Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I note upfront that, while the opposition has some concerns with aspects of this bill that's in front of us, which I'll briefly outline, we will not be standing in the way of its passage. As background, the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 replaces the current Disability Services Act 1986. The current act has been in place for nearly 40 years and, in the decades since its introduction, it's obvious to everyone in this chamber, there have been quite substantial developments in the disability sector, including in the legislative framework, the regulations, the international agreements of which Australia is a party and, of course, the practical provisions of disability services. A huge amount has changed since the existing act was legislated. That's not to mention the establishment of the NDIS and the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability.

As a country, we're onto our second national disability strategy. It's important, given these quite momentous changes, that Australia has the right framework in place to ensure Australians with disability, who we know are some of the most vulnerable people in our community, can access the right supports and services. These bills establish an updated framework for the funding and regulation of programs that support one in six Australians with disability. It is also to support their families and carers and, of course, to make a number of consequential amendments to other bills and smooth the transition through transitional arrangements.

The Disability Services and Inclusion Bill seeks to establish a streamlined framework to facilitate funding for supports and services, and we hope that, ultimately, this framework will assist with supporting all Australians with a disability, regardless of whether or not they participate in the NDIS. Much has been spoken about the NDIS, its great work and certainly its limitations, some of which have certainly been exacerbated under this government, notwithstanding a range of promises that were made by the then opposition—now in government—in relation to the NDIS.

The bill itself doesn't change or impact the NDIS or disability support pension paid under social security laws. Rather, it will provide legislative authority for new and existing spending on disability related programs outside the NDIS. In that respect it will operate in a similar way to the objectives of the existing framework, which sits within the 1986 legislation. The bill doesn't directly allocate funding for specific supports or services. Rather, it oversees the supports and services. Importantly, the bill improves quality and safeguard arrangements by the introduction of a mandatory code which will mirror the NDIS code of practice—on this we can provide bipartisanship. It's a quite important harmonisation between the largest single program in our nation for those with a disability and a broader framework of those with a disability who aren't necessarily within the NDIS. Under this bill, supports and services may be provided to any person with a disability, including those with physical, psychosocial, cognitive, intellectual or sensory impairment.

The Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 also makes a range of consequential amendments as a result of the repeal of the 1986 legislation and its replacement by the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill. Schedule 1 repeals the 1986 act. Schedule 2 amends the Commonwealth legislation, reflecting the repeal and current replacement of the Disability Services Act. Schedule 3 sets out application and savings provisions for the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill, with part 1 dealing with some of the preliminary matters, part 2 dealing with the operation of the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill and part 3 dealing with the operation of the Disability Services Act.

In our view there are some issues and potential concerns about this bill. Most importantly the bill does not define target groups that will be eligible for supports and services. This is quite a departure from the existing legislation. Under section 8 of the current legislation, the 1986 act, a target group:

… consists of persons with a disability that:

(a) is attributable to an intellectual, psychiatric, sensory or physical impairment or a combination of such impairments;

(b) is permanent or likely to be permanent; and

(c) results in:

(i) a substantially reduced capacity of the person for communication, learning or mobility; and

(ii) the need for ongoing support services.

While we acknowledge that not having a slated definition of a target group quite obviously may provide greater flexibility in access to services and supports, without the additional infrastructure in place there may be unknown practical consequential impacts on the provision and delivery of timely support service to those who need it. We will be keeping a very close eye on this framework but we will not stand in the way of this bill.

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

We consider the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 in a historic context. Disabled people in Australia, having worked and fought together for decades against the ableism that is such a deep part of government decision-making, have successfully together won a series of victories for the disability justice movement: the establishment of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for the first time a nationally consistent program to provide so many of us with the vital sports and services that we need; and the establishment of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, finally creating that much needed investigation into the violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect which has taken so many and so much from our community. These victories have been won due to fierce and fearless advocacy and action by grassroots activists, by our national advocacy organisations and peak bodies working with our allies in the community. It is a proud moment for our community, and I am proud, as a disabled person in this space, of what we have achieved together.

The government, in putting forward this legislation, has set itself two benchmarks of success. The first is that the act shall provide for the provision of services beyond the NDIS—services, supports and advocacy not funded under the NDIS. It's absolutely vital that the Commonwealth play a role in the provision of services in this space because—and I do feel that I often have to remind so many in this chamber of this—the NDIS only covers about 10 or 11 per cent of all disabled people in Australia, or about 610,000 to 630,000 participants. The remaining over three million disabled people in our community do not access the NDIS and so, from a Commonwealth perspective, are left to receive supports and services through acts such as this, and this is a key act in this space.

In that context the government, in putting forward this bill, seeks to create for itself a couple of other benchmarks for this legislation. Indeed, in articulating the repeal of the current Disability Services Act 1986, which is an act that should have been repealed and replaced a long time ago—and we agree with the disability organisations who, in submitting to the inquiry into this bill, stated that the current act fails to set out a vision for an inclusive society. It fails to set out a vision for an inclusive society.

The government, in response to repealing this piece of legislation, has stated that the objects of the bill are to 'provide funding outside of the NDIS to persons that provide supports and services for the benefit of people with disability, their families and carers' and to 'advance the inclusion and social and economic participation of people with disability'. These are the two benchmarks the government set themselves in this bill: provide services outside of the NDIS, and advance inclusion and social and economic participation.

These are the benchmarks against which the Greens and the disability community judge this bill. Against those benchmarks, this bill in its current form is a failure. It fails to achieve the objects that it sets out to achieve, and that is why it is in need of significant amendment. It also fails to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, and this must be considered very seriously. The royal commission was the largest of its kind in Australian history, subject to thousands of submissions and pieces of verbal evidence.

We as a disability community have been betrayed and let down by government services so many times. As a disabled person I cannot tell you, and so many of us share this experience, how many times we put our trust in a government system or service and we say, 'You've said on your website, in your policy,' wherever, 'that your role is to support us to achieve our goals and to realise our rights,' and then the reality of that program or service is that it doesn't. That's not an experience or phenomenon confined to a certain period of time or government. This is a systemic failure across time, and it undermines your trust and it undermines your faith in these systems and services. It makes you not want to engage. It makes you not want to report. It makes you not want to trust that, if you speak up about what is happening to you, you will be believed. So, in that context, people overcame a lot of those barriers and said: 'You know what? We don't trust government processes. We don't trust ministers. We don't even trust the judicial system, which has continually failed to protect us from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect. But do you know what? One more time we will try. We will share our experiences. We will give our evidence in the name of all those who have been lost, all those who have been murdered, all those who have been abused, all those whose lives have been scarred by discrimination, all those who daily face the sting of segregation at the hands of government policy. One last time we will trust.' And we gave our evidence. We shared our experiences.

The disabled members of that commission, working with allies, non-disabled commissioners, presented a very clear set of recommendations in the report that they handed down. These are very clear recommendations about how we end the cycle of segregation which sits at the heart of abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation in this country. They call on us in their recommendation, they call on the government, to look clearly at the reality of our lives, the reality that so many of us as children are forced into segregated educational settings. We are corralled together, taught to different curriculums, supported or denied support, depending on the type of disability that we have. We are separated from our non-disabled peers. From there we go into segregated work where we are paid $1, $2 or $3 an hour, because, for some reason in this country, still, in 2023, there are asterisks in the fair work legislation. Australia, this nation founded on the belief of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, contains 'except if you are a disabled person,' in which case over 20,000 of you, can be paid a couple of dollars for your time.

From this segregated setting in which we are systemically robbed of pay, we are then placed into segregated housing settings. Where we are forced to live together in groups, regardless of whether that is what we would choose. And, when we protest about this, we are told, 'Well, many disabled people don't want to live on their own. They like living with people. They don't want to be lonely,' as though any person should be forced into a dichotomy between isolation and being clumped together with people you don't know. Nobody else in Australia is asked to do that. If you say, 'I'd like to live with somebody. I don't really want to bum around the house on my own and be alone at night,' you're given a choice: either you can do that or you can share with a whole group of people you don't know.

As I say that, I hear many renters say, 'Well, I'm forced to live in a share house because of the high rate of rent.' Absolutely! And that's an awful situation that many people are forced into despite their choice. But that is not government policy. Whereas, if you are a disabled person, it is government policy, and it is public funds that support these institutions.

So, through segregated education, segregated work and segregated housing, do you know what happens to us? We die. Segregated housing, education and employment lead to early death. That reality may make some people feel uncomfortable. It may not fit with what they had previously assumed to be the case. But I implore you, I implore this chamber: listen to disabled people, engage with the reality of our lives and the ableism that we experience.

During the course of this debate, I will bring you back to the fact that, in seeking to repeal this act and replace it with a new act, the government has granted itself maximum opportunity to implement the recommendations of the royal commission, to listen to the disabled people's organisations that submitted to the inquiry and to join with the disability community in deciding that the pathway forward is inclusion. There is no such thing as a just system that includes segregation. As a legislative Commonwealth body we have—and I am so grateful for this—decided that racial segregation is wrong, that racial segregation is disgusting. It offends every moral principle that a human being within this place could support. I ask you to join with the disability community in applying that same humanity to us.

In the course of this debate, I will offer amendments which will chart a pathway to the desegregation of Australian society and the full inclusion of disabled people. In doing so I will directly mirror the recommendations made by the disability royal commission. In the view of the Australian Greens, the time frame for this transition is too long. With regard to desegregated education, for instance, the royal commission sets out a time line that wouldn't see this achieved until 2051. That would see children born today watch their children be forced into segregated education. That is not acceptable. But I offer to the chamber today an opportunity to decide that desegregation is the destination and that together we should break the cycle of segregation that leads to early death, violence and abuse. I move:

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

(a) acknowledges that:

(i) the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability recommended that a Minister for Disability Inclusion should be appointed, and

(ii) that disability ministers have been appointed by previous governments; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) appoint a Minister for Disability Inclusion in line with the Royal Commission's recommendation, and

(ii) provide ongoing and needs-based funding for Disability Representative Organisations, other disability organisations and advocacy services".

The second reading amendment I have just moved gives the chamber the opportunity to endorse the royal commission's recommendation that there be a disability minister established within the Commonwealth government. There is a Minister for Women, as there should be. There is a minister for First Nations people, as there should be. There should be a minister for disability.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and its associated bill. I will start by saying I endorse many of the things that my Greens colleague Senator Steele-John has said here today. While we don't agree on many issues, I think many of the things that Senator Steele-John—as well as Senator Ruston and others—has said on this ring true. They resonate powerfully with me and, I know, with many others. While we look at things through very different philosophical frameworks, one could argue that the Australian disability strategy and the NDIS, as a policy and a program, are fundamentally very liberal. I say that because the NDIS and the Australian disability strategy, which Senator Ruston, as Minister for Families and Social Services, and I, as NDIS minister, were proud to implement, go to the heart of one of the things Senator Steele-John has been talking about today—that is, inclusion. As Liberals, we look at it as the right of all individuals to realise their own life aspirations and to have power, control and responsibility over their own lives.

As the NDIS minister, I came to learn about the history of how this nation has treated people with disability in previous years, and still there are echoes of this today—far too loud echoes of a time when we looked at people with disability as people not to include in mainstream society but to define by their disability, not to define them and support them in line with their many abilities. People, particularly those with serious and permanent disability, were locked away. Parents were told that the only option for them was not education or supports to help them realise their own aspirations, to have self-control over their lives and the course of their lives and to have the dignity of risk.

We have a shameful history, looking back, of institutionalisation of people with disabilities, where many were isolated and had their lives defined by their disabilities, and they were not supported, either, as they should have been. Too many were subject to coercive controls, physical and chemical. Shamefully, that still continues today. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people with disabilities who have been forcibly sterilised, who have been involuntarily subject to birth control and who still do not get the supports they need to realise their own life aspirations and to be included in our society.

Much has changed since the current act was legislated, so, on this side, we are supporting this bill. But, like pretty much every other piece of legislation those opposite have brought forward, it is deficient. I'll go through some of those deficiencies later. It does go some way to improving the situation, but, again, not as much as we would like. On a personal note, I agree with Senator Steele-John in terms of the need for a dedicated cabinet-level minister for disability, not only for the NDIS but also to take responsibility for all disability related services and supports so that finally we can have a single minister responsible for coherent disability policy. It's a little bit of a shame that the Labor Party hasn't taken that opportunity to make those arrangements, but it is never too late.

Over the last decade, since the introduction of the NDIS, we have adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and we are now on our second decade-long national disability strategy, which we in the coalition were very pleased to deliver. I also remind all colleagues in this chamber that not only did we release the Australian disability strategy, which was a transformative new strategy backed by a $250 million investment to provide a robust framework to deliver real and positive life changes for people with a disability, but we also appointed the wonderful Dr Ben Gauntlett as Disability Discrimination Commissioner. He was also appointed by Minister Ruston at the time to chair the strategy's advisory council to support the implementation.

The strategy itself does set out priorities and plans for governments at all levels, and I think that it is a positive step forward. From my perspective, the most important aspect of the strategy, which unfortunately we've seen very little evidence of this government embracing and implementing, was that it was signed off by all states and territories, because, to really move forward in disability strategy over the next decade in this nation, states and territories have to step up. They've done what many states and territories do best. When the NDIS came into being a decade ago, they defunded their own disability strategies, which was the complete opposite of what they were supposed to do in their agreements with the NDIS, and continued to provide community supports for the four million people who were not eligible for the NDIS, because they didn't have at the time what we saw as the most serious and permanent disabilities.

We've heard a lot of rhetoric from Minister Shorten, but we've seen no action at all yet on renegotiating the intergovernmental agreements on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. States and territories must accept their responsibilities under Australia's Disability Strategy and in the recommendations of the royal commission. Again, this government has demonstrated no urgency or progress in implementing the royal commission's recommendations. This government, halfway through its term, hasn't even released the independent review of the NDIS yet. By all accounts, they have no intention of releasing that or this year's actuarial report, the AFSR, which would give us some idea of how they intend to make $74 billion worth of savings out of the NDIS over the next decade, apparently without cutting a plan or participant numbers, which is completely impossible. The sector knows that. We know that on this side. But those opposite are still maintaining that myth, which is a cruel fraud and hoax on everybody with a disability and their families.

Coming back to the bill itself, the bill does establish an updated framework for the funding and regulation of programs that support one in six Australians with a disability, their families and their carers. It also makes some consequential arrangements to other bills and arrangements. While we support this bill and the updating of this framework, as usual, it is deficient in a number of areas. We hope that the government will now start looking at amendments. Why they did not address these areas in the drafting of the bill is completely beyond me, because that seemed like such a logical thing to do. If they were going to bring forward this bill, they should have made sure they brought forward the best possible bill.

But then we look at the complete debacle of yesterday. In 30 years working in this building, I have never seen such incompetence. The government knew since June of the possibility of the High Court's decision, and they waited until yesterday to present a highly deficient bill. Fortunately, they did accept the coalition's amendments to strengthen the bill—but, time after time, they keep bringing forward these deficient bills. We have issues with this bill that need to be addressed. The first is that it does not define target groups that will be eligible for support and services. On the one hand, you understand broadening it, because there are a lot of complexities with individuals with a range of complex disabilities. But, knowing the incompetence of those opposite, a bit like with the NDIS, they refuse to have some form of standardised assessments, which has made it all too easy now for states to move people into the scheme without any controls. Arguably, those are people who should be looked after under state schemes and not the NDIS. This is a departure from the current legislation, and the implications of that are not yet very clear.

Also, under section 8 in the current legislation, the Disability Services Act, the targets groups consist of people with a disability that:

(a) is attributable to an intellectual, psychiatric, sensory or physical impairment or a combination of such impairments;

(b) is permanent or likely to be permanent; and

(c) results in:

(i) a substantially reduced capacity of the person for communication, learning or mobility; and

(ii) the need for ongoing support services.

While not having a legislated definition of a target group may provide, as I've said, greater flexibility and access to services and supports for those who are a little more challenging to diagnose, there will certainly be unknown practical, consequential impacts on the provision and delivery of timely supports and services for those who most need it. I think that, in bringing forward this bill, those opposite have learnt not a thing about the flaws that they baked into the NDIS legislation 10 years ago, and that is a portent of what will now happen with this legislation. It was very clear very quickly that they couldn't have baked greater flaws for an insurance scheme into the legislation 10 years ago, when they were last in government. Where did they go wrong with that scheme? First of all, there are two drivers of scheme cost for Australian taxpayers. The first one is participant numbers, and the second one is the average cost of individual participant plans. What did the geniuses then in government, who are now back in the government benches, do? They made sure that the government minister of the day couldn't control either lever of cost. They gave it to an independent board who was not responsible for managing the budget that the federal taxpayers and the federal government had given them.

When those geniuses developed the legislation, not only did they not give the government control of those two levers; guess what else they did? They baked into the federal legislation that neither of those levers could be changed without the unanimous support of the state and territory governments. And what state or territory government is going to give the federal government control, when they have just shunted financial responsibility—which the federal government can't control—to the federal government?

As minister, I went to Bill Shorten, the shadow minister at the time, and said, 'Let's work together on a bipartisan basis so we can put this scheme on a sustainable financial future, so that those who most need it—those with serious and permanent disability—can be assured that they will have this scheme to make sure that they can live a life in accordance with their own aspirations, that they have self-determination over their lives and that they have dignity to live their lives, take risks and have risk in their lives as the rest of us do.' But no: Mr Shorten instead has played politics with this. He is still playing politics with this. He has now created this mythical promise which everybody in the sector knows cannot be delivered.

You cannot make $74 billion worth of savings and not cut participant plans and participant packages. In fact, it's on track now to be over $74 billion. What the government have done is banked the savings over the next 10 years based on baseline data from last financial year. But guess what: not only is it going to be more than the $74 billion that they have saved—or that they say they have saved. From the eight per cent they wanted to moderate cost to over the next decade, they've gone from 12 per cent to 15 per cent in one quarter alone. So, while we will accept this legislation as better than nothing, like every other piece of legislation and everything those opposite touch in the disability sector, it is making people's lives worse. That is the tragedy.

We are working across the aisles together with the Greens because, even though we come from different philosophical bases, we want people—all Australians with disability—to have the same life opportunities. The Greens say 'inclusion', but we call it realising their own aspirations. Those opposite are making sure that's going to be harder and harder. (Time expired)

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to echo the comments of my colleague Senator Steele-John and acknowledge his amazing work and knowledge in this space. I also want to acknowledge the work of the First Peoples Disability Network, who have worked endlessly and continue to work so hard in advocating for First Nations disabled people. They do some amazing work, and it's so important that we take this time to acknowledge the hard work of organisations and services who are on the ground and who are absolutely are seeing firsthand what the issues are and fighting to fix them. Whilst the Greens welcome the repeal of the Disability Services Act 1986, we are absolutely disappointed—and it was very evident during Senator Steele-John's speech on the second reading—and frustrated by the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and related bill before the Senate today. I echo his frustration and disappointment in that.

The Greens understand and see the efforts expended by the disability community in particular to clearly state what those barriers are that disabled people actually face and exactly what is needed to break those barriers down. This bill does not listen to those voices—absolutely not. I wholeheartedly agree with the comments of Senator Reynolds, as well, from the coalition. It seems that this is a habit of this government, so we completely agree on that, Senator Reynolds. I know that in both my portfolio areas of resources and First Nations time and time again I am told that people's voices are not being listened to, and that's a slap in the face for everyone. During the election process this government promised that they wouldn't leave anybody behind. They are, in fact, leaving the disabled community behind in this instance.

During the inquiry into this bill the disability community were very clear that this could have been an opportunity to put into action Australia's commitment to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This would include committing to time frame for ending the segregated employment, the segregated education and the segregated housing that we've heard about today. There was also an opportunity to tangibly and immediately improve the lives of disabled people. The Greens know that the only barrier to a lot of those solutions is actually the political will to get on with the job. The Greens have a few amendments to this bill, and Senator Steele-John and I have co-sponsored two of those. I know he will continue to speak to those on my behalf. These amendments seek to highlight the intersections for First Nations disabled people and the unique needs and considerations that First Nations disabled people need in order to obtain culturally safe and appropriate care and support while ensuring that they still have connection to their culture and their community. The importance of this issue is something which I have spoken about many times in this place.

This government has a duty to ensure that key pieces of legislation such as this both enliven and give effect to the rights contained in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I'll be on my way to a committee meeting shortly to look at the chair's report from the committee that's looked at the domestication of the UNDRIP. The UNDRIP has four key principles that can and must be brought to life through this piece of legislation and many others across various portfolios. They are about self-determination, participation in decision-making, respect for culture and the protection of culture, equality and non-discrimination. I don't think it's very hard for those in this place and the other to take these principles into consideration when we are drafting legislation and pushing it through the parliament. Our amendments highlight how this bill can and should feed into closing the gap, which is such a big agenda for First Nations communities. Whilst there is no specific target for closing the gap, there are many targets that relate back to the quality of life and the connection to culture that disabled First Nations people deserve. These targets include increasing life expectancy, inclusion in employment and education, access to housing, lowering incarceration rates and reducing suicide rates.

As Senator Steele-John has already mentioned the royal commission's work, I want to specifically refer to something from that report that talks about the overrepresentation of First Nations people with cognitive disability who are in custody. This particularly applies to youth detention. The report states that this is largely a hidden national crisis, and I can vouch for and attest to this because it is such a huge issue for us in our home state of Western Australia, which Senator Steele-John and I represent. We know these gaps exist for First Nations people, and they are even wider for disabled First Nations people. Having quality, accessible, affordable and culturally appropriate care is paramount for disabled First Nations people in closing these gaps. This government must ensure that the decisions made under this legislation relate back to closing the gap and to UNDRIP. That's how we can ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of those people who will be directly impacted by the decisions that we as elected representatives in this place make.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, and in doing so I want to acknowledge the wonderful leadership of my colleague Senator Jordon Steele-John in advocating for changes to support disabled people in this place. This bill seeks to repeal the Disability Services Acts 1986 and provide legislative authority for new and existing spending on disability related programs outside of the NDIS.

The Greens welcome the repeal of the Disability Services Act. It's been nearly four decades since the enactment of this legislation, and since then we've seen a multitude of developments in the disability sector. We've experienced a shift in legislation, regulations, international agreements and the way disability services are provided. This has coincided with a growing awareness of the mistreatment, the neglect and the violence experienced by people with disabilities, and the absence of safety, quality and value in some disability services. Repealing the Disability Services Act presents a real opportunity, and we have to make sure that this opportunity doesn't go by without doing everything we can to end the cycle of segregation that too many disabled people find themselves trapped within. We need to ensure that the human rights of disabled people are upheld in all services that will be funded by this bill, and we need to ensure that disabled people are included in the decision-making processes.

As Senator Steele-John has said, getting this bill right could be transformational for the lives of disabled people. However, this bill fails to meet its stated objective to advance the inclusion and the social and economic participation of people with disability. It also fails to implement recommendations of the royal commission. The Greens are disappointed and frustrated by these failures, because we know how much time and effort the disability community has expended to share with governments the barriers to inclusion they experience and the services and the policy responses that are needed to break things down. As we outlined in our additional comments to the bill's inquiry report, this bill fails to put into action Australia's commitment to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Importantly, it fails to include key recommendations from organisations that represent disabled people.

The Labor government has also missed the opportunity to tangibly and immediately improve the lives of disabled people by making reforms to the disability support pension. I remind you that the objective of the bill is to advance the inclusion and social and economic participation of people with disability. To do that, you need to address the rate of the disability support pension. The disability support pension is completely inaccessible and inadequate. Not enough people can get it, and, when they do get it, it's not enough.

This was made clear in the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's inquiry that was undertaken in 2021-22 into the purpose, intent and adequacy of the DSP. I was the chair for most of this inquiry, and I heard the overwhelming criticisms about the rate of the disability support pension and how inaccessible it is. The current maximum base rate of the payment is around $71 a day, which is at least $10 below the poverty line. Without access to affordable health care and the necessary support, it's incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for disabled people to budget $71 across both the cost of living and the extra costs that go with having a disability, such as the medical costs associated with their disability.

Our inquiry also heard how the current income limits for the DSP were disempowering and disincentivising disabled people to work, as many people feared that if they re-entered the workforce they would lose the payment entirely. Being financially supported or working shouldn't be an ultimatum imposed upon people by our social security system. We should be empowering people with disabilities to find meaningful work that suits them, not making it even more difficult for them to gain employment.

Throughout our inquiry, the committee also heard clear evidence from disabled people, their families and carers and advocacy organisations about how difficult, expensive and traumatising applying for the DSP is. We heard time and time again that a key barrier for many people accessing the DSP is the impairment tables and how they systematically exclude many people with, for example, comorbidities and/or psychological disabilities. When people put the time and effort into applying for the disability support pension—these are people with disabilities, and for many of them making that application is incredibly difficult. Then they get knocked back. Then they apply again and get knocked back again. It is just heartbreaking. It is not supporting people with disability. It's certainly not advancing the objective of this act, which is to support the social and economic inclusion of people with disabilities.

We heard in our inquiry how unfair and unrealistic it is to require some applicants for the DSP to undertake 18 months of mutual obligations or the program of support before being eligible for the payment. In response to this evidence, the inquiry made some really important recommendations to improve access to and adequacy of the payment. Notably, these included recommendations for the government to improve access by removing the criteria to be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and to review the impairment tables. The committee also recommended that the government consider making the program of support voluntary and review the income test to better support disabled people entering the workforce.

But despite these very salient and very clear recommendations, out of a consensus report of our committee, the Labor government still has not officially responded to the inquiry report and has largely failed to act on its recommendations. I would have thought that putting up legislation today might have been an opportunity to incorporate some of those recommendations into legislation. I do acknowledge and note that last year the government did undertake a review of the impairment tables, which led to the removal of the condition applicants to be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and replaced it with the condition of 'diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised'. These changes were welcome and important, but they failed to holistically address the full remit of issues associated with the DSP, including the adequacy, the problematic interaction with workforce participation and the program of support. So now, despite the opportunity to improve the lives of disabled people again by reforming the DSP in this bill, the Labor government has failed yet again.

I want to state again that the Greens know how significant repealing the Disability Services Act is. So, we won't let this opportunity pass us by without advocating for the transformative change that's needed. So, Senator Steele-John and I will be moving amendments in the debate of the committee of the whole to improve the adequacy, the accessibility and the inclusivity of the Disability Support Pension. Our amendments seek to: raise the rate of the base payment above the poverty line, to $88 a day; increase the income-free area of the DSP for people aged under 21 to ensure that people are empowered to work if they want to, without fear of losing their payment; make the unfair system of mutual obligations within the DSP application process truly voluntary; and remove the requirement that a condition be diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised, which would then increase the accessibility of the payment by removing the need for a diagnosis to be corroborated in evidence found in discriminatory impairment tables.

These amendments actually respond to the recommendation of the Senate inquiry into the DSP, which the government haven't yet done. And they're a critical step for reducing barriers for disabled people within our social security system and fit absolutely squarely and in the centre of what should be in this bill if it is to meet its objective of advancing the social and economic inclusion of people with disabilities.

I want to note that while improving the access to and adequacy of the DSP is vital to improving the lives of disabled people in the social security system we know that we can't stop there. Right now we've got millions of people who are barely scraping by on youth allowance, older people increasingly becoming homeless, and people on JobSeeker having to survive o payments well below the poverty line. Our social security system is broken, which is having a significant impact on the wellbeing and lives of Australians, including particularly, as we're discussing today, disabled Australians. More than 43 per cent of JobSeeker recipients have a partial capacity to work, meaning that they are sick and/or disabled, and they can't access the DSP. So, while improving access to the DSP will decrease this number, it's critical that anyone who needs support is able to get it.

That is why the Greens are advocating for a guaranteed liveable income which would apply to everyone. This would mean raising the rate of all income support payments above the poverty line, to $88 a day; abolishing from our social security system punitive measures like mutual obligations and all forms of compulsory income management; and returning the provision of employment services to the Commonwealth. This sits side by side with our plans to build and create affordable homes, to increase wages and to reduce the costs of essential services by making them free.

The Australian Greens believe that disabled people have a universal and immutable right to agency, safety, bodily autonomy, privacy, education, employment, housing, social support and health care. These rights are inherent in all disabled people and must be prompted and recognised in all interpersonal community and structural settings. That's why we are pushing for a guaranteed livable income and why we are seeking to amend this bill. To truly advance the inclusion and the social and economic participation of people with a disability, we need the Greens amendments that we are seeking to make to this bill to be passed. Then we would really have change and disabled people would have a real ability to live decent lives and thrive in Australia.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak to the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023. I would like to acknowledge, like my colleagues before me, the work of Senator Jordon Steele-John in advocating for and raising the voices of people in the disability community. I would also like to echo the comments made by Senators Rice and Cox.

In particular, I'd like to address the Greens amendment to end segregated schooling by 2051. I note that I come to this debate as a teacher with 30 years of experience who only left the classroom in April last year. We know that segregation at school leads to a life of segregation for people with a disability, so it's incumbent upon us to change this, and we start by ending segregation at school. Surely setting a target of doing this by 2051 is achievable.

I understand the concerns that are raised by teachers and educators when it comes to talk about ending segregation. I've taught in the public education system for around 30 years, and over that period of time I've watched the consistent and persistent underfunding of our public school system. It results in a lack of support for students—in particular those who have additional needs. But that is not a reason to say that we shouldn't end segregation in our schools. It's a reason to say that we need to properly fund our schools so that they can support all students.

Persistent lack of funding in public schools means that we are not currently meeting the needs of students with a disability who are in them. We heard in the school refusal or 'school can't' inquiry that schools are persistently failing to address the needs of, in particular, students who are neurodiverse. We also saw recently in Queensland statistics that show that roughly half of students who are being suspended from our schools are students with a disability. We need to do better. I support my colleagues' amendments to extend inclusion to all students in our schools and to end the segregation of young people with a disability in our schooling sector. If we want people with a disability to be able to participate fully in our communities then we need to start by allowing them to participate fully in our schools.

Let's remember: inclusion, and doing it properly, benefits every young person in our schools. There is a reason why attendance levels at our schools are dropping, why young people are becoming increasingly disengaged in our system, and why teachers continue to feel, particularly in our public schools, that they have a lack of support to give every student in front of them what they need to fulfil their potential. I support these amendments, and I say to the government: if we can't end segregation in our schools, when are we ever going to end it?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions this morning on this really important debate. I know that there are a number of amendments to be moved in Committee of the Whole that the Senate would like to get to.

In summing up, I want to thank the disability community generally and all of the stakeholders that have provided advice and input into the development of this bill, including through the Senate committee process. I would note the committee's finding that the bills will advance the interests of and outcomes for people with disability, families and carers, and that the view of the committee was that we should pass this bill. I know that, with the disability royal commission, with the work the government is doing around the National Disability Insurance Scheme and with the development of this legislation, we are asking a lot of people. I would very much like to place on the record our thanks for the contributions of all of those stakeholders, because we would not be able to do this work without them.

I look forward to getting into the Committee of the Whole to address other issues that people might have. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.