Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.