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

I will briefly speak to the spirit and substance of the amendments now being considered en bloc by the Senate. The amendments go to a number of areas and are seeking to achieve a number of goals.

Firstly, we seek in parts of these amendments to correct basic administrative flaws in the bill that were flagged by disabled people during the inquiry and yet have not been clarified in the bill. We seek in these amendments to do things such as make clear that services and advocacy provided and funded under the bill extend to online and digital spaces. That is not a controversial thing to do. We seek to ensure that the code of conduct put forward by the government is actually enforced and monitored by a dedicated commission which has the capacity and ability to uphold and investigate complaints brought by disabled people. It is not good enough that the government would seek to amend the code of conduct after the fact, after somebody has been abused, neglected or in other ways had their rights violated by one of these services, and it is not realistic or really connected with any kind of reality to expect a department or subsection of DSS to administer and uphold the code of conduct in relation to these services. The minister in her contribution referenced the fact that at the moment there are very few complaints taken to the department in relation to these services administered under the current act. With respect, Minister, that is because a code of conduct does not currently exist. When you bring one into existence, you should hope to find that more people come to the government with complaints or observations about how these services can be improved.

We seek in these amendments to give effect to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Australia has been a signatory to this convention, has ratified this convention, since 2008. One of our amendments simply calls on the government to ensure that no service that is funded under this act violates the principles of our commitments under the UN convention. This should not be a controversial thing to suggest and should have had the government's full support.

We seek also to implement basic recommendations given to the government during the course of the inquiry, in relation to how this bill can better support First Nations people through the adoption and implementation of key recommendations and principles within the Closing the Gap framework, to which all government departments administering these services are already committed. If you're already committed to it, put it in the bill.

As Senator Ruston flagged in her contribution, we seek to ensure that the government establish a national, consistent framework for the use and ownership of assistance animals and the ability to move through Australia with the support of an assistance animal in the full knowledge that for so many Australians who need such a support, there are far too many complex, varying regulations at the state and territory level, and the people who need these forms of support are so often subject to discrimination and exclusion.

We seek also to make basic changes to this act so that it does not enshrine the concept of 'respite' within it at a moment when we need to be moving away from the idea that disabled people are a burden on our friends, families and carers. This act seeks to enshrine the language of 'respite' when it attempts to talk about supported out-of-home accommodation, which is vital, which people need, which plays a key role in facilitating the skills development of disabled people as well as preventing carer burnout. These kinds of programs are really important.

It is also really important that we don't justify them or contextualise them within a context which enforces the idea that a disabled person is a burden to their family or their friends. That is not acceptable. That should be simply supported by the government.

There are so many holes within this bill that there is no way to sum it up other than as a massive missed opportunity. Disability organisations and the disability community made so many clear recommendations, during the course of the inquiry, into exactly how this bill could be improved. For whatever reason, the government has decided to charge ahead, citing logic that is conflictual and just does not make sense. The Greens put forward these amendments as an opportunity, as an outstretched hand for you to join with the disability community in correcting some of the basic gaps within this legislation so that we may better give effect to what it is that the bill, apparently on the surface, is seeking to do.