Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, throughout the discussion and debate on the need for this reform, we've seen this as an ongoing issue around the NDIS, and we know sex sells. We know that it gets a sexy headline and that lots of people will click as soon as the word 'sex' turns up in the headline of an article. What we have seen not just during this process but for a few years around the NDIS is outrage that people with disability may require assistance when it comes to being a sexual being.

Unlike a lot of people in this place—certainly unlike a lot of people that sit on my side of the chamber—I have a very different view on this issue and how it's addressed. I don't support the use of it as clickbait. There is no overwhelming money being spent on services that relate to sexual health for it, in any way, to be tied to overspending within the NDIS. It is insulting and ridiculous. I do particularly enjoy it when particularly middle-aged men raise with me the issue that no-one should be accessing sexual services through the NDIS. I make point that if you were to have a car accident on the way home today and would then require assistance to have sexual relationships with your wife, girlfriend or both, you may be pretty keen to ensure that you can access those services. It's amazing how that tunes the mind on what is the intent of some of these supports.

I'm ignoring Senator Cadell, I didn't hear what he said, but I can imagine it was a pearler.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senators, interjections are disorderly.

Sometimes they're entertaining, Temporary Chair, but I do think that it is used as a salacious point and is misunderstood. I remember Jonathan Lea did a story on Sky News, and I happened to be on Paul Murray Live, and Paul was expressing outrage, as many do with regard to sexual services being accessible through the NDIS. Being on his show, I said, 'Paul, I'm actually going to disagree with you,' and I outlined some of the reasons I just said. I then received a phone call from Jonathan Lea that night. His mother had called him and said: 'I think you better call Senator Hughes. She made some pretty good points about this.' I don't think I'm disclosing a private conversation, but I know that Jonathan certainly had his eyes opened whilst working and investigating that story.

It is not as simple, clean cut or salacious as some would have you believe, but we know that it is something that garners headlines. I find it personally distressing and a return to the old paternalistic attitudes that people with a disability are somehow not fully human—that they do not have the same urges and needs of every other person in society and that includes the need for physical contact. You just need to think of someone with a profound disability who is never, ever hugged. No-one ever touches them in any way, not even in a sexual way. They are just never receiving any form of physical affection, and that is a very, very sad state of affairs. I think it is something that we need to acknowledge—that people with a disability are full humans. We need to remove the paternalistic attitude that they somehow do not exist as sexual beings, because that is simply not true. I am sure plenty of people with a disability would back me up on that.

I do appreciate that there are lists and amendments and services that aren't going to be provided under the NDIS. Some of that is very well and good. To buy into the rhetoric, do I think that people should be able to hire prostitutes? No, I don't. Do I think that people may require assistance to participate in sex? They should be able to acquire those support workers that enable them to assist that. Without going into too many of the details of some of the aides that are required, they can include harnesses and frames et cetera. Those things are important, and I think we need to make sure that we are mindful throughout this process not to get sucked into the political rhetoric and the sexy clickbait headline and denigrate people with a disability when we talk about this.

What has garnered some attention, but I don't think the full scope of attention that it may deserve, is that we had an instance of someone who was convicted of sex crimes as an NDIS participant who was self-managing their plan and advertising on Facebook groups for young women to walk along the beach with him and potentially go swimming. At no stage was the person's background revealed. I acknowledge that this bill and the amendments attached to it will rectify that for people who are convicted, particularly of sex offences, who may require NDIS plans on their release from prison. The CEO informed us at estimates that all people with a disability who are eligible should be eligible, and that is regardless of their criminal background. I'm not sure I'm one hundred per cent on board with some of that, but that was the advice of the CEO. I totally support that position in relation to those convicted of serious crimes, and I think it should go beyond sexual crimes; it should be for all crimes that you are then put onto agency management of your NDIS plan, for the sake of the Australian taxpayers who fund it.

Perhaps the minister can update us on one of the concerns I have and let us know whether it's addressed as part of the next tranche of legislation or whether it's something that's being examined. There is nothing that I can see in this bill that will protect support workers who are appointed, via the company that they work with, to work with a participant who has previously been convicted of a serious crime or, in particular, a sexual offence. A lot of the support workers—particularly those who work in behavioural supports and activities of basic daily living, whether it's assistance with shopping or chores around the home—tend to be women, and, very often, they are young women. I'm concerned that, at this stage, we can see no requirement for the agency, the providers or the participant who's been put on a self-managed plan because of a previous conviction to notify the support worker of this situation so that they are in a position to decide whether or not they want to work with that participant.

We hear an awful lot about choice and control for participants of the NDIS. That is a feature of the scheme which I am very, very much in support of and one which should be protected vigorously by all of us, but the choice and control must extend to support workers. They must have the choice and control to determine who they are prepared to work with. Minister, as we're coming towards the guillotine for the committee stage and debate on this legislation, is this issue addressed anywhere in the legislation or is there anything planned as part of the next tranche of legislation that addresses it? Is there something that the minister is aware of that means that protections for support workers will be as much a part of this legislation as the required protections for participants?