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.

(Continued from 21 March 2024.)

Clause 4.

Mr TEAGUE: Clause 4 is requiring and providing for the means by which the minister will be obliged to seek the views of people with disability. Apart from making the observation that it might be trite to say so—one might expect that the government ought to be seeking the views of people with a disability—the new section, 7A, will formalise that and set out a structure. At the risk of minor repetition, given where we left off some weeks ago, I would just indicate this is important.

Perhaps this need not be entirely with reference to subsection 7A(2), but there is a discretion there for the minister to establish a committee to advise and assist the minister in relation to the operation of the section. The headline question, again, if there is a risk of repetition here, is: is that the government's intent—is the minister to establish the committee—and, if so, is there some indication, which might turn to new subsection (3) at this point, that is possibly given by the government about the perspectives that might be represented, including carers, those who are acting on behalf of those living with a disability and then those living with a whole variety of disabilities themselves?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think I can provide a pretty short answer to a really important question. The ministerial advisory committee, Disability Engagement Group, Autism Strategy: all of these groups have been established. I think the Disability Engagement Group was pre-established during the term of the previous government, and the others have been established within our leadership, but they have all been established with very similar criteria, and that is around lived experience and making sure that there is an absolutely broad spread of experiences within those representatives. That includes carers, people living with disability and, in some cases, all of the above.

Also, we have taken into account the capacity for us to inject cultural lenses within those. We also have a mission to ensure we have LGBTIQA+ representation, First Nations and culturally and linguistically diverse people, and we also have young people within all of our committees as well. The committees that are not set up specifically for disability and disability engagement, however, such as our youth ministerial advisory committee and our LGBTIQA+ advisory committee, all have people, again, with lived experience across all of those particular realms.

We have had four or five meetings in the last year or so with all of those committees plus had specific engagement in a less formal capacity by inviting them here, to parliament, and sitting around the table yarning, so to speak—so actually not having the formal agenda but really getting to listen and understand. Then, of course, as the shadow minister would also appreciate, we have made sure across many trips regionally and remotely that we have sat with community members and specifically targeted some of these questions. In fact, I had the privilege of doing so last week, as I know both those opposite have done as well when visiting remote regions of South Australia.

Making sure that that is at the front of mind, we are ensuring that that engagement is happening regularly, that we are open to listening in a less formal way, that the doors are open for things to be raised in between times, and also that the information that is going out into the community to provide feedback is being offered in easy-read versions that are accessible to a wide and diverse community. Frankly, how lucky are we these days that accessible internet—to a point—is available across South Australia? Of course, there are still areas where there are gaps, which we know and identify, but we are making sure we are getting it out as broadly as we can.

Mr TELFER: To follow on, minister, obviously that short summation really did start to unpack a bit of the informal arrangements. This part of clause 4, 7A, talks about the formal side of it, talking about a singular committee rather than a series of committees. Does that structure which you have talked about sit below the formal committee structure which is being spoken about here? Within the aspect here of subsection (2) it does use the word 'may', so it does not obligate the minister to establish a committee to advise and assist.

It also talks a bit about the diverse range of people with lived experience of disability. We have spoken previously through the committee stage of this bill about the challenge of dealing with people with a range of disability and the different arrangements and circumstances you need to put in place. Obviously, when it comes to consultation and the results of it, the requests, I guess you could say, from a consultation process may vary depending on that wide range.

The minister has given a description of what is in place now and trying to address consultation with different cohorts. Does that informal structure sit below the formal structure that is spoken about within this bill and, if so, is there any formality to those informal structures that sit below it to feed into the formal membership of the committee, especially when it comes to that diverse range we speak about?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I guess to some degree there is. This bill is written in such a way that it provides scope for the delivery of all of those opportunities. The ministerial advisory committee, as I said, has been a formal process set up, and that is what is being referred to within here. It is also being chaired by a member of the committee. The first couple of meetings were not, but we have installed a member chair in these committees now to develop those committees with their own voice.

We have formal and public consultation processes, which probably sit below all of this as well, but in terms of all of the legislation and the policy work that is being delivered out of the Department of Human Services, we are always doing public consultation at every single level. We also subcontract a number of other expert groups such as JFA (Julia Farr) Purple Orange to help deliver on the consultation with respect to any areas that we want to make sure we get absolutely right within our community.

There are a number of engagement opportunities. Of course, we use YourSAy and a range of other structured pathways, but I think the nature of delivering human services to humans is that often there is some spontaneity and we tend to try to harness some of the energy that is coming to us with suggestions and groups and use that as a process. There is this formal process, and then the structure below that is obviously dictated by the departmental team. Of course, I have Rhys here with me who is part of that team that ensures that engagement with Ksharmra as well—heavily involved in that—who was with me previously. So there is formal and really well-structured processes for informal opportunity.

Mr TEAGUE: I also appreciate the answer, which I think has really filled out addressing, substantially, the new subsection (1). So there are no limits on how, but the minister must go about the task of seeking the views of people with disability in those ways and it is then to zero in on subsection (2) and the discretion to establish a committee. I think the minister has given an indication that that is a committee that is already in existence. It would certainly assist me and it might assist the committee if that might be even more clearly spelt out than it already has been.

So the discretion, in other words, has been exercised already prior to the enactment of the provision so that if there is a committee that is already in place that the minister regards as fitting the bill for subsection (2) as it will be enacted, then that is good to know. The follow-on question from that might be, in a nice piece of drafting we see in subclause (4), that the procedures of that committee will be as determined by the minister or, in so far as that is not determined by the minister, then by the committee—so happy days. But this is all contemplating that a committee might come into being.

If the minister is telling this committee that that has already happened then, for completeness, where are we at vis-a-vis the new subclause (4)? Does the minister consider that procedures for the committee have already been determined by the minister and therefore we are in subclause (4)(a) territory, or is this committee charting its own course and are we then to anticipate that the future is going to be a committee that the minister has already described and there will not be a lot of change, if any, and it might be largely subclause (4)(b) territory?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Thank you for the question. I think, also, it is good to remind members that the early draft of the bill that went out to public consultation actually had a very long and prescriptive arrangement for the establishment of the committee and for consultation, which I do have a copy of in there but I am sure the member has read it. It was deliberately made more general so that we could seek advice from a variety of other committees, including the Disability Minister's Advisory Council, which I established as part of an election commitment, which in fact coincidently came up separately through the engagement on the bill itself and the update. Separately, this piece of work was recommended and we had already done that in part.

It is also worth noting that the Disability Engagement Group, which I talked about before, is actually dictated and set up under the state plan. Under a number of authoritative documents, there are guidelines for the establishment of the groups. It is an interesting way you have set out the discussion, but I would like to say that we made a commitment to establish an advisory council. We then listened to the consultation on this group. As far as I know, for the first time the ministerial advisory council is a paid appointment which provides for opportunities for people who previously have not been able to afford to engage in such a process because of their level of affordability, etc., so I think that has been a really positive thing.

I think the development of the ministerial advisory council, as it stands today, has been a combination of 4(a) and (b) and lies available and ready to adapt itself and change as required by the scope of the work that is needed to be done under the guidance of such a committee. I feel really comfortable and confident that we have allowed the committee to guide its operations to this point as well.

Now we are at a point with the committee where we are able to start interrogating not just pieces of work within this portfolio but pieces of work that sit outside, such as housing and youth and education, roundtable-type discussions that we are having. I think there is a really good, robust process that is happening here of co-design, which—and I am sure the members understand—is absolutely what is asked for by the community, a true co-design process.

Mr TEAGUE: Again, hopefully that is some productive expansion that might assist in terms of the record and the time. So to understand, therefore: we are in a situation where the government acted on an election commitment to establish a committee, we are all aware of the ongoing review process, and that comes in to land in terms of review recommendations, and then it finds voice here in the new section 7A that now expresses the discretion in terms of a committee that the minister might elect to establish.

It goes on, though, to stipulate, in subsection (3), the membership of the committee, and the minister has had something to say about a range of inputs and so on. If we are to understand that the existing committee is going to be regarded as fitting the bill, is there anything about, then, the provisions, particularly subsections (2), (3) and (4), that is going to be a cause for the government to have to go and revisit either the make-up, the procedure or any aspect of the operation or underpinnings of that existing committee? As the result of the passage of this bill, are we going to see gazetted or are we going to see some regulation that is then going to say, 'That committee that you are already becoming familiar with, what do you know, that is a section 7A committee and I have exercised the discretion in subsection (2)'?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: This committee is under the DPC boards and committees establishment, so that is already recorded. As I stated before, we made that commitment because in my listening period, in the depths of darkness and opposition, I talked to a lot of people who felt they were not being provided with adequate opportunity to engage in that formal direct consultation with ministers. That is historic and, for whatever reason, committees have come and gone, and now this actually does, I understand, for the first time, provide the legislative framework to insist that there is this ability for us to establish that committee.

Again, as I said before, from the recommendations to the draft bill to now, there have been some changes. I do not see that there are any other changes. The podcast provided an excellent set of tips for good engagement, including committing to listening, particularly to firsthand stories. I can table this, if you wish. It is already in the review.

On page 34, there is a list of tips for good engagement, which we followed, that includes: firsthand stories, seeking out a diverse array of people with varying disabilities, paying people for their time and expertise, being open to criticism because we know we are all on the same team working towards the same goal, following up with people and letting them know what we have done and finding out how they feel about it, and good engagement never ends. We are following those recommended processes for benchmark engagement. We have no intention to deviate from that at all and have not, so I would expect that would continue.

Mr TELFER: Minister, we know that this has been a process which we have been following for a fair while, obviously, as it is a 2022 amendment bill. The consultation process was between 27 February 2023 and 6 April 2023, so now over 12 months ago. A fair bit has changed and developed within this space, such as the Disability Royal Commission, the NDIS review, etc.

What has the process been, as far as this goes and the operations of the department, with any external engagement or consultation that the minister has conducted across the disability sector in response to those changes that have happened subsequently vis-a-vis the Disability Royal Commission and the NDIS review? What work are you doing basically to prepare for those potential NDIS changes that we are going to be faced with? Do you see that there is potentially an increase in state services and thus cost to the state government for the provision of services for people with a disability in reflection of those potential NDIS changes?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: That is a great question and there is an interaction between all these things. I cannot remember how many meetings we have had as the national Disability Reform Ministerial Council, but there were a lot. We have been kept abreast of the royal commission and review terms of reference findings and ongoing recommendations—all of those pieces of work which have to the best of our ability been fulsomely communicated with the Disability Minister's Advisory Council under my guidance. The Disability Engagement Group has also been discussing this.

DHS is leading the delivery of the recommendations of the Disability Royal Commission and working across the nation with our other jurisdictional partners to pull that piece of work together, which is extensive and will be ongoing for many years. It is fair to say that, out of the hundreds of recommendations and thousands of pages across both of those reviews, there are unique, unique and common recommendations and targets for us to work on and deliver. For that reason, there is a lot of effort being put in by highly skilled people to pull that together and make sure that we deliver it efficiently and effectively and as much as possible in partnership with the community as well and with that lived experience at hand.

The Disability Minister's Advisory Council Chair also sits on a national group of disability councils to share information and we have people across our state involved in a range of different reference groups and advisory groups providing local feedback to federal ministers around all these pieces of work. Cooperatively, with the support of the federal government, we have pushed out the target date for delivery on our response to the Disability Royal Commission in acknowledgement of the complex piece of work, so that will be done later this year.

As you know, there is a piece of work now that will be helped by a review in committee of the NDIS suggested legislative amendments. All of that is being pulled together, along with state premiers, first ministers and in partnership with the people who will need to work out all of the funding mechanisms, as well as disability ministers, who are that connected piece with people with lived experience, so it is quite a complex piece of work.

There is not a simple answer to give you, except to say that there are pathways for feedback and opportunities for cross-engagement across all of these things. As much as we possibly can, we can provide information. If formal mechanisms of briefings are something that you are interested in, I offer you, my friend, to provide that as well with the group, because it is important that we are all on this journey together.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr TELFER: Looking at clause 5, which talks about the objects, and reflecting on the consultation report which you referred to before, there are a few different aspects I want to unpack a little to get the perspective of the minister on the feedback. As we know, especially in this space, language is so important. Having language that properly reflects all those people who are having to deal with the mechanics of this bill is really important. In the commentary on page 66 there was a comment I found interesting, and I would like the minister to reflect on it. I quote:

I note in the legislation the terminology about equal access is 'like other people'. I'd like to see this changed to 'like anyone else', which removes the implication that you are not like us, you are other.

That is at the bottom of page 66. Minister, in reflection of that and, as I said, noting the importance of getting language right and getting the structure right, do you contemplate updating that language to be more reflective of the feedback that has been received in that sort of commentary, recognising that this is what people with lived experience, on reflection of that bill, are commenting?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Sorry for the delay; I was just trying to find the place where particularly that might be within the act. I think what we are saying, though, and what we want to get across with that particular statement is that language is ever evolving. We are constantly changing and tweaking language in state plans, policies, statements, online information, information that is put out to the community, information that we use as part of the guidance for our committees and the work that we are doing. I am not sure that we are specifically changing that piece of language.

Certainly, on many occasions, I know that I will be corrected by somebody, or advised by somebody, that they prefer to use 'people first' type of language, and then I will have somebody say, 'No, that's a clumsy thing for me; I don't like the way that is said.' So all I can do is say that I do my very best. I think that it is almost like the royal 'I': all of us, we do our very best to ensure that we are using language that is sensitive to the person with lived experience.

I think that challenge is quite difficult sometimes because everybody's perception is different, and I know the member is as sensitive to that as I am with all the people in our community. Absolutely, we have endeavoured to ensure that we are using language that is as contemporary, co-designed and accepted as possible.

Mr TELFER: Minister, a subject that I have asked questions about in the house and that we have discussed is the Community Visitor Scheme. I know that recommendation No. 33 for the Community Visitor Scheme is currently being reviewed. The recommendation states that this important scheme should not be unnecessarily delayed. It is something that has had its set of challenges. Can you update the chamber, the committee, as to where the review of the Community Visitor Scheme is at currently and when, potentially, we can see legislation that we will be considering?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I appreciate that question as well. It is really important, and it is a piece of work that we have been doing over the last couple of years, alongside being quite patient with the recommendations that are coming out of the royal commission and the review. This goes back to the other conversation we were having. We are now knitting all of that together and working in the best possible practical way to overcome any barriers that might be in place for delivery, but we feel that we are getting very close.

Mr TELFER: Subclause (1) refers to:

…'people with disability' wherever occurring insert:

, regardless of age,

An aspect is which piece of legislation takes responsibility for people. Although someone might trigger a point where they fit under a different piece of legislation to do with aged care and the like, there is still an underlying disability that is still having to be managed and that is sometimes exacerbated with age. Can you give a bit of an explanation? This is my reflection on why that would be put in place, but can you unpack that a little bit—the reasoning for the 'regardless of age' aspect in regard to the phrase 'people with disability'?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It was to ensure that people with lived experience looking into the legislation could see themselves and to make sure that it was not excluding any particular group. Certainly, we want child friendly and adult friendly types of procedures, policies and actions to occur across our community. This was just to make sure that we are absolutely, explicitly saying that this is for all people and not isolated to any particular age bracket or disability. This inclusion act endeavours to be a catch-all for all members of the community. I think that was part of the clarification that was needed.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to focus for a moment on clause 5(2), which would add to section 8—Objects new paragraph (f). It takes us back to the debate at an earlier point in the committee stage, considering clause 3 and the new definition of 'barrier' that we see expressed there in the new paragraph (f). Paragraph (f) would provide what are effectively positive obligations:

…making significant gains towards achieving an inclusive community where the principles outlined in the …Convention…underpin the development and delivery of services, especially by removing barriers…

It goes on to say that people—and we see the reference to 'regardless of age'—are able to:

…access services and to participate in the community in the same way as other members of the community.

There are perhaps three particular references there: a positive object to make significant gains; secondly, a specific reference to the removal of barriers; and thirdly, a specific reference to participation in community in the same way as other members of the community.

Then we see that paragraph (f) is all the more particularly making reference to the UN convention. The principles, of course, are set out in article 3—the general principles, that is—which include respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make choices, and independence of persons. Under 3: 'full and effective participation and inclusion in society' is included. There are references to non-discrimination, to equality of opportunity, to accessibility, to equality between men and women and to respect for the evolving capacities of children. We see that more particularly expressed throughout the convention.

With this new definition of 'barrier' in mind and the reference to their removal by the addition of this new object in paragraph (f), I turn to article 9 of the convention, which addresses accessibility. We see there that the convention—and there might be other references—in referring to a whole range of measures to be taken provides:

These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:

(a) Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces.

It goes on:

(b) Information, communications and other services, including electronic services…

Focusing on the general principles that are specifically adverted to in the new paragraph (f) and then the way that the convention deals with accessibility by reference to the removal of barriers—the same term that is to be used now in the amended act—I come back to the circumstances of those who are affected by disability. This may be particularly apposite in these circumstances. They are affected by disability at some point in their lives, in such a way that it creates a fresh disruption to what they otherwise might have been getting on with.

I talked about my constituent, Tom Carr, at some length in two different ways: one in circumstances of his invention of a more practical means of transport, using the wheelchair roll-on roll-off transportation device; and secondly in positing the example of virtual fencing, the use of technology to be applied in fencing his property.

They are two examples of practical ways in which the disruption to the way that he would have conducted himself otherwise can be ameliorated by the removal of barriers and otherwise this perhaps more general expression 'making significant gains'.

I am really looking to address that in terms of what might be fresh obligations on those responsible for public regulation more broadly, to act on that when making rules, including with respect to what might otherwise be regarded as discrete questions of safety, and other considerations might flow in terms of the permitting of virtual fencing on the one hand and, on the transport side, where there is a clearly identified opportunity to remove a barrier to building that in as a positive new obligation on government to say, 'Well, all other things being equal, Tom wouldn't be quite so easily permitted to roll-on roll-off in this device.' Bearing in mind particularly new object (f), there is a positive obligation now, that is new and there is a pathway, if not entirely presenting a silver bullet, that is a step in that direction.

I realise I have raised that before in the earlier part of the debate in the committee some weeks ago now. It may be that the minister has some further reflection on the debate, the subject of clause 3, and in all respects it is a question that is open and by reference only to those perhaps two examples—I am sure there are plenty of others.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: If I try to bring it back to the broad capture of what is the intent here, we have the state plan Autism Strategy and a range of other guiding documents that are assisting us to deliver on accessibility and engagement opportunities for the community, which faces a range of physical or other barriers to achieving that on an equal basis within our community. Then the disability action and the DAIPs we see written at local level can help inform some of that local practice.

I think the big picture, which is probably good to place on record, is the guiding principles of this convention, where there are eight particular guiding principles under the convention and each one of its specific articles. They are:

1. Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and independence of persons;

2. Non-discrimination;

3. Full and effective participation and inclusion in society;

4. Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;

5. Equality of opportunity;

6. Accessibility;

7. Equality between men and women—

they might need to update their language—

8. Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

There are some guiding principles in that convention that we are following in terms of producing our legislation, on which we are aiming to achieve best practice.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

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