Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak to the government response to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme report Accommodation for people with disabilities and the NDIS. I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This report arose from the joint standing committee's review of affordable and appropriate accommodation for people living with disability. This followed an earlier report which noted:

… the lack of adequate accommodation can limit people’s ability to fully exercise their individual choice and control. It can also limit people’s ability to fully participate in society and live an ordinary life like any other Australian.

It is clear that Australians with disability cannot be assured at present that there is housing suitable for them. It is also clear that one size does not fit all. Australians with disability are not all the same. They differ in needs and preferences, like every other member of our community. This is a key factor which must be recognised and accepted if we are to make real progress in providing housing for people with disabilities.

In undertaking the review, the committee received 55 submissions and conducted a roundtable meeting on 23 October 2015. The committee made six very important recommendations to address the issue. I would like to cover each of them, briefly, and the government's response in the time that I have available. In the government's response that we've just had tabled the government has agreed with five of the recommendations and noted one.

The first recommendation is:

… that Commonwealth and state and territory governments work with national disability peak organisations and the Australian Building Codes Board to examine updating the Building Code of Australia in regard to accessibility.

This task remains unfinished. In the work that the Senate Community Affairs Committee has been doing in looking at the National Disability Strategy, we have heard considerable evidence to suggest that we need to not only ensure that the Building Code is updated, but that steps are taken to ensure that accessibility becomes a shared goal for all those involved in building houses—that is, builders, architects and homeowners. Accessibility shouldn't be an add-on or a nice thing to have. It should be a given, and we have some way to go before we get there. There is some interesting innovation happening, but in my view we still have some way to go to ensure that accessibility is a normal part of the scoping, designing, building and finishing process. And government does have a vital role to play in making sure everyone involved in the building process recognises this.

The government, in its response, has advised that the Building Ministers' Forum has:

… agreed to propose to COAG that a national Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) be undertaken as soon as possible to consider applying a minimum accessibility standard for private dwellings …

Now, that's good. However, with that work being undertaken and the discussions that have been had over many years, we know that if the RIA goes ahead, it will still be at least 2022 before it is implemented. So we do have a long way to go.

The second recommendation that the committee made was:

… that accommodation for people with disability be integral in the development of affordable and social housing policy proposals.

The report noted that the NDIS is not the fix-all solution for accommodation for people with disability. The NDIS will not provide housing solutions for all people with disabilities. While some housing needs will be addressed, there is a need to build housing for people with disability in all affordable and social housing policy proposals. There is a need to integrate these so that housing for people with disabilities is not seen as separate to affordable and social housing projects, but as an integral part of all proposals. Just today, I read reports that the Tenants' Union in my home state of Tasmania is calling for residential buildings on previously public land to incorporate a mandatory component of social and affordable housing. My belief is this call should also include the provision of accessible accommodation for people with disability. As a community, we are getting our minds around this but we need to go further and we need to go further soon.

Again, the government has agreed with the recommendation but does little, in my view, to explain what it is actually going to do. It does talk about the new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. Senators in this place will know that that agreement has not been released and, as far as I'm aware, hasn't even been signed off. I think the government really does need to do more in its response to recommendation 2 and needs to come back and provide more information in regard to recommendation 2 because it's vitally important.

We now move to recommendation 3. The committee recommended:

… the Commonwealth government explore all possible proposals for disability accommodation, and the ways it can assist in bringing them to fruition.

I know that getting housing proposals off the ground can take a long time. When it's a proposal that includes housing for people with disabilities, it can be even harder. So, talking here today, I'd like to mention the tireless work of my Tasmanian colleague Bob Gordon, who has been pursuing cost-effective solutions for affordable housing that would help maximise independence and choice. Despite all the frustration Bob has faced in this work, he has kept plugging away, and he should be congratulated on that. The Commonwealth needs to take an active role to get this done, and it must work with the whole community to promote the value of a truly inclusive and accessible community.

Now we turn to recommendation 4, which was for an analysis of proposals that the Commonwealth should assess about how financially accessible they are for people with disability and their families. Again I have to say that, whilst I'm happy the government has agreed with this recommendation, I think the information that's been provided by the government does fall quite short and it would be good, again, for them to supplement their response. Obviously, a key part of determining just how practical housing proposals for people with disability are is the affordability of the accommodation for people with disabilities. We need to work as a community to ensure that the best type of accommodation, which maximises choice and control, is actually affordable for the people it is designed for. People with disability already face enormous challenges without paying a premium for accommodation. We need to make sure that suitable housing is affordable and no more expensive than other housing. This is a task that we all need to work towards and to complete.

I haven't got enough time to go through the other recommendations, so I hope that further speakers will keep this response on the Senate books, but I would like to say that, if people haven't read this report, I ask them to go and have a look at it and then compare it with the government response. As I've said, the government has accepted five out of the six recommendations, but we do need to make sure that the needs of people living with disabilities are at the forefront, and so we must be— (Time expired)

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be happy to continue with the report from the point at which Senator Brown has left off, given the time limits that she had, and I will make sure that I seek leave to continue my remarks at the end. Just so those listening to the broadcast, and the sole individual who is here representing the Australian people at the moment and watching the work of the Senate, understand what we're talking about, this report that was tabled has been with the government, and we have the response from the government right now. The scale of the problem that we're talking about is people with a disability who have a need for accommodation assistance.

The data that informed this report to which the government's response is tabled today is from the 2011 report Disability care and support. The calculations then were that there were 15,700 people in state government managed supported accommodation and a further 6,500 in residential aged care. The estimated waiting lists at that time indicated that there might be 25 per cent more of the population who needed specialist disability accommodation. It went on to say that, with population increases, the Productivity Commission working figure was now around 28,000 people, or 6.8 per cent of the projected participants who might require direct assistance under the scheme. The NDIA estimates that up to 193,000 participants are on low to very low incomes and may need housing assistance from some source, including those with assistance.

There are a range of people that we're talking about that need to be considered in the way in which the government has chosen to respond. The groups that were identified were 6,200 people under 65 in residential aged care, 17,000 people in specialist disability accommodation—3,000 of those in institutions and 14,000 in group homes—and 57,000 people living in social and public housing. At the commencement of this process, the estimated unmet need for affordable housing is roughly 127,000 NDIS participants. That's a lot of people. People with a disability are overrepresented in housing assistance programs and are reporting on many occasions multiple barriers to accessing suitable housing, including barriers in the housing system itself, as well as barriers with the disability support system. The government's response really matters. It matters to at least those 127,000 people, plus all of their families, friends and co-workers who want to know that people with disability are being looked after in this wealthy, generous nation that we are.

Senator Brown indicated in her remarks the government's responses to the report. Let's look at them. The first recommendation is that the:

… Commonwealth and state and territory governments work with national disability peak organisations and the Australian Building Codes Board to examine updating the Building Code of Australia …

The government agreed with that. That all sounds very good. The second recommendation is that:

… accommodation for people with disability be integral in the development of affordable and social housing policy proposals.

The government have agreed with that. But, as Senator Brown pointed out in her remarks, they're pretty light on detail. So, if you're one of those 127,000 people or one of them is somebody you love and care about or somebody you look after in your community, I wouldn't be holding out too much hope for what the government have agreed to here. We're seeing a lot of comments that, to me, indicate a general waving at the problem but no detailed policy work, no careful planning and no allocation of required funding to make this happen. In fact, there are some very concerning lines I'll hopefully get to in the time I have remaining.

I believe that Senator Brown left off in her remarks discussing recommendation No. 3, which is:

The committee recommends the Commonwealth government explore all possible proposals for disability accommodation, and the ways it can assist in bringing them to fruition.

In the government's responses we get sentences like:

The Australian Government is committed to improving the housing experiences of Australians living with disability. The provision and regulation of affordable housing is primarily the responsibility of—

and this is where it starts to get dangerous—

the individual state and territory governments.

Let me tell you, I have heard this too many times from this Commonwealth government. Just remember that when John Howard came into power we started paying our taxes through the BAS forms. They are being filled in by businesses across this country to this day. Every three months, their tax comes to Canberra. There is a responsibility for us to make sure that the money that's required for basic services gets back into the communities where it's needed. The problem we're seeing with this government is that it's getting the money but abrogating the responsibility. I get very concerned when I hear this government saying things like, 'This problem'—the provision of affordable housing—'is the responsibility of the individual state and territory governments.' It refers us in point 3, where the government agrees with the report, to point 2. But in point 2 I really couldn't see any significant commitment that is going to go anywhere near addressing the needs of the 127,000 people who are identified as people with disability who have a significant housing need.

Some of the suggestions in the government's response make me even more concerned. One says:

NDIS participants will receive individualised planning to identify the supports needed to enable their goals to be met. This can include home modifications, personal care and domestic assistance in the home that helps a participant with activities of daily living …

Yes, that's the case. We know that. But what is the government doing about creating accommodation for people with disabilities? This response from the government is strewn with these sorts of general comments about what is going on in the NDIS space but absolutely not sufficient detail to give anyone confidence that it's actually prepared to deal with this significant problem, this significant reality, that is impacting on the lives of, I'd say, by association, millions of Australians.

The fourth recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme states:

As part of the analysis of proposals, the committee recommends the Commonwealth should assess how financially accessible they are for people with disability and their families.

Once again, instead of this government coming up with a scale to indicate what affordability factors need to be considered and what the reality is—instead of something detailed and careful like that—the opening comment of the response to that recommendation is:

The provision of affordable housing is primarily the responsibility of the individual state and territory governments.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dead right.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection from the minister. 'Dead right,' he said, 'it's primarily the responsibility of the states.' The attitude we're seeing is: 'It's not the federal government's responsibility; it's the states' responsibility. I don't care—if you fall between the cracks, you're just going to have to put up with it.' And that's what we see. You can hear the tirade coming from the minister over there, because what he's saying is indefensible.

Senator Scullion interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I'm one of the last people who can start lecturing others on interjections, but, under the circumstances, Minister, I have given you a bit of a free rein and it's starting to get a bit disorderly with senators arguing across the chamber. So I urge you to allow Senator O'Neill to be heard in silence.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we heard there was the minister saying quietly, 'Too right, it's the responsibility of the state and territory governments.' The reality is that this is an attitude that we see on every single issue from this federal government. I see my esteemed colleague Senator Patrick Dodson here. He made amazing remarks today—wise words—on the departure of Jacqui Lambie. On so many occasions he speaks about issues around Indigenous needs in communities that are being ignored. This is another one of those social needs that is profound and important for our community: the need to have a proper response from this government.

We know that, sadly, too many of the first peoples of this country are experiencing disability and are experiencing housing challenges in the state of need that they are in, with particular disabilities. The most marginalised people in our community are suffering, and the government continues to put out platitudinous responses to serious work done by people right across this country. This report didn't happen because a few people here in this building sat down and decided they'd write up a few ideas. This committee has consulted across the country. This committee got the best and brightest minds of this country to put together a set of recommendations. The least the government could do is take the report seriously and come up with something genuine that is going to address the needs of the 127,000 people I mentioned in my opening remarks.

To recommendation 5, we again get agreement from the government. In the 27 seconds that I have before my time's up, the last recommendation, recommendation 6, states:

The committee recommends the Commonwealth government explore capital sharing, securitisation, and joint ownership options to expand the provision of appropriate accommodation for people with disability.

I know from my recent trip to Canada that there is very exciting and practical work being done in this field in other countries. Sadly, this government's response is not going to go anywhere near that. It lacks vision and it's chaotic and dysfunctional, just like the government that responded to the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.