|
senate vote 2023-11-17#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-06-14 11:57:54
|
Title
Bills — Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023; in Committee- Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and another - in Committee - The word "Inclusion"
Description
<p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p><p>First of all I would like to speak to amendment number (1) on sheet 2210. This amendment seeks to do something pretty simple—that is, to update the title of the bill so that it actually reflects the content and purpose of this bill. As I outlined to the chamber in my second reading speech, this bill is titled the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill—'and Inclusion'. This was an active decision by the minister to include such a piece of language in the title of the bill and to go further in the principles and objectives of the bill to outline that the purpose of the legislation is to advance the social and economic inclusion of disabled people.</p><p>I say this with all seriousness, having read an analysed the bill carefully: this piece of legislation does not achieve those ends. An inclusive society for disabled people will only be achieved when segregation is removed from that society. It will only be achieved when the services funded by the Commonwealth are explicitly inclusive in nature. It will only be achieved when the services which we rely on, the programs which we rely on as disabled people, are fully, actively and comprehensively monitored and subjected to proper processes which enable violations of code of conduct to which those programs may be subject—let's call a spade a spade. Sometimes, when government talks about the violation of a code of conduct, it can seem very stale and sterile when it is actually something visceral and real for a human being. The code of conduct to which these services and programs will be subjected will call upon providers and recipients of funds, to summarise, to prevent the person receiving the services being subjected to violence, abuse, exploitation or neglect—very, very serious.</p><p>These services will be extended to a significant portion of the Australian disability community. Over three million Australians will be eligible to access these services—three million people from a community which we all should now be very clear is systemically subjected to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect. There is a real need for good, clear oversight that is co-designed with disabled people and a clear process which enables disabled people to complain and to seek recompense when they have their rights violated by a program funded by the Commonwealth. And yet this bill makes no provision for such a mechanism. This doesn't make any sense.</p><p>Let's just engage in a little bit of actual logical thought for a moment. The National Disability Insurance Scheme covers between 610,000 and 630,000 disabled people. Now, every single person that provides a service or support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme is required to comply with the National Disability Insurance Scheme Code of Conduct. Violations of that code of conduct—if you have your rights violated, if you are abused—enable you as a disabled person to take that complaint or objection to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Senator Hughes understands this process very well. Senator Cadell understands this process very well. I'm sure, as the former Chief Minister of the ACT, Senator Gallagher understands the vital importance of the quality and safeguards commission's role in the oversight of the NDIS. And yet, in this legislation, which proposes to provide services to all those disabled people who are not subject to the NDIS—over three million people—there is no such commission created by the government in this act. Instead it is the contention of the government that violations of the code of conduct shall be investigated. The code of conduct shall be upheld thanks to a team within the Department of Social Services—within DSS.</p><p>In one case we have over 600,000 people covered by a dedicated commission. For all other disabled people—over three million people—there's no dedicated commission, just a couple of folks within DSS. This makes no sense at all, will not advance inclusion and places disabled people at risk, so I ask the question: why is the government proceeding with this legislation at this time? The government's response I'm sure is, 'Well, senator, there is a need to advance this legislation to enable us to respond to the royal commission,' as though they'd like to be given a medal for the speed at which they have responded to the royal commission. In fact all they've done is establish a task force as the direct result of the structural confusion that exists within this government because of the absence of a disability minister. Nobody can decide whose job it is to champion the rights of disabled people and implement these legislative reforms, so they've set up a task force.</p><p>Let's accept that strange premise for a moment. Let's say they do need this legislation to respond to the royal commission. The government set out a time frame for its response to the royal commission. The government's time frame is to provide that response in the first half of next year. Having identified this massive barrier in oversight, this complete absence of a mechanism which would ensure the rights of disabled people are upheld and our abuse, if we are subject to it, is actually investigated and perpetrators held to account, why not hold this legislation and continue in a process of codesign and then move forward with it as part of the broader package to implement the recommendations of the royal commission at the beginning of next year?</p><p>The last reason I would flag as to why the word 'inclusion' should be removed from the title of this bill is that it doesn't actually take proactive steps to ensure the inclusion of disabled people. This legislation is happy and enables the continuation of funding and services, which is exclusionary. It doesn't say it in the terms that the old act used, it doesn't explicitly say it in the terms the current act uses, but it does not proactively prevent the Commonwealth funding exclusive and exclusionary programs. In the face of the call of history to finally decide that the direction of travel of the Australian government is towards inclusion having been presented with the opportunity to join with the disability community and the Greens in the work of the collective liberation of disabled people, this government has decided to rush through a piece of legislation which fails to meet the very standard for success that it sets for itself. This is not good enough.</p><p>The very least this chamber could do in the absence of the desire of the government to be honest and transparent with the Australian people as to the effect of this bill is to remove the word 'inclusion' from the title of the bill. It's a word with such force and meaning, and it should only be applied to a piece of legislation which actually advances us toward that goal. This legislation does not, and therefore I urge the chamber to join with the Greens in supporting this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>Before I call the minister, to clarify, Senator Steele-John, are you moving that amendment now?</p> <p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p><p>Yes, why not? I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2210:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 7), omit "<i>and Inclusion</i>".</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>The government won't be supporting this amendment. I acknowledge the contribution made by Senator Steele-John and the views that he has outlined to the chamber, but the government doesn't accept the arguments that he's putting. I would say this bill hasn't been rushed. There have been two significant rounds of consultation. The first one led to the drafting of the bill. Subsequent to that, there was another comprehensive round of consultations and then, of course, a Senate committee process. So that's a response to those criticisms. I would also say I accept the view that Senator Steele-John has put about the use of the word 'inclusive'. I would say that there is strong support from the disability community—I'm not arguing that there aren't those that might support your position, Senator Steele-John—who have commended the focus on inclusion in the drafting and development of this bill. For those reasons, we think it's important to retain those and, as such, will be opposing the Greens' amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>The opposition will support the government's position on this particular amendment, but I would like to acknowledge the intent behind the amendment that's been put forward by Senator Steele-John, because the reality is that simply changing the name of something doesn't actually change the outcomes that are delivered by it. We would say to the government that, if you are intending to change the name and include the word 'inclusion', it does provide a level of responsibility for you to actually follow through and improve the inclusiveness of the way that the government operates in terms of its interface with the disability sector for the provision of services to the sector going forward.</p><p>We know from a number of other initiatives by the government so far that they seem to think that changing a name somehow is going to change the outcome, and changing the name signals to the electorate that they are intending to do so. I can't think of better example of that than urgent care clinics. Simply changing the name of a practice to an urgent care clinic, when nothing else changes, does not deliver any beneficial outcome to the Australian public. So I would say to the government that we'll be watching very closely as this bill comes into effect, because the responsibility of government in relation to disability goes far beyond the responsibility for the NDIS and the delivery of that scheme. A bipartisan approach was offered to the NDIS, and the coalition remains very committed to the delivery of the outcomes of the NDIS, but that does not mean that government can walk away from its broader responsibility to make sure that people who live with disability are being supported even if they are not part of the NDIS.</p><p>We will not be supporting this amendment, but we will certainly expect the government to not just use and include the word 'inclusion' in the bill. We will expect them to act on inclusion if they really think that this bill is going to deliver what its title says it will.</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 2210 be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
- The majority voted against Greens amendment (1) on [sheet 2210](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7079_amend_6e39f590-d1e2-47a9-80bf-ca5ac48b3aa8%22;rec=0), which means it failed.
- ### What is the purpose of this amendment?
- West Australian Senator [Jordan Steele-John](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/jordon_steele-john) (Greens) [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-11-17.24.2):
- > *This amendment seeks to do something pretty simple—that is, to update the title of the bill so that it actually reflects the content and purpose of this bill.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 7), omit “ and Inclusion ”.*
-
-
|