1

This amendment relates to the transitional arrangements required to move from financial year reporting to calendar year. Due to the delays in passing the bill, new regulations needed drafting to ensure state authorities met reporting requirements. These regulations mean transitional arrangements are no longer required.

Mr TELFER: Minister, just on this, obviously I understand the time frames and we have spoken already about the delays here, but when will the parliament receive an interim report?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It will be in the first part of the next quarter. It is already under construction, so after 30 June.

The CHAIR: The question before the Chair is that the amendment be agreed to. If it is passed you understand that all it does is cut out the schedule.

Amendment carried; schedule negatived.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. N.F. COOK (Hurtle Vale—Minister for Human Services) (16:36): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I will simply say it is with great pride that we actually now complete this bill and move into the next phase of the work that we are going to do. I want to thank the work of the member for Flinders and the member for Heysen in terms of this bill and the interrogation of it. It demonstrates the care and commitment that they have for the people living in our community with disability who are significantly affected and lives are better because of the cooperative way that we work in this place.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate the contribution of the minister and the committee process indeed, an illuminating one, and I hope that some of what has gone back and forth in the committee process might assist those who are considering the reforms. I take the opportunity once again to thank Richard Dennis for his thoroughgoing work. I am sure that will be valuable, including in other ways that have not quite yet found voice in the legislation.

By way of perhaps including him in my consideration at all stages of the debate, I mention again that seeing is believing, the real inspiration of having seen just how innovative my constituent at Ashbourne, Tom Carr, has been in demonstrating what can be done when faced with adversity of the kind that is now defined in terms of a barrier or barriers that come along when one's life is disrupted and one finds oneself living with disability, in his case as the result of an accident in adulthood.

The examples of innovation that have been used by analogy in the course of the debate, in the first place, his invention of a roll-on roll-off mode of transport and, secondly, the way that he has highlighted how he could make use of virtual fencing as a means to continue farming, both those initiatives can be facilitated at least in part by the sorts of consideration and decision-making of public authorities. We now see, very specifically the subject of these reforms, positive obligations to remove barriers.

That is not the only way in which the facilitation of Tom Carr living a full and thriving life finds voice in these reforms. It was important legislation when it was first enacted back in July 2018 by the Marshall Liberal government. It has now had its section 32 reviewed and we look forward to seeing the work of the now amended legislation improving the lives of those living with disability throughout the state and, to the extent that the legislation is very much referrable to international convention, moving to a space in which South Australia is not so much being drawn along by international convention but, hopefully to a substantial extent, the other way around, that we are leading the way in this state in ensuring that those living with disability are doing so in every respect with all the fullness and capacity that is possible. I commend the amendments and commend the bill.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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