HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-04-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Disability Inclusion (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 5.

The CHAIR: The opposition have one question to go, if they wish to exercise that right.

Mr TEAGUE: I am grateful to the Chair about the guidance on where we have got to. We are at clause 5 and I might say I recall having asked only one question, but if I have asked more than one then I stand corrected.

The CHAIR: On that, I have marked two and the parliamentary officer has two marked down as well. If it was just me, you could doubt it but not the parliamentary officer.

Mr TEAGUE: No, far from it, Chair.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Members on my right, please, you are being disorderly. The member for Heysen has the floor at some point in time.

Mr TEAGUE: I am considering my final question on clause 5. We have spent some time considering article 3. I think at least the minister and I have recited parts of article 3, and I have drawn particular attention to article 9, which is the part of the convention that I have found, anyway, that refers specifically to the removal of, in the convention's case, both obstacles and barriers; this bill is using a new definition of barriers. I have cited two examples of circumstances where there are barriers that have been placed in the way and I have given the example of my constituent Tom Carr and the result of his having an acquired disability.

I guess I am looking for, as much as possible, an indication of what barriers are understood by the government to mean and what obligation the subject of the provision—the new object—is going to amount to, in terms of the fact that it will now be an object of the act, among other things. So the government has been on notice of this point in circumstances where we debated clause 3 some weeks ago, and we have unpacked the various elements that are constituent to the new (f).

I appreciate that there is some response from the government in terms of how the department conducts itself and the sorts of values that are applied and so on, and it might be that it is beyond the minister's remit to go to what other departments might do in response to this new provision. If so, so be it, but I guess I am looking for any indication that can be provided about how this new provision is going to change the process of consideration for government regulation across the board, and that might extend to matters within the responsibility of local government as well.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: This is a very important discussion. I think, in brief, we have gone from a point where 'barrier' was not defined, to a point where we are now being more prescriptive in terms of providing the articulate direction to the subjects of the legislation and those people who then need to work with us and Inclusive SA to deliver those directions and plans.

It is probably a good time to draw our minds back to the definition of 'barrier'. I think you have very eloquently described a situation experienced by your constituent. You used the discussion around virtual fencing to be something which changes the context of that person's mobility and their access within properties, because they no longer have physical obstruction to movement and moving freely, which is very important—or, potentially, they can.

I think physical is quite easy to define when we talk about barriers, and that is obviously part (a) of that definition where we talk about 'physical, architectural, technological…' We then sway into 'attitudinal', which is about defining and describing where we need a community that understands and is inclusive, and wants and strives and demands equity and access, particularly for people who are, for whatever reason—otherwise very resilient, strong people—susceptible to vulnerabilities created due to policy or lack of care.

Then we move on to part (b), which talks about barriers based on information or communications. We are saying it is not good enough just to think everybody gets the message: we are obligated to ensure people get the message, for example through the provision of capacity for Auslan interpreters or use of alternate forms of language or descriptors within the delivery of our policy, practice and other information.

I think for a long time we have discussed and worked across government to ensure better access, particularly for emergency communications using Auslan on television. Once we have got into the swing of that, suddenly when it does not happen for whatever reason, we are heightened to that knowledge and we want to do better. It gets pointed out very quickly when there has been a failure. Sometimes that is due to poor health or a new person not understanding the procedure for organising that. I think that is really important.

The last section is policy and practice, which I think for me is exactly what we are doing now. It is being agile, it is community engagement and it is about making sure we construct the legislative framework, the regulations that sit with that, the supports and the education for community that are led through Inclusive SA and the plans that are put in place, again, with support.

I know the member for Flinders, who has a deep connection with the LGA, would understand how particularly smaller local government organisations deeply appreciate the ability to pick up the phone, send an email or get on a webpage and look up, ask or inquire for support to produce an inclusion plan with very limited resources available to do so. I think this is all part of that. I hope I have got there for you in terms of providing some reassurance about the underlying intent around defining 'barrier' and making sure we are absolutely aware of it.

Mr TEAGUE: That is all very helpful. It boils down to a question of the new level of proactivity that might be required by these provisions insofar as we now have an object that is specifically set out to remove barriers. I might say we have seen now the insertion at all the other existing objects of a specific reference to 'regardless of age'. We see that then replicated in the new one. Maybe I have exhausted what the minister is able to say more particularly, but if we are going out of our way to say that these are all to apply regardless of age, it might be implied that that might include life stage, area of endeavour, industry and so on, so it is regardless of the circumstances someone finds themselves in.

There is an endeavour to be inclusive about the kind of person who is living with disability, and then there is this overarching object to do significant things, making significant gains and removing barriers. It is mandatory in terms of a form of injunction. It is an unusual provision in that it is requiring positive action and particularly in circumstances where someone has been able to access life and its various endeavours, regardless of their age and activity, that is disrupted and there is a pathway to restore them to what they were previously able to do. Is that going to trump other considerations and, if so, to what degree?

I will illustrate it perhaps by the other example. Tom Carr is perhaps most celebrated in recent times for his work on inventing a wheel-on wheel-off mode of transport. There has been some significant public media coverage of his inventiveness and in the course of then looking to utilise that device, which will in turn remove a barrier on my approach to the point, he has then encountered the engineering rules that are applied, the road safety rules that are applied to vehicles, and the various hoops that need to be jumped through bureaucratically in order to achieve an outcome of having his invention, which removes the barrier, able to be deployed.

If he is finding himself perhaps well supported by NDIS and perhaps given some funding support for what he is doing and so on, but being thwarted by an existing intransigence in terms of getting it to registrability, getting it to a practical point where it can actually be used, to what extent will Tom Carr be able to point to this object and say, 'Hang on, I've got this new object (f) that I would like to draw upon' in compelling a bit more proactivity in terms of getting that invention on the road, being deployed and so on.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think the description around Mr Carr and the secondary nature of the barrier is helpful. Objects and principles really provide the broad aims of the legislation and some guiding thoughts as to how to achieve them. The rest of the bill and act lay out the specifics. There are a number of other clauses in the particular bill that refer to improvements in the disability access and inclusion plans, including the introduction of measurable targets.

We might have to have some conversation post this particular debate here but, honestly, if I use your example, it will not be the case—certainly Mr Carr, if we continue on that line, will be able to point to this act and say, 'This act intends to remove barriers to my ability to properly engage,' at whatever level that is, and interact. However, it will not allow an individual to influence the constitutional authority of the federal government, for example, in terms of their binding pieces of legislation.

Also, it would not allow Mr Carr to usurp any legislation that ensures safety and wellbeing in the community generally, whatever way that might happen. So there are certainly good pieces of work being done between us and federal arms of government around the interaction of the Australia's Disability Strategy, the NDIS legislation, the Equal Opportunity Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and all of these things to engage and make sure that we can ensure as best we possibly can freedom of access, equity and equality.

But, at the end of the day, there will be some interactions that prove to be very challenging and almost impossible to overcome, and I do not know if that is the situation in Mr Carr's case. I am interested in it. I think we could further interrogate that beyond this, but there may be something else at play. It is an innovation. He has clearly made an invention or created a piece of work that he wants to use and he sees a way of using it. I do not know what the barriers are. I am sure it is not a patent thing but there are patent guidelines and laws, international and national. We would like to say that this act will patch up a lot of that sort of stuff but it is not a fix-all to every relationship between legislative mechanisms. But I think we should keep in touch about what is going on with Mr Carr and his fence and access.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr TELFER: Minister, you started to touch a little bit on the potential impacts on local government. I just point out, not just as shadow local government minister but as someone who has had over a decade in local government and who understands that when state governments make rules, it is often local governments' responsibility and thus they have to bear costs. It is increasingly more challenging for smaller, regional councils in particular who have limited budgets and limited staff capacity to be able to instigate and operate a lot of the obligations which are put on them by state government.

Minister, I am interested in getting a perspective on when you met with the Local Government Association as the chief organisation speaking on behalf of local government. Were any changes made in regard to the direction of this bill subsequent to meeting with the LGA?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There are two points at which the Local Government Association have engaged in terms of getting to this particular point. They provided submissions, as well as met with the reviewer. Basically, the summary of that is they are broadly supportive of what has been proposed, with the caveat that there are sometimes cost-prohibitive barriers, for want of a better word, to local governments being able to deliver additional strategy in connection with the disability access and inclusion plans. That is the broad brush of it, but there has been engagement both in the review and at the point of the draft legislation.

Mr TELFER: Just to go on a little bit from that, you talked about the challenges, as I did, about the potential additional financial impost and the ability or otherwise for local government—and I think probably smaller local government areas, in particular—to be able to put in place additional strategy. I think those were the words that you used.

Has there been any work done as far as the actual quantum of that financial burden on local government, and obviously the additional paperwork and structure that needs to be put in place by local government, to adhere with all the recommendations being sought in the bill? Is there any idea within the department or your office as to what that additional work is going to end up costing ratepayers around the state?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Again, just in addition to the previous question as well, the chief policy officer from the LGA met with some members from the department and my staff to discuss the bill. One of the key changes from the recommendation of the reviewer through to where we are now is that we are not proposing that councils are burdened with an extra layer of having to have committees that they stand up. But of course, I understand some do—

Mr Fulbrook interjecting:

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, it is an option, and I think it is a good one. But also, similarly to what I am going to say, while they have not raised major concerns, it is a resourcing issue. Really, it is entirely contingent on local government authorities preparing their DAIPs according to their capability. It is contingent on us to support them to prepare their ambition according to their capacity to deliver. For us, as far as can be, we support them in leveraging from whatever pool they can. If I think of an example—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes. If I think of a quick example I might say there is a national program where there is a match-to-match-to-match funding of changing places facilities. So feds equals state equals council commitment to fund are changing places, wherever it might be needed. We are offering additional funding if a council is able to contribute to be able to provide a really great piece of infrastructure, and they are only having to pay a third of the cost. But a council is not going to be able to commit to doing that without having the budget to do it. Similarly, they cannot commit to maybe widening every footpath in Kadina or making footpaths so they all have vision assist. It is: what can you do or what do you need help to achieve?

Mr TELFER: Going on in clause 6, obviously this is talking about principles. When you are talking about principles, they often can be reasonably broad in some of the terminology because it is providing the basis for what you can build on. Within subclause (2) are a couple of aspects that I would appreciate the clarification of the minister on because there is enough ambiguity within that that I think it needs some clarification. There are two aspects in particular that I am talking about. Paragraph (p) states:

(p) people with disability, and their families and representatives—

and it uses the words 'as appropriate'—

…have a right to participate in the design and delivery of inclusive policies and programs;

There are two aspects to that: who makes the judgement as to what is deemed as appropriate, and also the process for them to be able to participate in the design and delivery of inclusive policies and programs. This is something that gets set out in council DAIPs, as we talked about. The other part, just a bit further on from there in (q), states:

(q) insofar as people with disability may not be able to find out about their rights, or may not be able to understand their rights, because of their disability, State and local government should take reasonable steps—

and once again that ambiguity comes within that terminology about 'reasonable steps'—

…to assist them to learn about their rights and to develop ways in which they can, or their families or representatives can, report violations of those rights.

For the benefit of the committee and for the benefit of the record, as the minister putting this in place, can you give me some clarification around what is envisioned within these principles of being considered as appropriate, as well as the process for the participation, design and delivery as well as what you see as the minister would be reasonable steps to assist people with a disability to learn about their rights and to develop ways in which they can report violations of those rights?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: That is a big question with lots of layers.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think it is good to point out at the moment as well that, when I was seeking briefings about this and seeking to understand more deeply where we were going, in terms of the principles in this particular section I was advised as well that there were precedents around the use of some of this terminology or wording already embedded in the Correctional Services Act, the Equal Opportunity Act and also within the United Nations' goals. The way we have gone about this has been pretty rigorous and not without precedence as well in terms of trying to ensure that everybody is getting an opportunity to participate in the way this is being done, but also to achieve outcomes through it.

Broadly, subclause (p) is talking about co-design, if we want to chuck that into a little thing. The co-design does rely on the lived experience of diverse community members, and their availability and willingness to engage in the process. Not everyone has equal capacity to be able to engage at this level and to enact co-design. Within legislation it might limit the effectiveness of new policies and programs being delivered, but the current bill wording does allow for appropriate flexibility to meet with—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. N.F. COOK: A co-design engagement process between community members, lived experience, allies, government departments, agencies at all levels, NGOs, visitors to communities. There is a whole range of people who may wish to, but also there is a whole range of people who are currently unable to. I think, in a nutshell, it is contingent on us to ensure that we offer the support and assistance needed to get those people to effectively and actively participate in the co-design process.

Mr Telfer: With the department?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: With all of us, yes. With the department, with everyone—authorities. It is a cross-agency approach. Human services is the custodian of the legislative mechanism to strive for equity and that has been pre the term 'human services'. The Chair was an excellent minister in this area and knows only too well the challenges of people and understanding the impact of a lack of accessibility or the lack of people feeling safe and secure. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the community visitor and principal community visitor may have commenced under his watch for disability services, or maybe it was the previous principal community visitor Maurice Corcoran who started work when he was the minister because I recall that terrific day when everyone came in.

The CHAIR: We took a photo.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, indeed. I could not hand on heart—and I challenge anyone in this place to stand hand on heart and guarantee that everybody has equal opportunity to co-design and participate. We strive as much as we can to achieve that, but, for whatever reason, sometimes people are unable to articulate their wishes or their feelings. But we are doing what we can through a whole range, as talked about in earlier clauses, of round tables, committees, consultation, and engagement with the federal government on different levels. Of course, the federal government as well, through international obligations, engage also. It is a very complicated series of events that need to be just right in order to strive and get to that level. I have forgotten the last bit that you asked. What was it about? We will call it part of the original question.

Mr TELFER: The second part of it was in paragraph (q): 'State and local government should take reasonable steps to assist'. What is reasonable? What does that process look like from the minister who is putting this?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: That's right, and I remember where I was going now. There are two words within both of those clauses: 'appropriate' and 'reasonable', and who judges, who is the arbiter of that terminology? Well, the people in the community, and they will absolutely be advising us as to their capacity or the capacity of this to truly reflect that the steps are appropriate and optimised. They can make submissions directly to us if they believe that the local area or the local government or the local government department has not provided optimal steps in order to be able to find out what is happening—so Easy Read has not been provided or there was no Auslan at this public presentation that was important where information was vital, or something has changed and the website has not been updated. So there has not been an active attempt to provide information that can be reported directly to the agency, which is obligated to provide that information. Alternatively, people can make a complaint through the equal opportunity commissioner, and they do.

I understand—someone will tell me if I am wildly inaccurate—about 25 per cent of complaints to the equal opportunity commissioner come from the disability community, give or take, as it varies year on year. A large chunk of those are around education, employment and what have you. I could not give you the stats on how much is about provision of information, but I would imagine there would be people who would do that.

Of course, the local members of all electorates and those in the upper house, who slave tirelessly day and night to do their work and represent the entire state, are also available to have commentary provided to them via email or phone to not necessarily complain but to air a grievance or point out a failing in terms of provision of access to information.

Mr TELFER: With your leave, Chair, I just seek a clarification. Paragraph (q) refers to local government needing to take reasonable steps. I understand the state government and the resources that come with that. Naturally, state government has the capacity because we are the ones who put this legislation in place. Is there a process that your department is going through to make sure that local government know not just their obligations but also what they need to communicate to their constituents?

You are putting an obligation here on local government to assist people to know their rights. Local government may not know the basis for that to be able to communicate it in the first place. Is that a responsibility or process that the department is going through at the moment—communication with each individual local government area to make sure that they have the capacity to be able to let people know their rights?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I do not have a history in local government. However, I have had a lot to do with people in local government, and my observation is that they have a deep understanding of their obligation and what should be done in terms of provision of accessibility, resourcing, communication, understanding of rights and what have you. But it is to say that Human Services as a portal is providing support and a lens on the production of disability plans, and the state plan also provides some guidance in respect to that.

I would expect local governments would be aware of disability strategies per se. I am not sure that they are specifically pointed towards those, but I would imagine that policy officers working in local government areas or managers would certainly have the capacity to be able to investigate those kinds of things. Local councils will certainly participate in the new state plan evolution, so that is a point of contact.

I think this is an interesting line of questioning that potentially we could then take on board to add to the package to make sure—I am sure Rhys will be doing that—and check what level of guidance is given. Certainly, if it is not already there clearly, we can add to that, but it is well worth pursuing.

Mr TEAGUE: We are now in the realms of principles. We are adding a principle. In fact, in subclause (1) we are adding three to the existing 15. If I deal first with the first of those at paragraph (ja), there has been a drafting consideration to insert this new one as a (ja) as opposed to those two additional principles that are at the end of the existing principles. To my observation we are now continuing this theme of increased proactivity that we see in the application of the recommendations. So here we have a more particular principle that sits alongside (j) but also (k). Perhaps I can see why it has been put where it has. I would be interested to know what the threshold is for it to go in where it has as opposed to adding it at the end of the list, but I can see how it fits between (j) and (k). It provides:

(ja) people with disability have the right to be safe, and to feel safe—

but here comes the proactivity—

through the provision of appropriate safeguards, information, services and support, and through appropriate and accessible reporting mechanisms in cases of neglect, abuse or exploitation;

So there is that more proactive principle, the provision of these appropriate safeguards, so if there is a bundled-up question, it is first of all that technical point about how it qualifies for a (ja), why it finds itself sitting where it does. Is there a description in principle or in practice? Indeed, is there anything already implemented that might illustrate what that increased level of proactivity looks like in terms of the provision of those appropriate safeguards, information, services and support, and so on?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: With respect to the (ja) qualification, I have consulted on that and we are happy to get you technical advice between the chambers regarding that, if that is something that you feel is very important or even if it is just a point of interest. We will take that on notice for you and get you an answer from the drafters in regard to that.

In regard to your other commentary around the principles, it basically is essential for that to be in there and it would be extraordinary for us to not spell that out. We feel it is very important for it to be there. I do not think that you are suggesting we should move it out. I think you are just qualifying or seeking clarification about the importance of it. It really does add to the robustness of this. As I said earlier, there are precedents in relation to those other acts and spelling this out within those.

Mr TEAGUE: My next question is in relation to those additional principles that are added as (p) and (q). I might just mention in passing a curiosity as to how (p) does not quite qualify as an (ma) perhaps. We have (m) talking about the principle that people with disability are free to associate with families, carers and other persons as they see fit, and should be supported where necessary to engage in family, social and friendship activities. It seems to me, on the face of it, that (p) goes more particularly to characterising the nature of that, but it covers new territory.

The question in substance is really about (p), and that is that as distinct from (m)—and maybe there are others, but perhaps as distinct from (m) for a start—(p) is now providing that:

(p) people with disability, and their families and representatives as appropriate, have a right to participate in the design and delivery of inclusive policies and programs;

So it raises a question in relation to authority and to the provision of the means by which that participation may occur. If we are talking about principles, we are already saying in the act that at (m)—and I might say, in the balance of principles that are dealing with the rights of people with disabilities to live and participate and so on, we are now saying in (p), as I understand the purpose of it, that a person with a disability, their family members and representatives have a right to participate in the design and delivery of inclusive policies and programs.

I do not read that as to somehow introduce some right, that those associated with people with disabilities somehow have a right to pile in contrary to the wishes of the person with a disability. It is not creating some unusual right of people in those categories; you would assume authority, as might be required, but you are basically adding—again, on this theme of proactivity—a right to participate in a practical way that looks more in the nature of providing for a right to access a particular activity, as opposed to a right in the broad that might be evidenced by the way in which we conduct ourselves generally. So it is descending into a level of detail and proactivity that we have not seen before. Is there a way in which the government is able to explain the purpose that it is envisaged that will serve? The minister might take the chance to confirm whether those aspects of my reading of the new clause are on track or not.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think where we have gone is that (m) is about the doing, the participation, the person and their access to relationships, engagements and equal participation; and (p)—this would be the reason it is not like, and I have to be careful of my letters here, an (mj) or (ma) or whatever it was—has been inserted to really spell out co-design, the rationale and who is to be involved, and not to give permission, but almost to compel people to think about how people with disability want engagement on policy and practice.

It is the 'nothing for us without us' mantra that we are very accustomed to hearing now. Great; shout it from the rooftops. That is about the co-design. That is about the policy side of it. This over here in paragraph (m) is about the participation, the activity and the connection with community on whatever level: this is the design of the policy and how that happens with others.

Mr TEAGUE: I will get onto my third question and resist the urge to seek clarification about that, although I note in passing that, if that is the case, my curiosity goes to the necessity for those additional words 'and their families and representatives as appropriate'. I understand what the minister is getting at in terms of the core principle. Perhaps I will leave it there for the moment.

My question then goes to the insertion of another body of subsections to add to those categories that are provided for in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) already, that is, respectively, women, children, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. To that, we add an additional set of principles that are applicable for those people living with a disability with significant intellectual disability. Here we find another reference to barriers, curiously, that is not replicated, as I see it, in those other existing subcategories; I stand to be corrected.

Again, it is not an occasion to catalogue endlessly constituents and case study examples, but I have referred at some length to my constituent Andrew Sands in this sense in particular, so I have him in mind in terms of how this might apply, bundled up, if you like. The question is how we come in to land on this additional special subcategory. Why do we then make particular reference to the major barriers that are encountered by this group? Why, as a matter in passing, do we not then expand those other subcategories that are specifically provided for in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5)?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think the response to that is pretty quick. The previous government, on the drafting of the bill, identified specific cohorts: women, children, CALD, Aboriginal people, etc. When the Dennis review went out to consult about this, an additional layer of complexity was identified within a cohort of people with intellectual disability, who often need others to express their needs, wants and feelings for them in a way that often is not easy to interpret.

I do not want to say it could be misconstrued, but it is difficult, and it takes quite a level of skill to be able to communicate on behalf of and with someone who has a significant intellectual disability. The same could be said for individuals as well of complex communication barriers. But if you combine that with someone with an intellectual disability, that is quite complex. So this has been designed in order to add a layer of safety and support for that particular group of people.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr TELFER: Clause 7 is only a relatively small amendment but it is an interesting one, though, advising the minister on systemic or emerging accessibility and inclusion issues. I am curious: is this something that has arisen due to a particular circumstance? It is quite prescriptive.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am happy to respond. No is the answer to: did it arise because of a particular circumstance? Actually, this happens all the time anyway. There are many layers and critical incident reporting, a whole range of obligations under various acts where the chief executive is obligated to report certain things to the minister. This is already something that has been occurring but it is now formalised within the act.

Mr TELFER: Indeed, I would have thought that it probably would be a core function of the CEO, a core responsibility, that would not necessarily need to be specified within a piece of legislation. Is something like this so explicit in other similar acts, do you know, minister, such as in child protection matters, or the like? Is it something we see an example of in other places?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There are already areas within this act where the chief executive is involved and prescribed. I am pretty happy for it to be in the act now. I do not think it creates any controversy. I think it formalises that process. It raises that awareness to the community that we are being accountable and that all layers of the department are answering through to the person who the act is committed to.

Mr TELFER: Continuing on from that, what is the obligation on the minister after receiving such information? What action must or could the minister take when presented with this information advising the minister on systemic or emerging accessibility and inclusion issues? What is the responsibility on the minister when we are very specific about this aspect? I am interested in what the obligation is for the minister.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Any advice that is offered to me in respect of anything from my department I take on board and then we engage with the department and/or stakeholders in terms of what improvements, changes or obligations we might have. If I can give you a quick example, we had quite a series of people providing us with feedback and this came from the general public via the electorate office, public via the ministerial office, other members of parliament to various sources through to me, to the department directly, through social media and also via my committee, that there were barriers to people attending paid entertainment functions with or without their support worker or carer or companion.

There were a range of barriers that were in place for that. So, as a consequence, we have started a process of consultation through a staged approach and we have held our first of what we are calling a ticketing round table, where we met with venue and ticket providers and a range of lived experience participants, but that will now roll into another round table of pretty much sole target lived experience people. So a barrier to attending, a barrier to buying a ticket, suddenly not being able to get a companion ticket in the right area, buying a ticket and ending up somewhere you cannot see or hear, being isolated, not having equal opportunity. People are quite reasonable about this. They do not want a front-row seat at a venue. They understand they are paying X dollars for a ticket but by the time you get through that laborious process—and we all know what the wheel of death was like with Tay Tay—

Mr Teague: No, we don't.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I will bet you do. Come on fellas. Once you get through that—

Mr Teague: I would have been there in a shot.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Let me know next time—then you have to buy a companion ticket or let them know that you are trying for a companion ticket. It is inadequate—that is a nice way of putting it—so we have responded like that. That is quite a simple one but it means a lot for quality of life. So the issue via various sources, engagement with lived experience and the department—how should we deal with this? We would like to get around and highlight the issue, talk with people and then effect change as possible.

Mr TEAGUE: I might say that my daughter and I contented ourselves with going along to the cinema at Mount Barker and watching the film. I am full of admiration for Taylor Swift, the capacity to launch a film right in the thick of the global tour. It is extraordinary. I would be very interested to go one better if ever the opportunity presents itself.

In terms of slotting in this additional obligation on the chief executive, I am reminded of what the minister had to say in just stepping through those provisions of article 3 of the convention. Given that this is an act that is in lockstep with the convention and is now made more particularly so by the addition of the additional object, by reference to the principles of the convention, to what extent is there any form of two-way street, and it is not all at the feet of the chief executive of course.

While we are here talking about obligations on the chief executive to advise the minister, it sort of imports an obligation on the minister and the government to keep their eye on the ball in terms of emerging accessibility and inclusion issues as well, aided now by a chief executive who is specifically tasked with finding them out.

If there is something that is coming along that in the view of the government requires the convention to be revisited, as I think the minister made the observation earlier, to what extent is there a capacity for the government, aided or not by the freshly motivated chief executive, to take representations back up the line and to not only articulate objects and principles in our act but go and make representations for reform of the convention itself?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I just point out that any contribution or representation that would be regarding the convention or contributing to the convention would be made through the federal government agencies. But we certainly meet regularly with said federal government agencies anyway, so if there was something that we felt—and we did read out some areas of that—potentially, at some point, there might be something we could make a submission about, that is certainly the way.

If we look at section 7, that was drafted under the previous government, that actually is totally about linking the principles and objects of this with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is consistent with that.

Mr TEAGUE: That is right; there is no doubt about that. If we are now introducing provisions that deal with taking responsibility for what might be emerging, we are not leaving that work to the convention itself but we are now including obligations in these circumstances on the chief executive to do that work. It rather begs the question: what is the minister going to do with that information?

The minister would be guided otherwise by the principles and objects. The minister might presumably come back to the parliament and say, 'We need some more principles and objects because I've been advised by the chief executive.' But the core point, as the minister points out in section 7 and now in 8(f), is that it is the convention that we are seeking to remain in lockstep about. I do not think there is any particular departure.

In taking a really optimistic view of things locally, we are now on the second iteration of this bill. It is founded on a direct connection with the convention and we are now introducing proactive measures to remain ahead of emerging issues. At what point is it conceivable that we in South Australia get significantly enough ahead of the game that we are actually content to rest on our own principles and objects and the convention might start to lag, in other words, if we are doing what we are doing effectively here? It is really just to explore further: what is the necessary-forever connection between the core point in section 7 and now in 8(f) and what we are otherwise going to go on with, the subject of the objects and principles of the act?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The Australian Disability Strategy is also intrinsically connected with the convention, and the state plan and other plans are also connected. I do not think we could ever be accused of sitting and resting on our laurels, and I point members to the deep and rigorous policy suite that is now assisting people with autism and the autistic community.

The work that has gone into reforming our view and building knowledge around this community and ensuring understanding, acceptance, voice and connection has been something which is lauded nationally. The conversations that are being had nationally around the work are exciting, and I think that is a way to demonstrate that we are actually putting into practice what the intent of these conversations, the legislation, the plans and the frameworks are intended to do.

Mr TEAGUE: I suppose it is clear that where there is a convention and there is a certain degree of global reference point, that can be to advantage because we have made significant progress over recent years, and we have taken significant strides of leadership. There is a point in principle I suppose: at what stage does the rest of the world say, 'Well, the purpose of our Disability Inclusion Act is to emulate the principles and objects of the South Australian act as opposed to this point of reference'?

At what point does it become a useful signal that we are in some form of global communication as opposed to being kind of dragged forward by that convention? The minister might give an indication, leaving aside niceties or aspects of language, as to where are we at really vis-a-vis other jurisdictions—and not so much other jurisdictions in Australia necessarily, but other jurisdictions globally that might make similar reference in their legislation to the UN convention?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am happy to provide more information between the houses if it is so required. Again, I feel, having talked to colleagues, that we are doing well with this. I could not hand on heart say I know absolutely where other states or jurisdictions or, in fact, other countries are in this regard. Having travelled, I see really good things in other areas, but then also I can point myself back to what we are doing and say, 'Yes, we are doing well in that regard.'

I think it is one of those things where you kind of make advances, then other people overtake you, and what have you. But again, if we point back to section 7 where there is this interplay in many of the other pieces of legislation and the frameworks that are provided, I think we are doing reasonably well but we can always strive to do more. I will get a piece of work done just to check where others are and we can provide that information for you.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr TELFER: Obviously, clause 8 is amending section 13, which is the framework for the State Disability Inclusion Plan, so it already has quite a comprehensive description of the obligation that this legislation puts for the minister, for the government, for the department, the scope of which is specified within this. I am interested in the amendment at subclause (2). Minister, you sort of touched on it a bit earlier in answer to another one of the questions. The amendment at subclause (2), section 13(4)—after paragraph (b), it says 'insert', and (ba) provides:

(ba) must ensure that any documents prepared for the purposes of paragraph (a) are in a form that is accessible to people with disability;

My mind automatically goes to people who, through their disability, have challenges with communication and capacity to be able to understand, and not just in those with a severe disability who need that work done for them through their carers. Is this part in particular also targeted at trying to enshrine the need for Easy Read, for an Auslan translator, for instance, for all communications? Is that what this aspect in particular is trying to achieve?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Just to point out as well—if you so have an appetite; it is up to you—that the wording of this clause is almost identical to clause 11. This one refers specifically to the State Disability Inclusion Plan and 11 refers specifically to the—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, that is right, the dates. Essentially, this has brought some stuff from regulation into the bill itself. Essentially, the answer is yes. The answer to your question about ensuring the information is understood and provided in a way that is understood is yes. This is about making sure that that happens.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Yes, all of that stuff.

Mr TEAGUE: So we are here talking about the contents of the State Disability Inclusion Plan. Without traversing over the subject matter of a bill that is before the house that happens to be in my name, the topic generally of access to voting in electoral matters and the provisions that will facilitate voting for people with disability is a matter of live concern. As I say, it is not so as to traverse the particular subject matter of a bill that is before the house but just as to illustrate that it is one topic of current public policy interest.

The provisions that are now to be added require that the whole-of-government policies and strategies will give effect to the convention. We have seen that expressed in a number of places, but they go now to require the setting out of strategies to ensure more particularly that those particular persons in those five subcategories of persons living with disability are the subject of strategies that are addressed particularly to their needs. That is one that comes to mind perhaps across the board.

Given we are now seeing this specific reference to strategies directed to those particular needs, an example that comes to mind is that of the particular electoral needs of those in particular categories of disability that are provided for not so much in terms of women and children but in respect of the others. Is that likely to present as a good example of something that would now need to be all the more particularly considered the subject of a disability inclusion plan going forward?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: While the question is insightful, the state plan already directs people toward ensuring that we are mindful of our priority groups, which have been in operation since the inception of the previous act. The clause does not do anything to change plans or dates: it just moves the current regs into here. It has been working pretty well to this point, and I see that continuing.

Mr TELFER: I seek a clarification on that. Obviously, within this amendment, proposed section 13(3)(ba)(ii) refers back to the principles description and mentions the needs of persons referred to in section 9(2), (3), (4), (5) and (5a). Once again, it is interesting to be specifying that within the legislation, because it feels like we have an existing piece of legislation from 2018 that puts in place the obligation on the state to have a state disability inclusion plan.

One would have thought that through that process the needs of the persons referred to in the principal document in section 9(2), (3), (4), (5) and (5a) would be part of the core function of what a state disability inclusion plan would be and would cover.

Has there been a gap in the existing plan that needs to be fixed by enshrining this within the legislation as opposed to within the current structures which we already have? Talking about specifying priority areas for improvement in relation to inclusion, once again it is interesting. If you are saying that it is moving it from within existing regulation to within legislation, it is interesting that there is a need to be specifying priority areas for improvement.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think you are answering the question with your question. It is shining a light and highlighting the importance of the focus on priority groups. As I have said before, it is exactly that: just picking up those regulations. The regulations and the legislation are equally as enforceable. It picks them up, it shines a light on their importance, and it highlights the priority cohorts within the act rather than sitting under the regs. It was obviously recommended by Richard Dennis and it is a way of reinforcing our focus on the importance of priority cohorts. The only thing that is different is actually then adding that extra layer of certainty that we are obligated to provide: information and clarity in a way that can be accessed by all people.

Mr TELFER: The other aspects which I did not cover under (ba)(iv), it is interesting that once again we are talking about specifying measurable outcomes for each priority area identified in the State Disability Inclusion Plan. It is creating a bit of a circular reporting structure within the legislation, the obligation on the State Disability Inclusion Plan.

It is not only talking about priority areas that you then can adapt and develop regulations that suit as you go along. We know the process for changing the regulations is a lot less complicated in this process that we are going through as far as the legislative process. It talks about having to specify measurable outcomes within the Disability Inclusion Plan as well. Can you give me a bit of an explanation as to the reasoning behind having to put that specificity again about the specification of the measurable outcomes within the legislation itself?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think I might go to thinking about building a case. If we want to build a case for the community to get on board with change or a policy, we would seek to obtain evidence. People in different parts of the community view evidence differently. It might surprise you that I am a very science-based person. I come from a science background. I like: the sky is blue and one plus one is two, up is up and down is down, and factual, measurable outcomes.

I also, in the course of my work over many years, have used sliding scales of smiley faces, from crying faces through to happy smiles. I have used thumbs up to around the clock to thumbs down to assess pain and allow for people to provide qualitative feedback. This is saying that we need to be able to provide something tangible to the community to build the case for change or the case for delivery and, through the state plan, we are insisting that that is the way that actions need to be proven or measured.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr TELFER: This is a relatively simple change. Can you give a reasoning for the change from financial to calendar?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is really just to meet the expectations of community in terms of provision of reporting. It streamlines it for us. It takes the report to calendar year from financial year.

Mr TEAGUE: This might be expressing some interest in the answer. If there are community expectations, and if that is a driver—and it might be a subject of the review, and if so, I would be grateful to be directed in that way—is there any indication that the act as it was originally drafted reflected circumstances that were applicable at the time and that that has changed, or was there always a good reason why it ought to be that way around? Is it a response to changing circumstances or is it something that was wrong in the first place, as far as the government is concerned?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There is no financial imperative in regard to these reports. If we call it the 2023 report it will, in fact, report for 2023 to the people in the community. This reporting is more about the people. If we are doing it at the end of the year, it also takes into account the annual reports that have occurred in other situations that come in in the third quarter, or sometimes the fourth, of the year. I think it streamlines that. There is no imperative for the financial year, and at the four-year cycle of the plan we would have to do a six-month interim report. This is a report for people. I have probably done as much as I can do to tell you that I think it makes life a lot simpler. It gets rid of the little six-month interim report, it makes it clear what year we are reporting for, and I think it engages the community much better in the process.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

Mr TELFER: I am taking this addition in conjunction with the existing reporting structure that is in place for section 15. Section 15 talks about the need for the minister to cause a review and cause a copy of the report to be laid before the houses of parliament. This new subsection to follow states:

(3) A report submitted to the Minister for the purposes of subsection (1) must include, or be accompanied by, information about any changes recommended to be made to the State Disability Inclusion Plan as a result of the review.

Within the existing act, there is not a specificity around the reporting mechanism; it just talks about the CEO having to report. This additional aspect talks about recommendations for changes to the plan. Is this saying that it is now an obligation on the CEO, as part of the annual reporting process, not only to report on the operation of the State Disability Inclusion Plan but every year to now develop recommendations to the minister about changes to be made to the State Disability Inclusion Plan?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Just to clarify, this is not about the CEO doing an annual report: this is about the review that happens every four years. Is there a Latin term for 'four yearly'? You can tell me later, Josh; I bet you know.

Mr Teague: I don't know where I get that reputation from.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: You are a wordsmith, my friend. Critically, just the report on the plan has to include the recommendations for change.

Mr TELFER: As I said, there are no specifics within the existing act. Are you saying it is not going to be the CEO who is doing this review? Now that there are these extra aspects to the review that this change puts in place, is this a comprehensive, thorough review? The minister must cause the review, in subsection (1), and provide a copy of that report to parliament.

Now we are saying that not only does it need to be reviewed but there needs to be recommendations made on any changes to be made to the State Disability Inclusion Plan as a result of that review. Who does the minister envision doing that review? This extra aspect obviously creates a greater reporting obligation. Does the minister believe that is going to cause additional reporting complications?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: This is a review of the plan every four years. The department will undertake that review of the plan.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The CEO probably will not. There are excellent roosters like Reece who will do that, along with others. They will engage with community, and we will use all of those excellent groups that we have put in place with lived experience as well to give us feedback. That report will be provided, and it will have listed recommendations that are being made on that consultation. There was an interim one done in 2022.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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