HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Disability Inclusion Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 May 2018.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:31): Thank you—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Please show some respect for the Hon. Mr Ngo. He wishes to speak on an important bill.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Thank you, Mr President. I rise to speak in support of the Disability Inclusion Bill 2018. The minister, in her comments upon introducing this bill, noted the work that had been done in its preparation by the previous Labor government.

As honourable members of this council are aware, many of the changes in this bill are being implemented in preparation for the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, or the NDIS. As our deputy leader has noted, when in government Labor ensured that South Australia was one of the first jurisdictions in Australia to sign up to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Because of this Labor commitment, South Australia will also be one of the first jurisdictions to achieve full scheme implementation.

As South Australia is currently in a period of transition from our own administered scheme to a national scheme delivered by the commonwealth government, the NDIS presents a major reform in the provision of services and supports for people with disability. The implementation of the NDIS will see the removal of block funding to organisations and the implementation of competition amongst various sets of providers to provide services to clients that are provided with a set amount of funding. We are being told that this will result in greater individual choice and control.

The Disability Inclusion Bill aims to promote human rights and improve inclusion in the community for South Australians with disability. This bill seeks to clarify South Australia's role in supporting people with disability, with a focus on rights and inclusion, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or UNCRPD, and the National Disability Strategy, or NDS.

The overall purpose of the bill is to ensure that the changeover from state-based to commonwealth-based administration is considered and to therefore incorporate the views of people with disability with policies and programs that affect them. The minister has also articulated that certain groups who face additional challenges and vulnerabilities, such as women with disability, children with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability and culturally and linguistically diverse people with disability, will have principles applied to them through disability inclusion planning. It has already been stated by our deputy leader that the opposition intends to move two separate and very worthwhile amendments once we arrive at the committee stage of this deliberation.

The first amendment seeks to establish an independent disability advocate to safeguard the rights of people with disability and ensure that South Australians get the support they are entitled to. Our deputy leader has stated that the advocate would provide a stronger voice for people with disability and help improve service delivery, business practice and social inclusion.

This advocate's office would sit within the Equal Opportunity Commissioner's office, I believe, under our proposed amendment. Whilst the specific powers and functions that the advocate will have to achieve these objectives will be revealed at the committee stage, I believe this can go some way to addressing the concerns that former member of this place the Hon. Kelly Vincent raised when she advocated for the disability services commissioner.

The second amendment that the opposition is proposing seeks to double the number of people with disability employed within the state government. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the government is responsible for increasing the proportion of the state's public sector workforce with an identified disability from 1.36 per cent to 3 per cent. We know that in South Australia more than one in five people—around 350,000 people or 21 per cent—report having a disability. So it is clear with these statistics that proportionally we can do much better in this area. Setting an achievable target of 3 per cent is a very good start. With that, I indicate that I will be supporting this bill at its second reading.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (15:37): I thank honourable members for their contributions on this important piece of legislation. If I could make some remarks in summing-up, the purpose of the bill is to stimulate state authorities and local government to make better provision for South Australians with a disability.

There is a common misconception that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is going to provide everything a person with a disability needs. When the NDIS problems are ironed out and everyone who is eligible is in the scheme, it will give people with disability access to the supports and therapies they need, but the NDIS will not make the local bus stop accessible for people with physical disabilities or the local health service responsive to the needs of people with intellectual disabilities or the corrections system able to make accommodation for people with brain injury or psychosocial disability.

However, all government departments, statutory authorities and local councils will need to make provision for people with disabilities who use their services. This bill is about people with disabilities of all ages. It is not restricted to people under 65 like the NDIS, so it covers all older South Australians who may acquire a disability later in life. Over 20 per cent of our population has a disability and this bill requires all state authorities to prepare a disability access and inclusion plan every four years and to report on progress on their plan every year.

The minister, who would be the Minister for Human Services, is charged with producing a state disability inclusion plan every four years and reporting on it every year. These reports are also tabled in parliament. My strong understanding of this piece of legislation is that it will set up an accountability framework and enable the chief executive of my department, and then through me, to go back to agencies and ensure that they are providing services in an inclusive manner.

In relation to the amendments that I have tabled, I have tabled seven amendments to the bill in light of discussions that I have had with others, especially with a former member of this place, Ms Kelly Vincent, who tabled amendments to the bill last year. I have gone through Ms Vincent's tabled amendments from last year and done my best to address each of those in turn.

My amendments Nos 1 to 5 improve the wording of various clauses in line with the Hon. Ms Vincent's proposals. My amendments Nos 6 and 7 add to the functions and powers of the chief executive by including the words 'monitoring the compliance of state authorities and making recommendations about compliance to the minister', which adds to the accountability of state authorities.

The bill will encourage state authorities in the goal of improving access and inclusion. To go further risks a mindset of compliance, with agencies meeting the requirements set but not changing the culture of their organisations regarding the philosophy and practice of disability inclusion. It is for this reason that I plan, in the regulations, to allow state authorities until the end of 2019 at least to draw up their first access and inclusion plan after consultation with people with disabilities and the involvement and training of their employees. This is one of those ventures where the journey taken is more important than the destination. It is about cultural change that will endure and not about ticking the boxes required to fill the paperwork.

In relation to other amendments that have been proposed by the opposition, the government will not be accepting the amendments for the following reasons. The proposed disability advocate, or part 3A, would create a new statutory officer with responsibilities that overlap with roles of other statutory bodies, such as the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, the Public Advocate, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Equal Opportunity Commissioner.

There has been no analysis or consultation on this proposal to create a new statutory office of the disability advocate. If there is to be a disability advocate, it does not need to be a separate statutory officer. For example, it could fit very well with the role and function of the Office of the Public Advocate. The disability advocate, as was originally announced prior to the election, was to advocate on behalf of NDIS participants for good outcomes in planning and service delivery by the National Disability Insurance Agency. The proposed amendment extends the scope to oversight of all state authorities and the resolution of specific issues and potentially confuses the role of the Department of Human Services.

The proposed office of the disability advocate also has very high and significant budget implications. Having a disability advocate in addition to the functions of the chief executive adds an additional layer of governance, which leaves all the functions of the existing bill, including the powers and functions of the chief executive; the requirement for the minister to produce the state disability inclusion plan, consult on it and report on its performance annually; and the reporting on the disability access and inclusion plans of state authorities. The amendment moves the bill from being about state authorities taking responsibility for their own disability access and inclusion plans and incorporating the inclusion philosophy into their corporate culture to being about compliance and penalties for not complying.

The proposal to employ people with disability in the public sector, part 3B, has also not been analysed or consulted on in the preparation of this bill and belongs more appropriately as part of regulations under the Public Sector Management Act. I have announced that I will be honouring the commitment prior to the election for a disability advocate to assist South Australians with a disability who are experiencing difficulty in their dealings with the NDIA during transition to full scheme, and I do not believe that the advocate role needs to be enshrined in this piece of legislation.

It may seem paradoxical, but a statutory advocate monitoring the behaviour of state authorities will hinder rather than advance the cultural change that we are seeking through this legislation and will be counterproductive to the goals that the legislation is working to achieve; therefore, I will not be accepting them.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [HumanServ–1]—

Page 5, line 38 [clause 9(1)(e)]—Delete '(including decisions involving risk)' and substitute 'including decisions involving risk'

This is one of a series of amendments which were filed by the Hon. Ms Vincent last year prior to the proroguing of parliament. Ms Vincent's advice to me as shadow minister last year (and it has been reiterated since I have met with her on this piece of legislation) is that there are a number of best practice language amendments, including this one. Her comments to me are that, as to amendment No.1, ensuring that people have the dignity of risk is a well understood way of giving people with disabilities the right to make choices.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I indicate that the opposition will support all of Ms Lensink's amendments, without needing to speak to each of them.

The CHAIR: Minister, do you wish to move all your amendments to clause 9, given the indication of the Hon. Ms Scriven?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, I will do so. I will make a brief reference to the contribution by my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood, who commented on these amendments during his second reading speech. For the fullness of the record, Ms Vincent's rationale for these particular amendments has been contained in his contribution on this legislation. Therefore, I move:

Amendment No 2 [HumanServ–1]—

Page 6, after line 18 [clause 9(1)]—Insert:

(la) 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;

Amendment No 3 [HumanServ–1]—

Page 6, lines 39 and 40 [clause 9(3)(b)]—Delete 'child-focused and have the best interests of the child as their primary concern' and substitute 'child-centred'

Amendment No 4 [HumanServ–1]—

Page 7, lines 1 to 3 [clause 9(3)(d)]—

Delete 'should be respected and considered in any decisions affecting the child, taking an approach that is developmentally appropriate' and substitute:

will be listened to, and they should be given developmentally appropriate opportunities to participate in decisions that affect them

Amendment No 5 [HumanServ–1]—

Page 7, after line 4 [clause 9(3)]—Insert:

(ea) the developmental needs of children with disability must be taken into account, with particular focus on critical periods in their childhood and adolescence;

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With regard to amendment No. 1, the effect of this is simply to remove the parentheses?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We support the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will support amendments Nos 1 to 5 of the government's amendments.

The CHAIR: It is not necessary, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, but you can speak if you so wish. It is a free-ranging committee, for the new honourable members—you can stand at any time and indicate your view or contribute to the debate, ask a question or even make a statement.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting the amendments.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 6 [HumanServ–1]—

Page 8, after line 11—After paragraph (d) insert:

(da) to monitor the compliance of State authorities with the requirements under Part 5; and

(db) to make recommendations to the Minister in relation to the compliance of State authorities with the requirements under Part 5; and

Amendment No 7 [HumanServ–1]—

Page 8, after line 15—After its present contents (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) The Chief Executive has such powers as may be necessary or expedient for the performance of the Chief Executive's functions.

This, again—I shouldn't say 'in honour of' because she is very much alive—greatly respects the legacy of the Hon. Ms Vincent from this place and her wish that the legislation would ensure, I think she was quoted in the paper as saying, that these plans would not just rest on a shelf. I would commend the former government for the drafting of this legislation because, in relation to the disability access and inclusion plan, it is a strong form of feedback and monitoring by the Department of Human Services and to me as minister, in that every state government agency will be required to provide disability access and inclusion plans and provide strategies on how they intend to implement those.

Clause 16(3) of the bill sets out all the things that need to be included in an access and inclusion plan; includes that the state authority must explain how it proposes to give effect to the objects and principles; mentions a range of areas that must be included, which include built environs, events and facilities; information and communications, which obviously covers websites; 'addressing the specific needs of people with disability in its programs and services', which would cover health services for instance; and employment. It is not only limited to those things but those things must be included. Each of these authorities must set out what it intends to do to be inclusive and how it intends to get there, and then these things are reported through my department and then via myself to parliament.

Clause 10 of the legislation also outlines the functions of the chief executive, which demonstrates the requirements in terms of monitoring. Ms Vincent expressed concern that the provisions needed to be strengthened so these particular amendments, Nos 6 and 7, will seek to do that. Amendment No. 6 adds additional functions to those already conferred on the CE, namely, to monitor the compliance of state authorities with the requirements under part 5, which is the part dealing with the requirements of state authorities to prepare and implement the disability access and inclusion plan, and also to make recommendations to the minister in relation to the compliance of state authorities with the requirements of that part.

These additional functions require the CE, through the Department of Human Services, to perform that monitoring. A failure to do so will see the CE in breach of the requirements of the act with the attendant consequences under the Public Sector Act, which is amendment No. 7, which makes it clear that the CE has the necessary powers to perform those functions. The CE already has the power to require reports under clause 26 of the bill, and possibly the Public Sector Data Sharing Act 2016.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate the Greens will be supporting these amendments; however, we are simply seeking some clarification. In terms of a state authority, could the minister outline exactly what is the nature of a state authority? Is it SA Health or is it CALHN, NALHN, etc.? Where will the compliance be available other than to the minister? Will it be made publicly available for consumers, for example?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for that question. In response to the first question, state authority is contained in the definition section in clause 3. I will read that out for the completeness of debate:

(a) an administrative unit (within the meaning of the Public Sector Act2009); or

(b) an agency or instrumentality of the Crown, or agency or instrumentality of the Crown of a class, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; or

(c) a local council constituted under the Local Government Act1999;or

(d) any other person or body, or person or body of a class, declared by the regulations to be included in the ambit of this paragraph for the purposes of this Act,

but does not include a person or body, or person or body of a class, declared by the regulations to be excluded from the ambit of this definition for the purposes of this Act;

My advice is that it would include SA Health and all of its constituent bodies. Basically, unless my advisor tells me otherwise, all state government agencies are captured under this definition.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Would CALHN and NALHN be required, for example? Or would it just be one for SA Health?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, in relation to this particular question, my advice is that an administrative unit is basically a department, and if we want to think of it as a pyramid, then all of the other bodies contained within that unit are also captured. There may be a specific reason why a separate or different disability access and inclusion plan could be promulgated for one of those units if there were a particular issue which could potentially be addressed through the regulations. What was your other question?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How would a consumer or a citizen see these plans?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: There is a requirement to consult, so no government agency can produce a disability access and inclusion plan. They are required to consult with the disability community, so they will come up with their draft. I am imagining that this will be the way it operates: they will come up with their draft disability access and inclusion plan and be required by this legislation to consult with people with disability. Public reporting is via parliament.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 11 and 12 passed.

New clauses 12A, 12B, 12C, 12D, 12E, 12F, 12G, 12H, 12I, 12J and 12K.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Scriven–1]—

Page 8, after line 36—Insert:

Part 3A—Disability Advocate

12A—Interpretation

In this Part—

Disability Advocate means the person holding or acting in the position of Disability Advocate under this Part.

12B—Disability Advocate

(1) There is to be a Disability Advocate.

(2) The Disability Advocate will be appointed by the Governor on conditions, and for a term (not exceeding 7 years), determined by the Governor and specified in the instrument of appointment.

(3) A person appointed to be the Disability Advocate is, at the end of a term of appointment, eligible for reappointment but cannot hold office for terms that exceed 10 years in total.

(4) The Disability Advocate is not, in the performance of functions under this Part, subject to the control or direction of the Minister.

(5) The office of Disability Advocate becomes vacant if the Disability Advocate—

(a) dies; or

(b) completes a term of office and is not reappointed; or

(c) resigns by notice in writing to the Governor; or

(d) is removed from office by the Governor under subsection (6).

(6) The Governor may remove the Disability Advocate from office for—

(a) mental or physical incapacity to carry out official duties satisfactorily; or

(b) neglect of duty; or

(c) misconduct.

(7) The Disability Advocate is a senior official for the purposes of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995.

12C—Functions and powers of Disability Advocate

(1) The functions of the Disability Advocate under this Part are—

(a) to monitor the compliance of State authorities with the requirements under Part 5; and

(b) to make recommendations to the Minister in relation to the compliance of State authorities with the requirements under Part 5; and

(c) to keep under review, within both the public and the private sector, programmes designed to meet the needs of people with disability;

(d) to identify any areas of unmet needs, or inappropriately met needs, of people with disability and to recommend to the Minister the development of programmes for meeting those needs or the improvement of existing programmes;

(e) to advocate for the rights and interests of any class of people with disability or of people with disability generally;

(f) to monitor the administration of this Act and, if the Disability Advocate thinks fit, make recommendations to the Minister for legislative change;

(g) such other functions as may be conferred on the Disability Advocate by or under this or any other Act or by the Minister.

(2) The Disability Advocate has such powers as may be necessary or expedient for the performance of the Disability Advocate's functions.

12D—Appointment of acting Disability Advocate

(1) The Minister may appoint a person (who may be a Public Service employee) to act as the Disability Advocate during any period for which—

(a) no person is for the time being appointed as the Disability Advocate; or

(b) the Disability Advocate is absent from, or unable to discharge, official duties.

(2) The terms and conditions of appointment of the person appointed to act as the Disability Advocate will be determined by the Minister.

(3) A person appointed to act as the Disability Advocate is a senior official for the purposes of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995.

12E—Delegation

(1) The Disability Advocate may delegate a function or power under this Act (other than a prescribed function or power) to any person or body that is, in the Disability Advocate's opinion, competent to perform or exercise the relevant function or power.

(2) A delegation under this section—

(a) must be in writing; and

(b) may be conditional or unconditional; and

(c) is revocable at will; and

(d) does not prevent the delegator from acting in any matter.

(3) A function or power delegated under this section may, if the instrument of delegation so provides, be further delegated.

12F—Staff and resources

The Minister must provide the Disability Advocate with the staff and other resources that the Disability Advocate reasonably needs for carrying out the Disability Advocate's functions.

12G—Use of staff etc of Public Service

The Disability Advocate may, by agreement with the Minister responsible for an administrative unit of the Public Service, make use of the services of the staff, equipment or facilities of that administrative unit.

12H—Disability Advocate may require State authority to provide report

(1) The Disability Advocate may, if the Disability Advocate is of the opinion that it is necessary or would otherwise assist the Disability Advocate in the performance of functions under this Part, require a State authority to prepare and provide a report to the Disability Advocate in relation to the matters, and in accordance with any requirements, specified in the notice.

(2) If a State authority has not complied with a requirement under subsection (1), the Disability Advocate may require the State authority to provide to the Disability Advocate within a specified period a report setting out the reasons for noncompliance.

(3) The Disability Advocate may, on receiving a report under subsection (2), submit a copy of the report to the Minister setting out the views of the Disability Advocate in respect of the State authority's noncompliance.

(4) The Minister must, on receiving a report under subsection (3), prepare a report to Parliament setting out—

(a) the Minister's response to the Disability Advocate's report; and

(b) any other information required by the regulations.

(5) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after completing a report under subsection (4), cause a copy of both the report and the Disability Advocate's report under subsection (3) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

12I—Disability Advocate may direct State authority etc to comply with disability access and inclusion plan

(1) The Disability Advocate may, by notice in writing, if the Disability Advocate is satisfied that a State authority has not complied, or has not sufficiently complied, with a provision of the State authority's disability access and inclusion plan, direct the State authority, or a specified person or body, to take such action as the Disability Advocate may specify to ensure compliance with the plan.

(2) A State authority must not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with a direction under this section.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

12J—Disability Advocate may make recommendations

(1) The Disability Advocate may, in response to issues observed by the Disability Advocate in the course of performing functions under this Part, by notice in writing recommend to a State authority that the State authority—

(a) change practices, policies or procedures in a specified way or review practices, policies or procedures to achieve specified outcomes; or

(b) conduct, or participate in, specified educational programs or educational programs designed to achieve specified outcomes; or

(c) take such other action as may be specified by the Disability Advocate.

(2) A State authority must, in relation to a recommendation under subsection (1), provide to the Disability Advocate a report setting out—

(a) whether the State authority proposes, or does not propose, to implement the recommendation; and

(b) if the State authority proposes to implement the recommendation—details of how the recommendation is to be implemented; and

(c) if the State authority does not propose to implement the recommendation—an explanation as to why the recommendation is not to be implemented.

(3) The Disability Advocate may submit a copy of a report under subsection (2) to the Minister setting out the views of the Disability Advocate in respect of the State authority's failure or refusal to implement a recommendation.

(4) The Minister must, on receiving a report under subsection (3), prepare a report to Parliament setting out—

(a) the Minister's response to the Disability Advocate's report; and

(b) if any action has been taken, or is proposed to be taken, in relation to a recommendation to which the Disability Advocate's report relates—details of that action or proposed action; and

(c) if no action is to be taken in relation to a recommendation to which the Disability Advocate's report relates—the reasons for not taking action; and

(d) any other information required by the regulations.

(5) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after completing a report under subsection (4), cause a copy of both the report and the Disability Advocate's report under subsection (3) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

12K—Annual report

(1) The Disability Advocate must, not later than 31 October in each year, report to the Minister on the performance of the Disability Advocate's functions during the preceding financial year.

(2) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days of receiving a report under subsection (1), cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament.

As I mentioned in my remarks at the second reading stage of this bill, this amendment regarding a disability advocate seeks to establish that person as an independent disability advocate. The purpose of the advocate is to ensure the rights of people with a disability are safeguarded and to ensure South Australians get the support they are entitled to under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The advocate would provide a stronger voice for people with disability and help to improve service delivery, business practice and social inclusion. It is intended that the independent disability advocate would be established within the office of the Equal Opportunity Commissioner. The functions of the advocate through the amendment are:

(a) to monitor the compliance of State authorities with the requirements under Part 5; and

(b) to make recommendations to the Minister in relation to the compliance of State authorities with the requirements under Part 5; and

(c) to keep under review, within both the public and the private sector, programmes designed to meet the needs of people with disability;

(d) to identify any areas of unmet needs, or inappropriately met needs, of people with disability and to recommend to the Minister the development of programmes for meeting those needs or the improvement of existing programmes;

(e) to advocate for the rights and interests of any class of people with disability or of people with disability generally;

(f) to monitor the administration of this Act and, if the Disability Advocate thinks fit, make recommendations to the Minister for legislative change;

(g) such other functions as may be conferred on the Disability Advocate by or under this or any other Act or by the Minister.

Through this amendment, the independent disability advocate will have the powers that may be necessary or expedient for the performance of their functions. It is imperative that this parliament, as we transition and, indeed, once full scheme implementation is obtained, establishes the advocate to ensure South Australians living with disability have the avenue they need to ensure they are receiving support to which they are entitled.

Some of the feedback we have received is, firstly: is an advocate role strong enough? Does it have sufficient teeth, as it were? The advocate role, as I mentioned, is designed to allow monitoring and to allow reporting. The advocate would have the ability, for example, to request a report from a specific state authority. It includes a requirement to provide a report to parliament each year. These would all enable failures in service delivery or practices to be brought to light, and it would enable any failures to include people with disability to be highlighted. In other words, it provides regular opportunities for scrutiny and, if necessary, exposure in the public domain, providing the teeth, if you like, for the disability advocate, which would be one of the steps in having changes made that will benefit people with a disability.

I note the minister's opening remarks today where she talked about not supporting this amendment, that this bill is about cultural change, indicating that there is therefore no need for a focus on compliance. The general support that we have had for the proposal to have an advocate certainly does not suggest that there would be any impediment to cultural change by having this. In fact, it would be strengthened. One of the biggest fears in the disability space, as in many others, is that we have feel-good statements that do not necessarily get put into practice. The advocate would help to ensure that that does indeed happen.

It is interesting that, on the one hand, we have suggestions that there is no need to ensure compliance; on the other hand, we have had consultation saying, 'Would an advocate role be strong enough?' This proposal, we believe, gives the appropriate balance. I therefore commend this amendment to the council.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have some questions for the honourable mover of this amendment. Can the honourable member advise, given that this piece of legislation has been around since probably the middle of last year, when the Labor Party decided that it would be a good idea to insert this into this piece of legislation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Labor Party continually consults and this is a very important piece of legislation which we think is essential for people living with disability in our community, and so it has been developed throughout a period of time. We have had consultations with and support from a number of organisations, for example: the Brain Injury network of South Australia, Uniting Communities, Barkuma, Anglicare, disAbility Living, Minda Incorporated, Autism SA, Purple Orange, Novita, SCOSA, Orana Bedford and Inclusive Sport. They are some examples of those we have had consultations with and who I am advised support the policy to establish an advocate.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the honourable member advise whether it was the particular model of advocate that she has moved through her amendments or whether it was the ones that were anticipated during the election campaign?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am sorry, can you repeat that question?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The concept of a disability advocate was something that the former minister, the member for Reynell, spoke about in the lead-up to the election. Can the honourable member advise what the consistency is in relation to that model compared to this one?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Clearly, I was not in parliament at that time and I am not sure of the answer to that question. However, I think the relevance is to ask: is this a good policy or is it not? Does it have support within the community, particularly the community that is focused on supporting those with a disability? I think the answer to that question is yes.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: For the record I would just like to state that I think the member is wrong in her assumption because the model that was put forward prior to the election by the then minister did not anticipate this particular model. It talked about the NDIS transition and it talked about an office in the order of $200,000 a year. Our estimate is that this particular model would be at least $600,000 a year and is quite a different scope.

Just for the record, in terms of the advocate, my reading of the article which was in The Advertiser that said that the former government was going to have a disability advocate was that the position was funded. Taking that at face value, I was able to commit, as the shadow spokesperson, to an advocate of $200,000. Particularly given the difficulties that the NDIS implementation has had, when we came into government I asked my department whether any modelling work had been done on this particular proposal by the previous government and whether the funding was available and the short answer was no.

This was an uncosted—as I think my colleague the Minister for Health has referred to in another context—slogan by the former government. They had allocated absolutely no funding for this position and therefore the advice that came to me in relation to implementing this particular commitment was that it would need to be a budget bid, which is what I have undertaken to do. So these amendments are completely out of scope with what the then Labor government and the Liberal opposition were committing to and therefore I think it is all a bit cute for the new opposition to come up with something of this nature. I just place those comments on the record.

The honourable member in her contribution talked about improving service delivery. Can she advise the house what she anticipates by that, and does she anticipate that this role will have some jurisdiction over the NDIS?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that the jurisdictional issues are taken care of in the COAG agreements and other heads of—I am sorry, I forget the term—agreement. So this is looking at people being able to come to the disability advocate to explain that what has happened is not consistent with what is intended under the NDIS, and to have some advocacy. So that is about both raising issues and highlighting issues as well as then making recommendations to the minister or others, whether it is for operational change or for legislative change.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Is the honourable member aware of who is able to direct the NDIS to make any changes in any decisions?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a general understanding of that. I think the relevance is that the advocate's role is to raise issues and to give some focus on those issues so that they can be addressed through many various different steps, obviously only those that are possible within legislation and practice.

The CHAIR: Minister, is this on the same line, because the Hon. Ms Franks is keen to—

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, I apologise to the Hon. Ms Franks. I would just advise the council that there is often a misconception, including from some state MPs, and indeed one federal MP's office sent me a letter recently asking me to alter decisions of the NDIS. I think it needs to be well and truly understood by members of this place that not even the federal government is, from what I understand, able to direct the NDIS.

All members of parliament should be advocates in the NDIS and using, where possible, the member and senator's contact office, but we have no jurisdiction to direct them in any way. I will not name the federal member; it was not one of ours, I am pleased to say. It was someone who had written to me recently to ask me to alter a decision of the NDIS, but I think honourable members need to be aware that there is a definite split in the jurisdiction.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that while the Greens have a lot of sympathy for the intent of this amendment, there is a lack of detail here. I am going to start with some questions, and I am hoping they can be answered. The previous minister's disability advisory council was dissolved in 2014 under the Weatherill government, and that was that government process aimed at streamlining decision-making and consultation. In its place, we now have a disability engagement register.

Was the concept that is now presented here in an amendment from the Labor Party as opposition consulted on while they were in government through that disability engagement register? If it was, was the question of where this position would be located and what its terms of reference would be canvassed? Where is that information? I do not have it in the consultation documents. I do not have it from the YourSAy website. Specifically, why is this position not in somewhere like the Office of the Public Advocate?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the honourable member for her question. Some of that information I do not have, and I can certainly go away and seek to find that information if it is indeed available. However, in a general sense, in terms of why this is proposed to be established within the office of the Equal Opportunity Commissioner, the commissioner currently has some role and jurisdiction in terms of advocating on behalf of people with disability, so this is to build on that existing role and expand it so that people with a disability have a stronger voice.

I guess there are probably reasons why it would be better or worse in one department or another department, or one authority or another authority. The Equal Opportunity Commissioner seems to have a good overlap in terms of their role to enable this to be expanded to be a more effective opportunity for people who have a disability to have someone advocating on their behalf. I will certainly see if there is other information available and come back to you on that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What is the opinion of the Office of the Public Advocate with regard to this amendment?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can take that on notice and see if we have had some information that would assist the member.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: It is with some concern that I oppose these amendments, but I want to make it very clear that it is not because I do not support the establishment of a disability advocate. It is because I believe we can come up with a better model for a disability advocate. I strongly support a disability advocate.

The Equal Opportunity Commission has reported that 44 per cent of complaints they received last year were regarding disability-related matters. This is extraordinarily high and it promotes a strong case that perhaps there should be another body or person whose responsibility is solely to look at these matters so that the Equal Opportunity Commission can focus on other areas.

Whilst I commend the opposition for moving these amendments, I do not believe the model they have presented is the best model we can have. Nor do I believe it is best placed with a bill that is predominantly focused on disability inclusion plans. I have spoken to the government, who have indicated they too have an appetite to introduce a disability advocate but would like more time to discuss the nuances of such a role. I would appreciate the minister putting on the record the government's intentions on this matter and specifically the time frame which they would like to work to.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for those questions. As I indicated, a disability advocate was something which was committed to by both major parties during the election campaign. It was a commitment originally by the former minister, Ms Hildyard. We committed to it as well on the understanding that it had been funded, and I was very disappointed, when we came to office, to discover that no funding had been allocated to this position; therefore, it is something that needs to go through as a budget bid and will be going forward as a budget bid. While I have refused to rule in and rule out things in this place, that is something which is going forward as a budget bid on my behalf.

It is disappointing, I think, for several reasons that it was not funded, because we are nearly at full NDIS rollout. It is running late, but it was supposed to be for 1 July, so clearly there is a significant cohort of people who are undergoing NDIS transition who would have benefited from this position now. Be that as it may, we have committed to that role and anticipate that it is the sort of role that would fit more within the current gambit of the Public Advocate.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I do not want to see any undue delay to this bill. I tend to echo the thoughts of my colleague the Hon. John Darley in relation to the disability advocate. We are opposed to it. The original concept of the disability advocate was to deal with complaints about the NDIS—creating a new statutory authority. The ALP's intention to create a disability advocate through these amendments does not appear to have been effectively consulted upon. It will impact upon other statutory officers, including the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Equal Opportunity Commissioner and the Office of the Public Advocate.

The office of the disability advocate does not appear to have been costed or budgeted. It would be an estimate of about $600,000 at least, with the office-holder and three staff. The role of the advocate would be in addition to the powers and functions of the CEO under the act—part 3 of the bill.

I think the biggest issue is that this amendment is not what the bill is meant to be all about. It deals with inclusion plans to promote access and inclusion. The bill is meant to be about state authorities having disability access and inclusion plans reviewed. This amendment will not drive disability inclusion in the culture of a state authority. This is not meant to be a bill through which people make complaints. The bill is not meant to operate in a punitive way. There is already legislative recourse via the Disability Discrimination Act and the Equal Opportunity Act. The disability advocate would just add another level of bureaucracy.

Kelly Vincent was worried about disability inclusion plans being left on the shelf, so the government has strengthened the powers of the CEO. The issue of a disability advocate was taken to the election by the ALP. They said there was money set aside, but the current government says it must go to a budget bid. What is in the amendment is beyond the scope of what the ALP took to the election.

Just re amendment No. 2, the level of representation of people with disability in the Public Service being 3 per cent of all public servants as may be reasonably practicable, this amendment is desirable but has not been analysed or consulted—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I do not think we have addressed that amendment as yet that Mr Pangallo is referring to.

The CHAIR: No, we haven't.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No? Okay. Anyway, I will leave it at that, Mr President. I just want to see this bill enacted.

The CHAIR: You address me as Mr Chair when we are in committee. Are there any other contributions?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Perhaps just to wrap up in regard to the proposed amendment and some of the comments that have been made. Certainly in terms of funding, I have not until here in this place heard any figure of $600,000. I think if the minister sincerely believes that people with a disability would have been benefitting from something like this now had it been in place, then that is more reason again to accept this amendment and ensure that it can proceed swiftly rather than waiting for the vagaries of a budget bid which may or may not come to fruition.

In general terms, to address the comments made by the Hon. Mr Pangallo, statutory bodies always have some level of overlap. What we have heard from the disability community is that they really need a clear voice and a focus on issues that are particularly relevant to them, and that is why there is widespread support for the concept of a disability advocate. With those remarks, I commend the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can I ask the mover what the breakdown of costings is for this amendment and how much is the total, then also a breakdown into the human resources components, the staffing components and overheads, as well as access to Auslan interpreters and things like that?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the honourable member for her question. Certainly, final costings would need to be done by the current government. As I mentioned, the figure of $600,000 I had not heard before and my understanding is that it would be considerably less than that. However, I think the relevant point is that the parliament needs to set the policy of what is appropriate and then it is funded by the government of the day. It is a relatively small amount in the overall budget of the state. I think, therefore, it stands on its own merits and should be supported.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There should be some sort of an indication of how much it would cost other than it is not $600,000. I would appreciate that, and also where the money comes from.

The CHAIR: Are there any other contributions on these—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, that was actually a question.

The CHAIR: A question. Sorry, I misinterpreted it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Where is the money going to come from, and can we have a little bit more meat on the bones of exactly how much it is going to cost? Obviously, you are saying less than $600,000. More than $200,000, I assume, is what we are at, given that is what was mentioned during the state election campaign. So where are we between the $200,000 and the $600,000 mark?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The information I have is that it would be somewhere around $350,000. Ultimately, of course, it is up to the government to set the budget allocations, but it is that kind of figure.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: And my original question asked: what was the staffing component of that amount as well as what would the breakdown between staffing and non-staffing be?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Again, remembering that this is the legislation rather than that exact policy detail, my understanding is that there is obviously the role of the advocate themself and then a policy officer and an administration officer. That is the type of staffing allocation that would be envisaged.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Would they all be full time? What support do they have, other than their employment and salary? It is not employment if they cannot do their job.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I need to reiterate that that will be the decision of the government as to how they can best resource it. The amendment refers to appropriate resourcing. We have given an indication of the sorts of things that we had in mind in terms of the staffing and allocations for the advocate position and associated costs, but ultimately those final details must be up to the government of the day.

The committee divided on the new clauses:

Ayes 8

Noes 12

Majority 4

AYES
Bourke, E.S. Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K.
Maher, K.J. Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I.
Scriven, C.M. (teller) Wortley, R.P.
NOES
Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Franks, T.A.
Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller)
Lucas, R.I. Pangallo, F. Parnell, M.C.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.

New clauses thus negatived.

New clause 12L.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Scriven–1]—

Page 8, after line 36—Insert:

Part 3B—Representation of people with disability in Public Service

12L—Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to ensure people with disability represented in the Public Service

Subject to this section, the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment must take such steps as may be reasonably practicable under Part 4 of the Public Sector Act 2009 to ensure that at least 3% of the persons employed in the Public Service are people with disability.

This amendment seeks to double the number of people with a disability employed within state government. The purpose of this amendment is to have this parliament meet our collective responsibility to people living with a disability in South Australia to provide meaningful employment opportunities within the state's Public Service.

The amendment seeks to increase the proportion of the state public sector workforce with an identified disability from 1.36 per cent to 3 per cent. In South Australia more than one in five people, or around 350,000 people or 21 per cent, are reported as having a disability. Of these, nearly 90 per cent have a specific limitation or restriction, which means they are limited in the core activities of self care, mobility or communication, or restricted in education or employment.

The opposition respects that financial security and employment have been identified as key policy priorities by people with disability in South Australia. It is absolutely imperative that meaningful employment opportunities that provide security for people with disability are available in the South Australian public sector.

When there are over 20 per cent of South Australians living with disability, this parliament must commit to seeking to increase the representation of people with disability in the Public Service. This amendment directs the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment to take such steps as may be reasonably practicable under part 4 of the Public Sector Act 2009 to ensure that at least 3 per cent of people employed in the public sector are people with a disability. I commend the amendment and encourage all members of this house to commit to this important target.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I rise to make a few remarks in relation to this amendment, which is laudable and is the purpose of this piece of legislation. I agree with all of the comments made by the mover of this motion, except that this is an appropriate mechanism to perform it.

The whole purpose and the driving mechanisms within the legislation are to establish disability access and inclusion plans for each government agency, which means they need to say how they are going to provide access and inclusion and how they are going to get there, and then they have to be reported against. With the new amendments which the parliament has agreed to, which were amendments Nos 6 and 7, we have reinforced those provisions, which means that the CE has some very strong powers to direct agencies that are not meeting their access and inclusion goals.

This particular mechanism that has been moved by the opposition is not a dynamic means of ensuring the intended goals. I believe the disability access and inclusion plans are things that need to be updated and are publicly reported on, and to insert a particular target in this legislation is not the best mechanism.

For instance, if we look at the public sector dashboard to see what the proportion of people employed within the public sector currently is, it is at about 1.4 per cent, which, given that it is self reporting, that can be interpreted, so to increase to 3 per cent is definitely a laudable aim.

However, each department is performing differently. For instance, in the example of the Department of Human Services, they are sitting at 4.9 per cent, so to have this, almost an arbitrary figure, in a piece of legislation—they have already met that target—and in their disability access and inclusion plan they should seek to increase the target. I guess the point I am making is that this is not a particularly dynamic or responsive mechanism to ensure the intended goals, and therefore the government is not supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: This amendment is desirable, but has not been analysed and consulted. Such a target would fit better within the Public Sector Management Act and not under this bill. We oppose it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens are happy to support this amendment. I do think the 3 per cent is an arbitrary figure and it is certainly far less than the presence of people with disabilities in our community and society. I suspect that, in terms of the self reporting and the data collection within the Public Service, this amendment will simply trigger a more stringent collection of data. I would hope that that would be the case in terms of complying with the 3 per cent target.

Under the previous Rann government's state strategic plan, it was laudable and effective that targets were set. This is a bill about disability inclusion plans for our Public Service, so in that way it does fit with the intentions of the bill and will not have any unintended consequences, that we can see.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will not be supporting the amendment.

The CHAIR: Are there any other contributions?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, just to respond on the record to some of those comments from honourable members. First of all, regarding the comment by the minister that this is not the best mechanism, when we are talking about disability inclusion we need to be aware that we need many mechanisms. This is one tool that would be in the toolkit, if you like, to encourage those who are in recruitment and so on to consider people who may have a disability, because it is also a matter of sending a very positive message to people with a disability who, sometimes, as has been alluded to indirectly, do not report that they have a disability as they think they may be discriminated against.

Having an increased target shows that the government is sincere about trying to improve the levels of people with a disability who are employed within the public sector, so it is important in terms of encouraging people who have a disability to apply and have a good shot at getting work within the public sector. As noted by the Hon. Ms Franks, currently the proportion within the public sector is much less than the proportion within the general community. The opposition's view is that anything that can help improve that and make a better balance that is more consistent with our community is going to be beneficial; therefore, we would ask for support for this amendment.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 10

Noes 10

Majority 0

AYES
Bourke, E.S. Franks, T.A. Hanson, J.E.
Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. Ngo, T.T.
Parnell, M.C. Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M. (teller)
Wortley, R.P.
NOES
Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller) Lucas, R.I.
Pangallo, F. Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G.

The CHAIR: There are 10 ayes and there are 10 noes, so in accordance with convention I cast to the noes.

New clause thus negatived.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: on which convention did you just base your vote, Mr Chair?

The CHAIR: I took advice from the Clerk that, by tradition, and therefore by convention, the Chair of the Committee or President casts for the noes in the case of a tied vote and does not seek to make the majority. That is my understanding; I did take advice from the Clerk, to assure the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Second point of order for clarification, Mr Chair: is that based on a presumption that the Chair will then always cast their vote with the noes? Or will the Chair cast their vote with the status quo?

The CHAIR: Effectively with the status quo, and given that this was the introduction of a new amendment, a new clause, that is why I acted in that way. Thank you, the Hon. Ms Franks, for allowing me to clarify.

Clauses 13 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Mine is a question for the minister. How does the government intend on ensuring that state government departments, statutory bodies and local councils develop and implement their own disability access and inclusion plans every four years? The particular question is around ensuring that it does actually occur.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for her question. They are required to, under the legislation, for starters. They will need to come up with a draft plan each, and then they will be required to consult with people with disability in the appropriate manner, and then they will have plans in place that they will then need to implement. There are reporting requirements for each of those agencies through to the CE of the Department of Human Services and therefore to myself as minister. That is then reported through to the parliamentary system. It is a requirement under legislation that they do so.

We have, through amendments Nos 6 and 7, strengthened those provisions in relation to the CE's role so that, if agencies are not undertaking their appropriate role, we can go back to them and instruct them. Effectively, there is a naming and shaming provision in this legislation such that, if agencies are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, that will be reported through to parliament.

For those local government authorities, there was some concern which came out in the previous government's consultation. I think it is fair to say there was concern from the local government sector that these requirements might be onerous, so there is a little bit of leeway that is being provided to them such that they will have a bit of breathing space until next year. My department will also be publishing guidelines which will assist with a pro forma approach to facilitate them in terms of enabling them to go through the process with the minimum of fuss.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have a question on clause 16(7), which states:

A State authority must publish (in a format that is accessible to people with disability) its disability access and inclusion plan…

Can the minister elaborate a bit further on what is meant by 'format that is accessible to people with disability' by way of examples of such formats?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: There is a range of standards. If you were to google 'universal access to websites', you would find a whole range of information that is available. Clearly, there are people who are sight impaired who might require larger font formats for websites and a range of alternatives for other people as well in terms of their access to a particular website. There are some really good examples and some really bad examples, if people want to find them. If the honourable member wishes to have a great more detail, I would suggest that he google 'universal access websites'.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to the same issue, as the honourable member is suggesting for myself that I google it to find more information rather than actually putting on record some examples, are these questions that are going to be left for each state authority to google it for themselves and decide how they do it, or is there a consideration of regulations to do this? I hope the minister is not going to be nearly as flippant with the operation of the act as she is in parliament.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Well, you know, that is the pot calling the kettle black—flippant in parliament, the Leader of the Opposition. As I was just responding in terms of the previous question from the Hon. Ms Scriven, there will be the publication of guidelines from my department, which will assist all agencies in the development of these things.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for her answer, which does not actually answer the question at all. Is it anticipated that there will be regulations in relation to the format that is accessible to people with a disability?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, not regulations—guidelines.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: How will these guidelines be published and will these guidelines themselves be accessible to people with a disability?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, I anticipate that the guidelines will be, because this is the whole point of the legislation, and many of the points are to do with actually consulting with people with disability as well. If the guidelines are inadequate then I fully expect that people with disabilities will advise us and we will be very mindful of that because it is for their purpose. This legislation is forward-looking and inclusive and is for people with disabilities to ensure that they are able to achieve those aims of having full access and inclusion.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Given that the minister has said that the guidelines will be published in a format that is accessible to people with a disability, can she now outline and summarise what those formats are that will give access to people with a disability?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: They are to be developed in consultation with Disability. I am being asked a hypothetical question without having asked the disability community, so, no.

Clause passed.

Clause 17.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to the annual report on the operation of the disability and inclusion plan, will the minister undertake that these annual reports will also be in a format that is accessible to people with a disability?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 18 to 27 passed.

Clause 28.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think I am in the right place here: at clause 28 it is interaction with the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act 2016. This is somewhat of an esoteric question in that it is a whole of government thing and I am sure that it will come up time and time again. Given that we are talking about disability inclusion plans and people, in some circumstances, disclosing their disabilities to their employer, will this bill provide that that information is shared beyond the scope of these disability action plans and beyond the scope of state agencies with other entities?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Sorry, can you repeat the last part of your question, please?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The question I have is with regard to the operation of the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act 2016. This clause notes that nothing in this part affects the operation of the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act 2016. My question simply is: will the disclosure of information for the purposes of these disability inclusion plans and for the collection of information in our Public Service and in our state agencies and authorities be shared beyond the scope of what is provided for in the body of this bill, with other agencies, federal agencies and so on?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think clause 27 goes to your question; I am advised that clause 28 is a technical clause.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On this clause, I am seeking an assurance that that data will not be shared beyond the use that is in the scope of this bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: So you are concerned about privacy provisions?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Privacy.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes. No, that is not anticipated. If I can just also add something that was raised by the Hon. Mr Darley in his second reading. I think we have discussed this as well. There is not any obligation for someone with a disability to report their disability to their employer. In effect, it is a voluntary reporting system, but no, it is not anticipated that any private information would actually be shared. It is for the purposes of assisting people with a disability with their access and inclusion, and not as some sort of big brotherish motivation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: On clause 28—and I think it is part of what the Hon. Tammy Franks was talking about—is the minister assuring the chamber that the operation of clause 27, indeed all of part 9 of the bill, is not caught in the scope of the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It is not—sorry?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is not caught within the scope of the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act? Clause 27 is not caught in the scope of the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act? Is that what the minister is assuring the chamber?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have is that these pieces of legislation operate in parallel.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What is the purpose of clause 28 then? Why do we need to specify that the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act is not affected by this particular piece of legislation?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice is that this is a technical clause, which is quite standard. Because this bill is subsequent to the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act, this clause has been inserted to ensure that this bill does not limit the performance of the previous act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just very briefly, regarding the original question that the Hon. Tammy Franks asked about the potential privacy implications of the operation of the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act with this bill, does the minister stand by her original answer that this bill is not affected and that there are no privacy concerns?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am satisfied with the minister's clarification for the record and note that when these things come before courts they are often referred to the Hansard. With that, I am happy to continue.

Clause passed.

Clauses 29 to 33 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: With respect to part 5 of the schedule, the repeal of the Disability Services Act, minister, I note your statement in your second reading explanation that the Disability Services Act 1993 will not be required once transition to the NDIS is fully realised because the state government will no longer directly fund services. Can you just confirm that there are no services that the state government will be continuing to fund, such as services specifically excluded by the NDIS, that will require the retention of the Disability Services Act 1993?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: If I understand the honourable member's question correctly, you are probably talking about interface issues. The previous CEO likened the NDIS to flying a plane while you are still building it; I think my analogy would be that it is like juggling everything in the kitchen sink while riding a unicycle. There are a number of matters that continue to be addressed as we transition. I think the bog standard disability services that most people would understand, be they respite services, day options or personal care services, are all transitioning to the NDIS under their new model.

It is running late, obviously, but there is a whole lot of other interface issues. People with disabilities will continue to require health services and all of those what you would call mainstream services, but they were never covered under the Disability Services Act in any case. So it is things which are funded currently under the Disability Services Act which transition. Because we are running late, the need for repeal obviously is going to take longer, but once that transition is fully complete there is no purpose for the Disability Services Act to continue.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Under the NDIA act there are a number of things that are not and will never be funded through the NDIS. So I just want to clarify that there are no services that the state government would be continuing to fund?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No services, what do you mean by that?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Of those that are currently covered under the Disability Services Act, there will be no residual services whatsoever that will continue to be funded by the state government and that therefore might require retention of the Disability Services Act 1993?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: There may be certain residual services such as the Exceptional Needs Unit, which the government may continue to fund, but they are much more the exception than the rule, and you do not need the Disability Services Act for particular, unique services, they can be funded under other arrangements and under other acts.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So when will the repeal of that act occur?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Disability Services Act? Look, I cannot really say at this stage, given that we were supposed to be at full scheme by 1 July this year. That is now not going to happen, so that decision has to be deferred until we are at full scheme and once we are confident that everybody has been transitioned in.

For services which are currently receiving their quarterly block funding, their amounts are reducing as people transition to NDIS and are paying under a fee-for-service model. The changes anticipate that all of the current state government funding, which is $723 million plus indexation per annum, will transition. It is once that reaches its completion that the Disability Services Act will no longer be required, but we are not there yet.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (17:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:06): I rise to speak on the third reading and indicate that, while the Greens support this bill, we had a lot of sympathy for the disability advocate amendment. We certainly seek to ensure that there is a clear commitment from the government at this third reading stage for some form of advocacy and for some time frames to be outlined by the government. With those few words, I indicate we will be supporting the bill.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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