HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-09-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Disability Inclusion (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 June 2023.)

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (16:53): I am very happy to rise to speak in support of this bill. I do not want to spend a lot of time talking about myself, but I do want to put into context why I am very willing to support anything that improves the lives of those within our disability community.

My story begins back in 2010. I was working for our current and amazing Lord Mayor who at the time was the member for Adelaide. She had taken me on mainly to provide her with advice on school infrastructure. We all know what happened next: just as she lost her seat, I was also out of a job.

Very fortunately, Jennifer Rankine, former member for Wright, threw me a lifeline and asked me to be her housing adviser. Given my interest in bricks and mortar, I was keen to get to work when suddenly there was a quick and rather surprising change of plan. My then Chief of Staff, Matt Clemow, took me to one side and pointed out that Jennifer was yet to appoint a disability adviser and one was needed rather quickly due to the imminent election of Kelly Vincent in the Legislative Council. I will be the very first to admit I was terrified of my immediate secondment and disappointed that working on the housing portfolio was not going to happen.

Up until this point my knowledge of the issues facing the disability community were ashamedly limited. I had heard a little during the election campaign, particularly from Kelly, that things were not good, and this had me rather worried. Thinking it was only a matter of days before the world realised I did not have what it takes to advise in this area, I will own it that my attitude could have been a lot better. The great thing was that my light-bulb moment was just days away, and suddenly the community was dealing with a very different John almost from the get-go.

I tell this story a bit and usually it is a bit vague but, for the benefit of Hansard, I have done a little bit of research. It must have been on about day 5 when a letter was brought to my attention arguing that it made little sense that South Australia was one of the very few states that did not recognise both the Companion Card and the Plus One FREE COMPANION Card on our public transport network. I cannot remember which card it did not recognise, but at the time it was only one of the two.

In a bit of a huff and a puff, I thought to myself how exhausting things were going to be if everything in government with the word 'disability' attached to it would be put before me. I then called Minister Conlon's office—he was the transport minister at the time—to see if they could help. To their credit, I received a 'leave it with me' response, and a day or two later that magic moment happened. Up until that point, nobody had ever asked Minister Conlon's office this question, and I was gobsmacked to find out that someone had done the sums very quickly and the total cost to the state to recognise both cards would be a mere $1,200 a year.

That moment did not just give me an inner glow from realising we had done something good but it made me see what an amazing opportunity I had before me. The next 18 months working in disability was one of the best times I have had in my working life. There were days when I had a cry, and I would go so far as saying there were a few names and moments that I will never forget for all the wrong reasons, but with these lows also came the highs. The arrival of self-managed funding sowed the seeds for South Australia to be an early adopter of the NDIS.

We saw significant improvements in the allocation of equipment, set up respite services on Kangaroo Island, moved heaven and earth to get residents out of Strathmont, and in its place we set up proper places for people to call home. When I say 'we', the team around me were amazing. They were the now member for Wright as my Chief of Staff joined by some incredible public servants, including Dr David Caudrey, Claude Bruno, Zofia Nowak, Lynn Young and Matthew Massy-Westropp, to only scratch the surface. Outside the team, we dealt with some incredible advocates, like Associate Professor Lorna Hallahan, Dell Stagg, Robbi Williams, Glenn Rappensberg, Sam Paior, Tristan Dunn, and of course Kelly Vincent. Again, I know I am missing out so many good people.

A point to make was that, even though there was an incredible amount of work to do, there were so many dynamic people in the sector giving their all to push things in the right direction. At the helm was Jennifer Rankine, the Minister for Disability, who was an amazing advocate. There were a few days when not everyone in the sector saw eye to eye with her or we just could not quite achieve everything we wanted, but the energy she created inspired everyone to give it 110 per cent. To her, complacency was not an acceptable option.

Suddenly, after 18 months a reshuffle arrived and it was time to move on to new challenges. Initially, I felt the ground had been pulled out from under my feet, but as time went on I realised that no matter where I went there were always going to be opportunities to help this wonderful community along. It also helped knowing that my replacement was Abbie Spencer, the current secretary of the ASU, who I know has a heart of gold.

The three biggest lessons I took from this time were firstly that, despite good work being achieved, there was always more to be done. The second was to never say in life, 'I know how you feel.' Given I do not have a disability, and having seen so much challenge in my life, there is absolutely no way I could ever understand. The best I can do is to imagine what life is like, and even then I have my doubts if I will ever get close. The third was a realisation that, despite acting on what I believe to be the best of intentions, governments have not always got things right, particularly when it comes to disability.

We only have to think back to the institutions we housed these vulnerable people in and in the process made them more vulnerable. There were worse things than that but, to be honest, I do not think I have the mettle to speak about these here today. I also stress that this view is applied to all the work I have been involved in with the sector. Nothing I have ever done should be beyond scrutiny and further review. I apologise if this is a bit of a backstory, but now that it is on the record I will do my best not to repeat myself too often on the subject.

While I have dwelled a bit on the past, experience has shown me that the disability community is more concerned with the future, and before us is a bill aiming to enhance the Disability Inclusion Act to support greater access and inclusion for people with disability and ensure that the state government and local councils remain responsive and accountable. Drawing on the need to see that the voiceless have a voice, I feel this bill is a step in the right direction.

It is commendable that the architect of the act, Mr Richard Dennis AM, included section 21 that stipulated the minister must review its effectiveness before the fourth anniversary of its commencement. Rightly, he was given the task of conducting the review and consulting far and wide across the community. To briefly sum up his hard work, I understand his report, which was tabled in September last year, provided 50 recommendations for consideration.

I am advised this included 30 that are not subject to legislation and, whilst Minister Cook's department is in support of all that is recommended, I understand some need additional scoping to work out what further action is needed. This includes the recommendations relating to the operations of Inclusive SA which, I understand from the minister, will be reviewed in the second half of this year.

While this bill does not drastically reshape the act, it does make several changes that will add value to the disability community and reinforce the work of consulting with them to ensure it functions as intended. As I see it, there are five key areas of improvement that should be adopted. These include having a definition of what a barrier is, asserting that people with disability have a right to be and feel safe, extra clarity around the principles relating to people with significant intellectual disability, altering reporting requirements and time frames, and requiring consultation with people with lived experience and authorising the formation of groups to facilitate this consultation.

In our day-to-day lives we all encounter barriers and, metaphorically speaking, it is sound advice to walk around them, but you need to ask yourself what happens if you cannot. Exposure to disability services made me realise that, unfortunately, the frustrations appear endless to those with disability encountering barriers.

While I have stressed the work of all governments in this space should never be seen as complete, an example I wish to draw upon revolves around the management of trees, in particular branches overhanging footpaths. Anyone with clear vision can walk around a low-hanging branch and pretty much think nothing of the experience; unfortunately, this is not the case for anyone who is visually impaired. It is worth stopping to think of the clear risk these people face the moment they step onto the streets and put one foot forward.

A low-hanging branch is an obvious barrier, yet collectively it is easy to be complacent about the risks it presents when it is not a worry to the bulk of the population. While this is an example of something so common that I would suggest many people—myself included—are often oblivious to it, barriers can come in many different shapes, sizes and forms, and it therefore makes sense to define what they are in the hope it can create less wriggle space around accountability and lead to greater inclusion.

I also mentioned earlier that I would take my interests in disability issues everywhere I went. This manifested itself in a latter role I played as planning adviser to the Northern Territory government. In Darwin, I was working with other state and territory governments in the hope that we could make some changes to the National Construction Code around accessibility provisions. For well over the space of 12 months, I was working closely with advisers from across the country, finding common ground and then negotiating whenever we hit a hurdle.

For those who have not visited the Top End, the excessive humidity has necessitated a unique style of tropical architecture where, at a guess, about 20 per cent of the housing stock is raised off the ground to take full advantage of breezes. As a result, a number of the proposed access provisions would have been impractical for adoption in those raised houses. However, this was no reason for the Territory not to be part of the broader solution, especially given that most of its new accommodation is now single storey.

We found common ground with Queensland to gain exemptions around some provisions for raised houses, and then we forged ahead with most of the other states. When I say 'most', unfortunately at that time I cannot say that South Australia was in that pack.

The Territory identified some indifferences and negotiated a beneficial outcome, yet negotiation on any indifference in South Australia at the time appeared to be non-existent. While I know there is such a thing as parliamentary privilege to allow me to say more, dwelling on this will do us no good, especially after the wrong has now been rewritten. This came following a call I made to the then shadow minister for human services, 3,000 kilometres down the road, to explain what was happening.

We were fortunate that day, nationally, to have had the numbers to get the code amended and even more fortunate to have the members for Hurtle Vale and now Taylor working quickly to adopt things locally once we came to office. I will stress once more: there is always more work to do. But if you need evidence that the Malinauskas government takes the provision in the act seriously, this speaks for itself. As Minister Cook stressed to me in conversation, no-one should underestimate the impact of having accessible homes that exist within an accessible community.

I will not elaborate on all the key provisions, but I will make comment around the sixth area of amendment, relating to the functions of the Chief Executive of the Department of Human Services. The bill before us proposes an additional paragraph to be inserted under section 10(1), stipulating they are now to advise the minister on systemic or emerging accessibility and inclusion issues. My experience is that a good CE would be doing this already, but I feel these extra words powerfully underline the need to necessitate this function and make sure it is happening by law.

Chief executives are very well placed to report on what is emerging, and I would now expect to see this translated into KPIs to ensure that the full breadth of the law is being met. We need as many minds as possible working to improve the lives of people with disability, and this provision should send a clear message to the community on the responsibility the CE has to make a difference. In turn, I would expect the bearer of the position to now be in an enhanced position to act as a beacon between government and the disability community.

As outlined, I support this bill for a number of reasons. While it could be seen that the changes are modest, I feel there is one underlying element that I have not touched on within the act itself that deserves recognition. There is a lot of contingency within this bill and the act for review and reflection. This builds on what I said earlier—that we should never expect complacency in assisting the disability community.

There are some fantastic advocates operating in the sector, my friend Rosey Olbrycht from community advocacy being a great example of those on the ground. I have also met many people with disability very capable of advocating by themselves. That said, we are dealing in a sector where the voiceless are prevalent, and these people and their advocates need all the help that we can give them.

With the best of intentions, facilities such as Strathmont, or the Home for Incurables, were established, yet hindsight has shown that there is a better way. Who is to say that the practices and attitudes of today may need revisiting in the not too distant future? We have seen, with this act being reviewed, the CE for Human Services now being tasked with advising on systemic or emerging accessibility and inclusion issues and a stronger emphasis on reviewing disability access and inclusion plans. With almost 100 of these across state agencies, including all 68 local councils, they must be regularly reviewed to ensure they remain relevant to the broader needs and interests of people with disability and their families.

It is great to have a body, in the form of Inclusive SA, working with our agencies to create a more inclusive state, and I am pleased the inclusion plans will be subject to review, along with Inclusive SA being re-appraised later in the year. We do this because thinking around disability is evolving, and what is right today may not be right tomorrow.

In finishing, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone involved in the development of this bill. We have seen a lot of feedback from some exceptional organisations and minds to get to where we are today. I understand that feedback from the public was strong, and I thank each and every one who made a contribution to this process.

I would have like to have made a personal submission to the review, but unfortunately consultation coincided with the immediate aftermath of the passing of my dad. This also meant I was unable to mobilise a number of local disability advocates who have been invaluable in providing me with details on where things can be improved. While things fell beyond my control, I would like to express that I am very sorry for this.

As mentioned earlier, Mr Richard Dennis AM should be congratulated on all his hard work in and around this important area of policy. I am yet to meet him, but I do hope that our paths cross very soon. I would also like to express my gratitude to Minister Cook and her staff, in particular Michael Hicks and Catherine Baldock. All three have been fighting the good fight on this front for as long as I can remember. Michael Hicks, in particular, was a colleague of mine who, for the record, ended up being the housing adviser back in 2010. It is not for me to say, but I would not have changed a thing, and I think it is fair to say that we are both very happy that we heard our calling. There is always more to do, but this bill is a step forward. With this in mind, I am pleased to commend it to the house.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (17:10): I rise to speak on this Disability Inclusion (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2023 and indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition and also the only speaker from the opposition in this house. At the beginning, can I give my utmost respect and admiration to those this bill especially pertains to—those who are living with a disability and those many carers who love and look after those who are living with a disability. We cannot underestimate the impact that the decisions we make at this level have on those who are living every single day with the challenge that that brings but also the blessing in their lives that they are living with.

It is great to see this bill finally come to parliament. It does seem like it has been a long time coming. By way of history, the Disability Inclusion Act was passed in this place in 2018 under the stewardship of Minister Lensink of the former government. As part of that act, Inclusive SA was established. Also in the act, the Disability Inclusion Act was due for review at the three-year anniversary. That is what happened in March 2022 and that is exactly why we find ourselves here today, 18 months later.

To draw that time line out a little more, the review began as a trigger in the act in March last year. As has been mentioned already, Mr Richard Dennis AM, PSM, was appointed as part of that process and released an issues paper for discussion. In June 2022, 14 months ago, he finalised his paper and the minister tabled it in the House of Assembly in September last year—12 months ago. This bill was then introduced at the end of June this year, 12 months from when Mr Dennis first completed his work.

In that time, I would have expected some of the work to have already been done. Surely there were some low-hanging branches, as I think the member for Playford mentioned (low-hanging fruit I would probably describe it as, so to speak), which, with a few policy changes in the Department of Human Services or across government agencies, would have achieved recommendations as set out by the report.

In anticipation of the committee stage of this bill, I foreshadow that I will attempt to perhaps tease out some of those to get a bit more information on the record from the minister about where these potential changes, which have already maybe started in the department, are at.

There was an obvious need for this review, and that is starkly brought to our attention by some of the commentary in response to the question: what are the biggest challenges facing the disability community when participating in the community? Some of the answers provided were as follows:

The biggest challenges, the inconsistent attitudes and the defensive refusal to listen and act by local councils and state government to assist us to participate in the community.

Another one:

People with disability and their family or carers have to work too hard to participate. This can include access to expensive assistive technology.

Another response:

Lack of accessibility to events, venues, transport and other services and facilities. The burden of needing to check that a place is accessible (for example, by telephone calls or searching websites), and the stigma associated with this, which impacts on people's ability to have natural social relationships.

There was an example only recently in the press in our community with the Port Adelaide Diversity and Inclusion Film Festival, which very much brought to the front of mind that this is something that people working within the system have to deal with every single day. Another response:

Genuine ignorance and a lack of concern for the varied experience of people living with disability.

Finally:

A belief that people living with disability are a burden on society.

These responses are heartbreaking, to say the least. These last two comments, in particular, are sadly common amongst the community of people living with a disability and those who care for them, who are dealing with it every single day. We must do better to assist them to participate more fully in our society. The review from Mr Richard Dennis AM, PSM, considered the following:

(a) how well is the operation of the act achieving or supporting the objects of the Act;

(b) the extent to which the principles set out in section 9 of the Act are being recognised and applied in the operation, administration and enforcement of the Act;

(c) initiatives that could be adopted to enhance the alignment of the Act with Australia's Disability Strategy;

(d) the work of the department in fulfilling various functions under section 10;

(e) consideration of how effective the State Disability Inclusion Plan and the disability access and inclusion plans have been to date in supporting the objects of the Act, recognising that there is a separate scheme for the review of these plans under sections 15 and 18 of the Act; and

(f) any changes that should be considered for Part 5A of the Act.

Through this process, Mr Dennis also sought specific comment about the extent to which the act assisted in promoting the following themes: inclusive communities for all, leadership and collaboration, accessible communities, and learning and employment. From his substantial review, Mr Dennis presented his final tabled report with some 51 recommendations, although I think that recommendations 50 and 51 could probably be combined to be one and the same.

The government have sought to include some 14 recommendations into this bill, and they do seek to make the act more inclusive, for example, by removing any ageism and ensuring that 'regardless of age' is included. This is one I think we very much have to be aware of. Just because people living within the system reach an age where they might qualify for a different level of support does not mean they should not have their voices heard throughout this process.

I think the strongest amendment, and one we have constantly heard about from groups we have consulted with, is recommendation No. 5. It has been touched on briefly already that a definition of 'barrier' be included, and it has been included, as follows:

'Barrier' includes something that is—

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

(b) based on information or communications; or

(c) the result of a policy or practice.

So, yes, this bill does go some way to improving the legislation we already have, and that is indeed a lofty achievement and something which we should be aspiring to be better and better at all the way along with our lawmaking. We on this side of the house think it can be improved some more, though. I am sure that later on throughout this process we will unpack and explore that a little bit more, as I mentioned before, and I know that the same will be done in the other place when this bill is considered up there.

I will turn now to some of the submissions. Maybe during the committee stage, once again some answers can be provided as to why some of the concerns outlined were not picked up by the minister in the drafting of this legislation. When making our community, our society should have a whole-of-community approach, but the burden that some sectors and some levels of government are being asked to take on without due resourcing is quite unfair. I will bear some of that out in the committee stage, as I said.

We did hear that the Local Government Association (LGA), which is the body that represents the 68 councils from across South Australia as well as the unincorporated areas, made some valid points in their submissions. For example, they recognised past exclusion that is due to the lack of opportunity for people with disability to develop their personal and social resources and that the barriers to work and social settings are greater and require more investment to overcome and build that capacity.

At a number of points in their submission, the LGA made mention along the lines of, 'Should the burden fall to local government to implement some of the recommendations as suggested by the review, resourcing would be an impediment to implementing resources in a timely manner.' In other words, we should be very aware in this place of making laws that fit and are able to be workable within our communities, and be aware that, in those 68 councils that I talked about before, there is a varying degree of capacity and resourcing that is available to them.

Not all of them have the staff support and the budget size of some of the bigger metropolitan councils that may be getting involved in this. Some of them are smaller regional councils, which indeed are stretched—often beyond their capacity—with existing legislation. We need to make sure that if there is a burden that falls to local government, we should be absolutely aware that that burden should come with the need for resourcing of the councils to be able to put in place the important steps which we have seen developed within this piece of legislation.

Councils do not have the funding available. They do not have the resourcing of others, especially, as I said, the smaller regional councils or even some of the medium-sized councils that are focused on delivering positive outcomes for their community. Yes, the whole community has to be considered when we are looking at the work that local government does but, if we in this place are making laws that are going to add an extra burden onto local government, there is absolutely the need for us to be aware of the resourcing constraints that some councils have and the need, as I said, for state government to play an active role in adding to councils' capacity to be able to implement some of these steps.

The LGA also notes that some of the language is vague and needs better clarification. I have had the conversation with the minister indeed, and a lot of it is terms such as 'take reasonable steps', 'higher standards' and 'other activities'. These are often really in the eye of the beholder as to those measure points. Reasonable steps, higher standards: they are a bit ambiguous when we are looking at putting legislation in place.

As I said, I think during the committee stage it will be important for the question to be asked of the minister of what the intent of these aspects within the legislation really are, and for there to be some guidance and some definitions, perhaps at least put into Hansard, to give some context to some of these terms that have been put into the legislation. They need further clarity for these levels of government that are expected to implement these recommendations.

We also received submissions from Purple Orange and acknowledge the great work that they do in the community to improve the world for people who live with a disability, ensuring that they are given a fair go. We also thank them for their submission and their insight into this bill.

As has been touched on already, it is so important that we as legislators are fully aware of the impacts that our decisions one way or the other have on not only the people in our community we represent in this place but also the state as whole. The laws that are made need to actually, firstly, be workable and, secondly, make sure that we aim for positive outcomes for our community, and none more so than this bill in particular.

When we are dealing with some of the most vulnerable within our community—people who have often at times felt like they have been forgotten, neglected and at risk—we need to make sure that we are properly reflecting their needs when making decisions around legislation, so to receive submissions from organisations such as Purple Orange is really important to gain their insight into this bill and the work that is expected to be done after this bill passes this place.

Some submissions to the review were also very pointed, and I will quote some of them here, although I am not able to attribute the comment to anyone in particular. There were submissions and comments with aspects calling for increased consultation with existing disability groups and services. We need to be constantly looking at the work that we are doing in this space and making sure that it reflects the needs in the community for those carers and for those people living with a disability.

The second aspect, which I think is pretty important, is the universal design and being able to co-design programs that affect people living with disability. This bill is such an important step, one which has been, as I said in the introduction, a long time coming with the process that has been put in place over a number of years. I certainly can foreshadow that in the other place my colleague the Hon. Heidi Girolamo will move and support amendments to this legislation. The bill was asked to improve upon the legislation, and we on this side think it still has some way to go. We will pursue that in the upper house where, with support, there is a good chance that amendments can get up.

As I said, 51 recommendations came with this, and a small number are being implemented through this bill. I look forward to what steps come next and will ask the minister through the committee stage if she has any insight into what time lines are expected for those additional recommendations to be implemented, which of them potentially will not be implemented and the reasons why.

We really need to make sure in this place that we are appropriately reflecting the needs of those community members, carers, and those living with a disability we are making these laws around, and that we are being responsive to their needs. Can I just finish by reiterating the respect, gratitude and admiration I have for those people who are living with a disability within our society, and those carers who are caring for and love those people who are living with a disability. The admiration we on this side have I am sure is shared across all parties and across all members in this place. We in this place need to be aspirational with what we are trying to put in place as far as legislation goes.

We need to be responsive to the needs of our community, and I think it is really important that we continue to be aware of the next steps that need to be put in place within this space in particular, because the needs are always changing, as well as the way that people are dealing with their carers in the disability space and also the way the NDIS is interacting with what we do at a state government level. With that all in mind, I leave my remarks there and look forward to the committee stage at some point to flesh out a little bit more of the detail.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.

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