Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Hansard source

I have got to say that I appreciate Senator Humphries having the courage to come into this chamber and at least express a view on why the government will not support this reference. I think some of his reasons are fairly hollow, and I will go to those in a moment. But I do acknowledge that Senator Humphries at least tried to give some sort of reason why this reference would not be supported—unlike for the previous two references, which have gone through completely on the numbers, without any expression from the government as to why they would not be supported.

Senator Humphries said that he did not disagree with the expressions of complaint. Certainly the whole community is aware of the complaints that have been levelled at the problems in the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement. That is why an inquiry is appropriate. That is why it is timely, at this point, to investigate why the level of complaint is so high, why there is misunderstanding or lack of clarity of the intent of the agreement and why there is a continual rub between the Commonwealth and states about their levels of responsibility. This is why there is a continual problem that affects older people with disabilities, and why there is a fight between the Commonwealth and the states over who is responsible for the provision of their care. That is the sort of meat that this inquiry would get into. But this government is going to stop it occurring.

Senator Humphries said that he acknowledged that the agreement was dysfunctional. Surely that is an argument in support of an inquiry, rather than an argument against. He then said that on his cursory examination—and I am glad he used that adjective, because it was a fairly cursory examination of the Notice Paperhe saw eight pieces of work that the community affairs committees had to do. That is somewhat misleading. There are three pieces of work that the Senate Community Affairs References Committee has to undertake, and I talked about them in my initial address. The toxic dust inquiry has completed its hearings. It simply has to write a report. I say ‘simply’: that is an understatement. It is a piece of work that has to be done, but it is possible to begin a new inquiry while the conclusion of another inquiry is occurring. The inquiry into petrol sniffing has done a lot of its work. It has a very organised plan for the rest of its hearings, and it too can be completed while we call for submissions for this new proposed inquiry. That would mean that we would complete the first inquiry and move into the second. That is normal practice in this place. To say that the community affairs committee is overloaded is an absolute furphy.

Senator Humphries said there were eight pieces of work that the committee had to do. No, there are three; and on Friday there will be a roundtable into gynaecological issues affecting women in Australia. That is a one-off event. I commend the committee for doing something so creative, but it is a one-off event that will take one day and then there will be a report to be done. It is wrong to say that this committee is overloaded.

Senator Humphries said that this committee has more work to do than other committees. You can well understand why that is the case when you see the number of inquiries that people who sit on the other side of the chamber have not allowed this Senate to undertake. I am very sorry that I have to follow Senator Hill’s excellent address, because he described the value of this place and the Senate committee system beautifully. But that is being undermined very significantly and we have had absolute evidence of that today.

This Senate’s agenda is not being set by the people who sit in this room. This Senate’s committee inquiry agenda is being set by the executive of the government. That is an undermining of what I think is one of the powerful roles of this chamber. We now know that any decision about any inquiry that is going to occur in this place has to go through the Liberal and National party room. We have never done that before—not in the six and a bit years that I have been here. We have been able to control our own agenda and determine the important pieces of work that need to be inquired into—not the leadership of the Liberal and National parties. That is a real shame.

I commend this motion to the chamber. It is a timely reference and one which is supported by the sector. That is the most important thing. This is not a political inquiry; this is an inquiry that people with disabilities, their service organisations and their advocates want. They want to be part of the discussions that will lead up to the fourth agreement. Otherwise, we will be here in three years time saying that the CSTDA is dysfunctional. We will say that it is not working and there is lack of clarity in the intent of the agreement. Let us take the opportunity to help people with disabilities to navigate the difficult and complex bureaucratic processes that they have to go through. Let us use this opportunity to peel back the complexity of service provision for people with disabilities. But I am afraid that the people on the other side of the chamber are saying, ‘No, we just want to leave it like it is.’ They are saying, ‘Let’s not use the Senate processes to assist people with disabilities in getting the services and assistance they in fact need.’ This is a sad day for this Senate. At least Senator Humphries had the courage to tell us why he thinks it is not timely. But, as I said, I think his arguments are pretty weak. I commend the motion to the chamber.

Question put:

That the motion (That the motion () be agreed to.