Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate. The Greens have not changed our position on the government's bills, despite the amendments the government has here. The minister just used the words 'not comfortable'. Well, the Greens are not comfortable with this because, despite the minister's fine words, this does limit people's choice. People are being given the choice between either taking this substandard replacement or recompense for wages that they lost, and a tool that has been in use for a number of years during which people knew it was wrong. People knew it was wrong; people knew it was discriminatory; and it took people with disability and also very hard work, a lot of it pro bono, by advocates and lawyers to address the situation. It is not as if governments—and I mean governments of both persuasions—did not know that this was a discriminatory tool.

Now the people who are affected by this discriminatory tool are faced with the fact that choice is actually being taken away from them. It is: 'Here's a bird in the hand now, and we'll give you part of what you are owed.' I will note here, as I noted last time, that we have to take into account not only that they were paid substandard discriminatory wages, but that the opportunities that full wages—proper wages—would have given them should also be included in that. That should be taken into consideration. It is not just the loss of the wages; it is the opportunities those wages would have given those people. Their choice is being taken away, because they are being told, 'Take this now. It's better than nothing and you may get nothing in a court case.'

We also need to look at the NDIS. Under the NDIS, if you acquire your injury and your disability in an accident, you are actually forced to take legal action. But you can go into the scheme in the meantime, while your process of legal action is taken. To my way of thinking, that is the same sort of concept as the ALP's amendments: you can take care of yourself now while you pursue those legal options. People have the right to take legal action. What the government is saying here is: 'We will give you a bit of money if you don't take that choice.' To my mind, and to the Green's mind, that is not choice. We are not comfortable with this approach that, to be frank, is more focused on the government trying to save some money in the long run, and also on protecting ADEs. I am not having a go at ADEs. I know that is what is being portrayed, but that has also been part of this mix and I am sorry but they do not come first. People with disabilities come first, and we are limiting their choice with this legislation. It is taking away people's choice. It is giving them substandard recompense for the years that they have been subject to the discriminatory tool. We know this tool is discriminatory, because the court has said so. They need to fix it.

We understand that is a process that is being undertaken and we have yet again consulted extensively. We did so for our first position, as I outlined in my contribution to the second reading debate on this bill in the first place. We consulted extensively then and we have consulted extensively again. The fact is, people with disabilities, their representatives and their advocates do not support this. They do not support this approach. They are the ones who took the action in the first place. It was their persistent work that got us to the point we are at. They do not support this bill. The Greens cannot support something that people with disabilities, their organisations and their advocates do not support. Even with the amendments we still cannot support it. I will make a further contribution when the ALP's amendments are being debated.