Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The point that Senator Rice made just before she resumed her seat is an absolutely critical point for this chamber to consider, and that is that the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019 has been brought before the parliament without appropriate consultation with the disability community. This is particularly egregious, given that co-design of legislation such as this and genuine community involvement in the drafting of legislation like this is absolutely imperative.

Time after time, we see this parliament pass legislation that has a significant impact on the lives of a group of people in this country without having adequately engaged with them on the drafting of the relevant legislation. That is not okay. That is not acceptable. The onus here is on everyone in this chamber, but in particular the government, to ensure that, when the government presents legislation to this chamber, it has done the often time-consuming work of genuinely engaging with the people who are going to be impacted by that legislation. The government's got a lot of lessons to learn in this area and it's got to work to improve the way that it engages and consults, as a matter of urgency. Something that's consistent across the spectrum of disability policy is the adage 'nothing about us without us', and that absolutely encapsulates what should be the way the government approaches legislation such as this, but all too often we find the government does something to people without adequately engaging with and consulting them.

The Greens want to acknowledge and thank those organisations and people who submitted evidence to the committee inquiry and gave their time, their effort, their experience and their expertise. As I was just saying, community led policy is fundamental to ensuring that we collectively uphold the rights of disabled people and that we empower disabled people to lead the decision-making process and to occupy the places where decisions are made. 'Nothing about us without us.' I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Senator Steele-John for the way that he has conducted himself as the holder of the relevant Australian Greens portfolio and as a disabled person who genuinely leads his community by genuine engagement with that community. It is absolutely inspirational to see the way that he has done that, and there are lessons that all of us could learn from Senator Steele-John on the way we represent people in this place.

There are a number of key recommendations that have emerged through the inquiry into this legislation that we have to build on to ensure that the rights of disabled people—as stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—are upheld. And I want to say here that this government has made an absolute art form of ignoring its international obligations. They are quite happy to sideline their international obligations when it suits them politically. And we see that time after time, and in issues that I speak on often in this place, such as the rights of people who are refugees or who seek asylum in Australia under the provisions of the refugee convention. And this country, shamefully on a bipartisan basis, turns a blind eye to the obligations that we have signed up to under the refugee convention, and abuses most terribly the human rights of those people. We need to stop turning a blind eye to our international obligations. We have given our word as a country on the international stage that we will abide by these international obligations, and we have a lot of work to do to make sure that the rights of disabled people that are enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are upheld.

A key issue which frames the conversation around this legislation is around the dichotomy of rights safety. Now, this dichotomy often forgets the fact that the enforcement of people's rights and strong accountability are critical elements of ensuring people's safety—and that, colleagues, is what we need to focus on; those critical elements that ensure the safety of disabled people. It is absolutely critical when looking at the broader safeguarding framework in Australia. And safeguarding is a critical area in need of reform. The Robertson review produced a number of key recommendations for improving the National Disability Insurance Scheme Quality and Safeguards Commission, and there remains an ongoing discussion about how best to implement those recommendations.

This legislation proposes changes that carry serious implications for the human rights of participants, and, critically, for the privacy rights of participants and some unanswered questions around the practical effect of the two-way information sharing arrangements. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Quality and Safeguards Commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency need to understand that it is incumbent on them to improve the way that they explain—in plain, easily understandable language—what this legislation seeks to do and how it will affect participants. Again, this goes back to the principle of genuine engagement with the people who are impacted and affected by any piece of legislation, because that engagement shouldn't only happen as the legislation is developed and drafted and ultimately debated in this parliament. It needs to keep happening if the legislation passes to make sure that the people who are affected by that legislation understand what the impacts on them will be and understand what their rights are, whether they be human rights or privacy rights or any other rights.

The changes that are proposed in this legislation emerged from the horrific manslaughter of Ann-Marie Smith. The Robertson review, from which this legislation has sprung, was commissioned in response to those tragic circumstances. The Greens want to note that there is currently a broader review of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission being undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS. We understand that committee has heard evidence of further reforms that need to be made to ensure that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission works properly for disabled people nationally. With regard to a lack of consultation, we want to place very firmly on the record that the disability community were not adequately consulted as this legislation was being drafted; in fact, shamefully, they found out about this legislation on 3 June this year, when it was tabled in parliament. That is a completely unacceptable way to treat people.

The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations stated in their evidence to the committee inquiry that:

The exclusion of people with disability and their representative organisations in putting forward the amendment bill and the failure of the minister to adequately include the substantive amendments being called for by the community in response to participants who were vulnerable and at risk of abuse and neglect is absolutely inappropriate and has caused this amendment bill to fail in its objectives. It is our submission that the minister has a duty to consult with people with disability and their representative organisations when making and amending laws which directly impact them. The minister has failed to do so and, as a consequence, there is a serious and significant threat to the human rights of people with disability.

Well, that lays it out pretty starkly for colleagues here. It reiterates the arrogance of a government that thinks it can come in here and legislate in a way that has impacts on the lived experiences and lives of disabled people without adequately consulting with them and their representative organisations. That is such a shame. In fact, it's just the attitude that has led us to where we are now—a royal commission. Again, I congratulate Senator Steele-John for his leadership in ensuring that that royal commission was established and his leadership in ensuring that, to the greatest degree possible, it is being run in a way that respects the rights and the needs of disabled people. Looking after the rights and the needs of disabled people is exactly why that royal commission was established in the first place. We haven't been doing that for so long in this country, and we are yet to get this country to a place where we can all say that we fundamentally respect and deliver on the rights of disabled people in Australia. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that whilst the disability community was variably consulted during the course of the Robertson Review, it was not consulted on this bill and the implementation of the recommendations that emerged from the final report of the Robertson Review; and

(b) is strongly of the view that the Government and its departments and agencies must properly consult the disability community and their publicly funded disability representative bodies, and publish exposure drafts before introducing legislation, to ensure that policies, systems, and services are designed by and for disabled people.

I urge all colleagues to support this amendment. It goes to the very heart of the way the government has failed to consult on this legislation. It expresses extremely clearly, and allows the Senate to adopt, a view that the government and all of its departments and agencies must in the future properly consult with disabled people and their representative bodies; and that that consultation should be genuine in that it needs to ensure that exposure drafts of legislation are published before legislation is introduced and puts disabled people at the very heart of designing policies, systems and services that impact on their lives and their lived experiences as disabled people.