|
senate vote 2023-11-17#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-06-14 10:57:18
|
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 - Greens amendments
Description
<p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p><p>I've got a couple of questions for the minister representing. First of all, I have a question in relation to the second reading, which the Senate has voted on previously. I know that you have closely followed the disability royal commission and disability policy issues. The second reading, which the Senate voted on moments ago and which your government proposed, called upon the Senate to take the view that your government should adopt the recommendations of the disability royal commission and appoint a disability minister. It made this recommendation—this recommendation exists, and the Greens support the establishment of such a position within a particular context. That context is that the commission made very clear in its investigations and findings that across multiple areas of government—not only across, yes, the NDIS and, yes, traditional service delivery but also across transport, education, employment, housing and health care—there are systemic failings in policy which subject disabled people to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect.</p>-
- The majority voted against [requests for amendments and an amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-11-17.60.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [Janet Rice](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/janet_rice) (Greens).
- ### What is the purpose of these amendments?
- Senator Rice [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-11-17.60.1):
- > *These amendments relate to improving the accessibility to and improving the rate of the disability support pension, which are critical and central to meeting the objective of this act to achieve the economic and social inclusion of people with disabilities. As I noted in my second reading speech, the Senate community affairs committee did a very comprehensive inquiry into the adequacy of the disability support pension a couple of years back. That committee made some consensus recommendations, but we have not had a response from government on those recommendations, which is pretty upsetting given how much work went into that committee report and the input that we had from people with disabilities. As I said, the recommendations we came up with had cross-party support. What these amendments seek to do is to implement some of those recommendations. [...]*
- >
- > *These amendments would raise the base rate of the Disability Support Pension. They would increase the income-free area for people under 21, make the program of support voluntary and remove the requirement that a condition be diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised. Our amendments go further than any recent reforms to the payment, and are an absolutely critical step to improving the accessibility, the inclusivity and the adequacy of the payment.*
<p>The absence of a coordinated response from government and the absence of a specific individual within government who has the responsibility and—I would say—the privilege of championing the rights of disabled people are significant factors in both the creation of policy which has perpetuated these forms of abuse and the systemic failures which have caused these forms of abuse. It is something which strikes the disability community as really quite odd. In a context where the government does have a minister for women, the government does have a minister for First Nations people and these roles are seen as appropriate responses to complex policy issues that exist within these spaces and an appropriate reflection that these communities deserve to be reflected in the structure of their government, it strikes the disability community as strange and also quite offensive that this position no longer exists within the federal government. I say no longer very advisedly and specifically, because these positions used to exist. The former Labor government had a disability minister. The former coalition government at least had an assistant minister for disability. I would put to you, Minister, that the same cross-portfolio approach to the need for the government to respond to the royal commission is insufficient. It risks the replication of the very confusion and lack of coordination that led to the systemic failures which the royal commission found. I ask you to outline for the Senate why your government opposes the establishment of a disability minister.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>The government hasn't responded to the disability royal commission at this point, as you know, and we're not going to be responding recommendation by recommendation. Minister Rishworth is leading a whole-of-government process and response for the government to what was a very comprehensive report. It was over 200 recommendations, some that were focused on the Commonwealth and, as you know, others that focused on state and territory governments and other organisations as well. That work is underway.</p><p>I recognise the fact that addressing some of the significant failures that have occurred across numerous governments and systems responding to the support required by people with a disability and their families requires a coordinated response. We should be working to ensure that, in all parts of government and all parts of the disability sector, there aren't gaps and areas where people, organisations or governments don't think they have responsibilities to address support for people with a disability. We accept that. We have Minister Rishworth. We have two cabinet ministers sitting around that table for whom a vast majority of their job is focused on either policy relating to people with a disability or services and responses to it. I think that shows you how seriously the government takes this area of responsibility. In response to your question, it really is that waiting for that process to be finalised by Minister Rishworth, the whole-of-government response, which is underway and is being carefully thought through.</p> <p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p><p>Minister, I say this with genuine personal respect for you, the dedication that you bring to your portfolio and the engagement that you have with your portfolio: I must draw your attention to the way in which your answer, given in good faith, draws our attention to the problem that the amendment that the government has just voted against is trying to solve. You just identified for the chamber that Ministers Shorten and Rishworth are two cabinet ministers around the table with primary responsibilities relating to disability. That's not actually accurate. Your health minister has significant responsibilities for disability. Your minister for mental health issues, Minister McBride, has significant responsibilities for disability. Your employment minister has significant responsibilities for disabled people. Last time I checked, so does the Attorney-General, under their responsibilities to administrate the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. So does your Minister for Women and your minister for health in relation to the elimination of forced sterilisation in Australia. Your minister for transport has responsibility for the accessibility and inclusive nature of our transport system in Australia.</p><p>If I sound like I'm a little bit frustrated, it is because disabled people—the vast majority of us—do not receive supports via the NDIS or via programs administered by DSS, and so there is a need for a minister in cabinet whose job it is to champion our rights everywhere they exist. My frustration is also because your government applies deep double standards to this question. You recognise the vital need for a minister for women. You recognise that the whole of government has responsibilities to ensure that the rights of women are upheld and that there should be a minister within your government with responsibility to champion policy that is important to Australia's women. You also recognise, as you should and as we in the Greens do, that there is a vital need for every element of the Australian government to be coordinated in its response to the needs of First Nations people and that there must be a minister for First Nations affairs. In First Nations affairs, you rightly have not only the Hon. Linda Burney in her position in the House but also Ministers Dodson and McCarthy. These are good things you have done. Yet you do not apply the same principle to disabled people, who are constantly passed from pillar to post within your government, with people passing the buck and with personality and political conflicts between ministers causing delay and malpractice in administration of programs and policies. All of this would begin to be solved if there were one person in your government with the responsibility of championing disability rights. Your response to this, Senator, has just highlighted that. So I would ask you to reflect upon the very example you have just given the chamber and attempt to identify for the Senate again the precise source of your government's opposition to the establishment of a disability minister.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I'm sorry. I did not intend my contribution to be taken the way that you've taken it. In fact, I used the words 'whole-of-government' and 'a whole-of-government response'. The example I was given there was the disability royal commission, which covers a whole range of areas. I have worked for many years in the disability community and the service sector. I accept that every one of us has a responsibility. So does the government. We do have lead ministers for certain areas, but I am not in any way saying that I don't have a responsibility or Minister King doesn't have a responsibility. The Treasurer, the Prime Minister and all of us have a responsibility to address areas within our portfolio capabilities more broadly, to support services and to respond to the needs of people with disability. I understand how you could interpret my remarks that way. I didn't intend for them to be interpreted that way. That is not the way the government operates. We do see it as a whole-of-government response, led by the cabinet more broadly.</p> <p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p><p>Thank you, Minister. Again, that is the way you operate in relation to disabled people. It is not the way you operate in relation to First Nations people or women in Australia. That's the differential that this amendment sought to point out.</p><p>But, moving on from that, I believe, Minister, that you said—and I'll give you a quick opportunity to confirm either way—that the reasoning for the government's opposition to the Senate motion that you just voted against was twofold: (1) that you won't be responding to recommendations on a case-by-case basis; and (2) that the government has not yet responded to the totality of the royal commission recommendation and that is the source of your opposition to the amendment. Is that correct?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>Yes.</p> <p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p><p>Given that you have acknowledged that the government has not responded to the royal commission recommendations and will not be responding on a case-by-case basis to recommendations of the royal commission, why has your government brought forward this legislation at this time? You have just said you won't even vote for a second reading amendment which simply asks the chamber to adopt a view that your government should establish a disability minister. You have voted against that on the grounds that you as a government have not yet given a full response to the disability royal commission. Yet we are being asked this afternoon to vote for the repeal and replacement of one of the most significant pieces of legislation in relation to disabled people: the Disability Services Act, which provides the Commonwealth with the power to provide disabled people who are not on the NDIS and their families and carers—all three million plus of us—with services and supports.</p><p>You want to do that today, not when the government finalises its comprehensive and coordinated response. You are pushing this today, when you could spend months—the months left in this year and the months left between the beginning of next year and the time when the government hands down its recommendations on the royal commission—consulting with disabled people and implementing the suggestions made to you by no less than 26 peak bodies and organisations as to the changes that are needed within this act. If your government is so concerned about not even taking a view, a theoretical view offered by a second reading amendment, on just one of the recommendations of the disability royal commission until the government finalises its response, then, Minister, why have you brought this legislation to this chamber, when you could have brought it as part of a comprehensive package that responded to the disability royal commission's recommendations?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I think the short answer to that is that, in terms of drafting this legislation, officials were responding and seeing it as an enabling piece of legislation for the broader reforms that will come through the disability royal commission. They have been taking note of the evidence and speaking with commissioners through that and, obviously, going through other consultation processes as well. It wasn't a specific recommendation of the disability royal commission; in a sense, the work on it predated that. Consistent with the answer I have given, I don't believe that this is being rushed or being dealt with sooner than it should be. I think there was a view that we needed to respond swiftly to put in place quality safeguards required for people receiving services and support. These bills do that.</p> <p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p><p>Minister, I need to clarify your answer. You said simultaneously that this legislation was not a response to a specific royal commission recommendation but also that there was a need to move swiftly. With respect, you can't have it both ways. Is it a response to the royal commission, in which case you need to move swiftly, or is it not a response to the royal commission, in which case you don't have to be bound by any particular length of time?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I don't accept that I'm talking at cross-purposes. I'm saying it wasn't a specific recommendation. One of your criticisms was that we were saying that we weren't responding recommendation by recommendation. Then your next question was, 'Why are you doing this ahead of the formal government response?' I'm saying that this was not a specific recommendation but has been informed by evidence and work that was done throughout the disability royal commission proceedings, and there was a view—supported, I think, by a lot of people, including elements of the disability community and the peak organisations—to put in place a legislative framework that would enable the reforms that will come through the disability royal commission and to have that in place as soon as we could. That's what this bill is about.</p> <p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p><p>Minister, if, as you say, this bill is designed to enable the government to respond, how can the government be sure that it does in fact enable the government to respond, when the government has not decided what its response is to be?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>The bill before you is a broad framework that we believe is consistent and will allow for the implementation of the response. I understand your point about preferring that this be dealt with later, or not now, but nothing in this bill would prevent or obstruct the implementation of the government's response. It puts in place a broad framework that will support and enable the reforms.</p> <p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p><p>Minister, with respect, how do you know? You have just said that nothing in this legislation will impede the government's response. Yet you have also informed the chamber that the government has not yet responded to the royal commission. Upon what basis do you make that claim?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I believe I've answered the question. I accept that you don't agree with it, but I've answered the question.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|