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

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

Before I call the minister, to clarify, Senator Steele-John, are you moving that amendment now?

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

Yes, why not? I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2210:

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 7), omit "and Inclusion".

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

The government won't be supporting this amendment. I acknowledge the contribution made by Senator Steele-John and the views that he has outlined to the chamber, but the government doesn't accept the arguments that he's putting. I would say this bill hasn't been rushed. There have been two significant rounds of consultation. The first one led to the drafting of the bill. Subsequent to that, there was another comprehensive round of consultations and then, of course, a Senate committee process. So that's a response to those criticisms. I would also say I accept the view that Senator Steele-John has put about the use of the word 'inclusive'. I would say that there is strong support from the disability community—I'm not arguing that there aren't those that might support your position, Senator Steele-John—who have commended the focus on inclusion in the drafting and development of this bill. For those reasons, we think it's important to retain those and, as such, will be opposing the Greens' amendment.

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

The opposition will support the government's position on this particular amendment, but I would like to acknowledge the intent behind the amendment that's been put forward by Senator Steele-John, because the reality is that simply changing the name of something doesn't actually change the outcomes that are delivered by it. We would say to the government that, if you are intending to change the name and include the word 'inclusion', it does provide a level of responsibility for you to actually follow through and improve the inclusiveness of the way that the government operates in terms of its interface with the disability sector for the provision of services to the sector going forward.

We know from a number of other initiatives by the government so far that they seem to think that changing a name somehow is going to change the outcome, and changing the name signals to the electorate that they are intending to do so. I can't think of better example of that than urgent care clinics. Simply changing the name of a practice to an urgent care clinic, when nothing else changes, does not deliver any beneficial outcome to the Australian public. So I would say to the government that we'll be watching very closely as this bill comes into effect, because the responsibility of government in relation to disability goes far beyond the responsibility for the NDIS and the delivery of that scheme. A bipartisan approach was offered to the NDIS, and the coalition remains very committed to the delivery of the outcomes of the NDIS, but that does not mean that government can walk away from its broader responsibility to make sure that people who live with disability are being supported even if they are not part of the NDIS.

We will not be supporting this amendment, but we will certainly expect the government to not just use and include the word 'inclusion' in the bill. We will expect them to act on inclusion if they really think that this bill is going to deliver what its title says it will.

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

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 2210 be agreed to.

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

I've got a couple of questions for the minister representing. First of all, I have a question in relation to the second reading, which the Senate has voted on previously. I know that you have closely followed the disability royal commission and disability policy issues. The second reading, which the Senate voted on moments ago and which your government proposed, called upon the Senate to take the view that your government should adopt the recommendations of the disability royal commission and appoint a disability minister. It made this recommendation—this recommendation exists, and the Greens support the establishment of such a position within a particular context. That context is that the commission made very clear in its investigations and findings that across multiple areas of government—not only across, yes, the NDIS and, yes, traditional service delivery but also across transport, education, employment, housing and health care—there are systemic failings in policy which subject disabled people to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect.

The absence of a coordinated response from government and the absence of a specific individual within government who has the responsibility and—I would say—the privilege of championing the rights of disabled people are significant factors in both the creation of policy which has perpetuated these forms of abuse and the systemic failures which have caused these forms of abuse. It is something which strikes the disability community as really quite odd. In a context where the government does have a minister for women, the government does have a minister for First Nations people and these roles are seen as appropriate responses to complex policy issues that exist within these spaces and an appropriate reflection that these communities deserve to be reflected in the structure of their government, it strikes the disability community as strange and also quite offensive that this position no longer exists within the federal government. I say no longer very advisedly and specifically, because these positions used to exist. The former Labor government had a disability minister. The former coalition government at least had an assistant minister for disability. I would put to you, Minister, that the same cross-portfolio approach to the need for the government to respond to the royal commission is insufficient. It risks the replication of the very confusion and lack of coordination that led to the systemic failures which the royal commission found. I ask you to outline for the Senate why your government opposes the establishment of a disability minister.

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

The government hasn't responded to the disability royal commission at this point, as you know, and we're not going to be responding recommendation by recommendation. Minister Rishworth is leading a whole-of-government process and response for the government to what was a very comprehensive report. It was over 200 recommendations, some that were focused on the Commonwealth and, as you know, others that focused on state and territory governments and other organisations as well. That work is underway.

I recognise the fact that addressing some of the significant failures that have occurred across numerous governments and systems responding to the support required by people with a disability and their families requires a coordinated response. We should be working to ensure that, in all parts of government and all parts of the disability sector, there aren't gaps and areas where people, organisations or governments don't think they have responsibilities to address support for people with a disability. We accept that. We have Minister Rishworth. We have two cabinet ministers sitting around that table for whom a vast majority of their job is focused on either policy relating to people with a disability or services and responses to it. I think that shows you how seriously the government takes this area of responsibility. In response to your question, it really is that waiting for that process to be finalised by Minister Rishworth, the whole-of-government response, which is underway and is being carefully thought through.

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

Minister, I say this with genuine personal respect for you, the dedication that you bring to your portfolio and the engagement that you have with your portfolio: I must draw your attention to the way in which your answer, given in good faith, draws our attention to the problem that the amendment that the government has just voted against is trying to solve. You just identified for the chamber that Ministers Shorten and Rishworth are two cabinet ministers around the table with primary responsibilities relating to disability. That's not actually accurate. Your health minister has significant responsibilities for disability. Your minister for mental health issues, Minister McBride, has significant responsibilities for disability. Your employment minister has significant responsibilities for disabled people. Last time I checked, so does the Attorney-General, under their responsibilities to administrate the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. So does your Minister for Women and your minister for health in relation to the elimination of forced sterilisation in Australia. Your minister for transport has responsibility for the accessibility and inclusive nature of our transport system in Australia.

If I sound like I'm a little bit frustrated, it is because disabled people—the vast majority of us—do not receive supports via the NDIS or via programs administered by DSS, and so there is a need for a minister in cabinet whose job it is to champion our rights everywhere they exist. My frustration is also because your government applies deep double standards to this question. You recognise the vital need for a minister for women. You recognise that the whole of government has responsibilities to ensure that the rights of women are upheld and that there should be a minister within your government with responsibility to champion policy that is important to Australia's women. You also recognise, as you should and as we in the Greens do, that there is a vital need for every element of the Australian government to be coordinated in its response to the needs of First Nations people and that there must be a minister for First Nations affairs. In First Nations affairs, you rightly have not only the Hon. Linda Burney in her position in the House but also Ministers Dodson and McCarthy. These are good things you have done. Yet you do not apply the same principle to disabled people, who are constantly passed from pillar to post within your government, with people passing the buck and with personality and political conflicts between ministers causing delay and malpractice in administration of programs and policies. All of this would begin to be solved if there were one person in your government with the responsibility of championing disability rights. Your response to this, Senator, has just highlighted that. So I would ask you to reflect upon the very example you have just given the chamber and attempt to identify for the Senate again the precise source of your government's opposition to the establishment of a disability minister.

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

I'm sorry. I did not intend my contribution to be taken the way that you've taken it. In fact, I used the words 'whole-of-government' and 'a whole-of-government response'. The example I was given there was the disability royal commission, which covers a whole range of areas. I have worked for many years in the disability community and the service sector. I accept that every one of us has a responsibility. So does the government. We do have lead ministers for certain areas, but I am not in any way saying that I don't have a responsibility or Minister King doesn't have a responsibility. The Treasurer, the Prime Minister and all of us have a responsibility to address areas within our portfolio capabilities more broadly, to support services and to respond to the needs of people with disability. I understand how you could interpret my remarks that way. I didn't intend for them to be interpreted that way. That is not the way the government operates. We do see it as a whole-of-government response, led by the cabinet more broadly.

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

Thank you, Minister. Again, that is the way you operate in relation to disabled people. It is not the way you operate in relation to First Nations people or women in Australia. That's the differential that this amendment sought to point out.

But, moving on from that, I believe, Minister, that you said—and I'll give you a quick opportunity to confirm either way—that the reasoning for the government's opposition to the Senate motion that you just voted against was twofold: (1) that you won't be responding to recommendations on a case-by-case basis; and (2) that the government has not yet responded to the totality of the royal commission recommendation and that is the source of your opposition to the amendment. Is that correct?

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

Yes.

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

Given that you have acknowledged that the government has not responded to the royal commission recommendations and will not be responding on a case-by-case basis to recommendations of the royal commission, why has your government brought forward this legislation at this time? You have just said you won't even vote for a second reading amendment which simply asks the chamber to adopt a view that your government should establish a disability minister. You have voted against that on the grounds that you as a government have not yet given a full response to the disability royal commission. Yet we are being asked this afternoon to vote for the repeal and replacement of one of the most significant pieces of legislation in relation to disabled people: the Disability Services Act, which provides the Commonwealth with the power to provide disabled people who are not on the NDIS and their families and carers—all three million plus of us—with services and supports.

You want to do that today, not when the government finalises its comprehensive and coordinated response. You are pushing this today, when you could spend months—the months left in this year and the months left between the beginning of next year and the time when the government hands down its recommendations on the royal commission—consulting with disabled people and implementing the suggestions made to you by no less than 26 peak bodies and organisations as to the changes that are needed within this act. If your government is so concerned about not even taking a view, a theoretical view offered by a second reading amendment, on just one of the recommendations of the disability royal commission until the government finalises its response, then, Minister, why have you brought this legislation to this chamber, when you could have brought it as part of a comprehensive package that responded to the disability royal commission's recommendations?

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

I think the short answer to that is that, in terms of drafting this legislation, officials were responding and seeing it as an enabling piece of legislation for the broader reforms that will come through the disability royal commission. They have been taking note of the evidence and speaking with commissioners through that and, obviously, going through other consultation processes as well. It wasn't a specific recommendation of the disability royal commission; in a sense, the work on it predated that. Consistent with the answer I have given, I don't believe that this is being rushed or being dealt with sooner than it should be. I think there was a view that we needed to respond swiftly to put in place quality safeguards required for people receiving services and support. These bills do that.

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

Minister, I need to clarify your answer. You said simultaneously that this legislation was not a response to a specific royal commission recommendation but also that there was a need to move swiftly. With respect, you can't have it both ways. Is it a response to the royal commission, in which case you need to move swiftly, or is it not a response to the royal commission, in which case you don't have to be bound by any particular length of time?

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

I don't accept that I'm talking at cross-purposes. I'm saying it wasn't a specific recommendation. One of your criticisms was that we were saying that we weren't responding recommendation by recommendation. Then your next question was, 'Why are you doing this ahead of the formal government response?' I'm saying that this was not a specific recommendation but has been informed by evidence and work that was done throughout the disability royal commission proceedings, and there was a view—supported, I think, by a lot of people, including elements of the disability community and the peak organisations—to put in place a legislative framework that would enable the reforms that will come through the disability royal commission and to have that in place as soon as we could. That's what this bill is about.

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

Minister, if, as you say, this bill is designed to enable the government to respond, how can the government be sure that it does in fact enable the government to respond, when the government has not decided what its response is to be?

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

The bill before you is a broad framework that we believe is consistent and will allow for the implementation of the response. I understand your point about preferring that this be dealt with later, or not now, but nothing in this bill would prevent or obstruct the implementation of the government's response. It puts in place a broad framework that will support and enable the reforms.

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

Minister, with respect, how do you know? You have just said that nothing in this legislation will impede the government's response. Yet you have also informed the chamber that the government has not yet responded to the royal commission. Upon what basis do you make that claim?

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

I believe I've answered the question. I accept that you don't agree with it, but I've answered the question.

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

With respect, Minister, you haven't, and I think you know you haven't. You cannot claim in one sentence that the government has not yet responded to the report and then in the next sentence claim that the legislation before us today will not impede the government's response to the royal commission. Those are two mutually exclusive statements.

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

I accept that we're disagreeing on this, Senator Steele-John, but I don't agree. As you know, there are powers within the legislation for the minister to add in services or responses if required. That's what I mean by a broad framework, but we want the framework in place.

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

Did the government consult any of the disability royal commissioners in the drafting of this legislation or in the adoption of the timeline which has brought the legislation to the chamber today?

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

I said in an answer to a previous question that there were consultations with the disability royal commissioners in the development, drafting and preparation of the legislation.

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

Thank you, Minister. Can you outline for the chamber which of the commissioners the government engaged with and what form that engagement took?

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

I'm just seeing if there's anything further I can provide to you, Senator Steele-John, on the nature of that, but my understanding is that the legislation was consulted on with the commissioners. That happened at least twice during the drafting of legislation.

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

Are you able to provide the Senate with the dates of that consultation and whether it took the form of in-person or written correspondence?

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

I can come back to you directly on that, just so that the information is accurate. My understanding is that there were discussions in person. I can say that no concerns were raised with the department about the legislation, but, if I need to correct that, I will. That's the advice I've got. As to whether it was in writing, I think we need to check with officials who may have been responsible for that.

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

I thank the minister for undertaking to get that information, which I think is what she and the officials have undertaken to do. If you're able to get it and table it with the Senate, that would be really useful. Could I ask a genuine follow-up question to that. Are you able to tell us whether the disabled commissioners were part of that conversation? As you know, Minister, there were non-disabled and disabled commissioners in the royal commission process. It matters very deeply to the disability community that the disabled commissioners were consulted in relation to their views on this legislation.

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

I will need to correct the record. I've just been advised that the discussions were had with officials of the disability royal commission, not commissioners themselves. That's my error in what I said earlier. We will get the specific nature of that, but I think that answers your question just then. How about we see if we can provide for you in writing the nature of that engagement, when it occurred and who it occurred with? I'm advised that there weren't any issues raised, but, if we need to deal with that, we will come back to you.

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

Yes, if you could come back to us specifically with, if there were any issues raised, what they were and when precisely those consultations took place. I'm particularly interested in whether they were pre or post the delivery of the final report of the disability royal commission.

Minister, can you outline for the Senate the ways in which this legislation enables the desegregation of disabled people in Australia?

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

Through the approach of the legislation, the objects of the act takes an inclusive approach. The Senate inquiry highlighted that one of the key flaws of the current Disability Services Act was that it actually embedded exclusion and segregation for particular communities of people with a disability. Those elements have been removed, and we have responded to feedback from the disability community, developing an act that specifically speaks to inclusion and removes the enablers of segregation within this framework that we are discussing today.

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

Thank you. Can you draw the Senate's attention to the specific sections of the proposed act which would prevent the provision of funding by the Commonwealth to programs or services which segregate disabled people or which are segregationist in their nature?

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

I think the answer to your question is that the bill doesn't do that, but—and this goes back to the earlier point I was making about the broad framework that this bill represents—I also say that, in evidence to the committee, in particular by Inclusion Australia, which is an organisation that represents people with an intellectual disability, they themselves stated it would be inappropriate to legislate any ending of segregated sittings through the bill and that government taking this position would require extensive consultation, appropriate infrastructure and support around transition. I hope that answers your question. There's no doubt more work to be done.

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

Can you outline for the Senate whether your government has done any modelling around the number of complaints that you expect to receive in relation to violations of the code of conduct to which services delivered under the act will be subject?

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

I'm about to speak off the top of my head here, but no. I wouldn't have thought the department would have modelled potential complaints that would come. Modelling is a technical term, so I would say there hasn't been any modelling done. Your question more broadly is whether the department has a view, perhaps, on complaints that might be lodged under the code of conduct and the number of them. I think that would be difficult to forecast. I'm not sure how the department would do that, and I don't believe that they have done it. I believe they haven't done it in a modelled sense, which would require you to run particular assumptions through the model to get to an outcome. But even in a preparatory sense, if you put in place a code of conduct and complaints are lodged, you would have to respond to those complaints. But I'm not sure that you could predict the volume of those complaints or how they would be managed.

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

Currently the act proposes to administer any breaches of the code of conduct via the complaints management processes within the Department of Social Services. Can you outline for the Senate how many officers are currently within that complaints management division of DSS?

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

Again, we might have to come back to you on that. There is a specific complaints area, but officials who are very ably supporting me this morning don't have the exact number of officers that would sit within that complaints area. I am advised that on current information the complaints that come forward are relatively low. If there is more information I can provide on that, we will try to get it sent through. But my understanding is it is relatively low.

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

In respect of the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, I seek leave to move Greens amendment (4) and requests for amendments (1), (2), (3) and (5) on sheet 2199 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(4) Page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 6 — Removal of program of support

Social Security Act 1991

1 Paragraph 94( 2)( aa)

Repeal the paragraph.

2 Subsections 94(3A), (3C), (3D) and (3E)

Repeal the subsections.

3 After paragraph 94(5)(a)

Insert:

(ab) a person participates in voluntarily; and

4 Sections 94A to 94F

Repeal the sections.

and:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "3", substitute "7".

(2) Page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Increases to maximum basic rates of various payments

Part 1 — Age pension, carer payment and disability support pension

Social Security Act 1991

1 Point 1064-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table, substitute:

2 Point 1065-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table, substitute:

Part 2 — Disability support pension (under 21)

Social Security Act 1991

3 Point 1066A-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

4 Point 1066B-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

Part 3 — Application of amendments

5 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the rate of a person's disability support pension, age pension or carer payment for days occurring on or after the day this item commences.

(2) For the purposes of indexing an amount:

(a) specified in a table of the Social Security Act 1991 as substituted by an item of this Schedule; and

(b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences;

the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount.

(3) Page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Increase to income free area for disability support pension

Part 1 — Disability support pension (under 21)

Social Security Act 1991

1 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 3)

Omit "$2,184", substitute "$7,800".

2 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 4)

Omit "$80", substitute "$300".

3 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 3)

Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800".

4 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 4)

Omit "$70", substitute "$300".

5 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 3)

Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800".

6 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 4)

Omit "$70", substitute "$300".

7 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 3)

Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800".

8 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 4)

Omit "$70", substitute "$300".

Part 2 — Application of amendments

9 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the following the rate of a person's disability support pension in respect of days occurring on or after the day this item commences.

(2) For the purposes of indexing an amount:

(a) specified in the table in point 1066A-F3 of the Social Security Act 1991, as amended by this Schedule; or

(b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences;

the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount.

(5) Page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 7 — Changes to the rules for applying the Impairment Tables

Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023

1 Subsection 8(3)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(3) An impairment rating can only be assigned to an impairment if the condition and the resulting impairment is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.

2 Subsections 8(4) to 8(7)

Repeal the subsections.

3 Paragraph 8(8)(b)

Omit ", where the condition has been diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised for the purposes of subsections 8(4), (5) and (6),".

_____

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the various maximum basic rate amounts of age pension, carer payment, disability support pension, and disability support pension (under 21). As the effect of this amendment will be that relevant recipients will receive a higher rate of payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

Amendment (3)

Amendment (3) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the ordinary income free area for the disability support pension (under 21) under the Social Security Act 1991. As the income free area is the amount of income a person can receive before their payment begins to decrease, increasing the income free area would result in some recipients receiving a higher rate of payment and would also increase the number of people for whom payments are payable. The effect of the amendment would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

Amendment (5)

Amendment (5) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to reduce the number of mandatory considerations relevant to assessing a person's work-related impairment for the purposes of eligibility for the disability support pension under the Social Security Act 1991. As the effect of this amendment will be to effectively expand the class of persons eligible for the disability support pension, the amendment would increase the number of people for whom payments are payable. The effect of the amendment would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) amends the commencement table of the bill and is consequential to any of the other amendments being agreed to. As amendments (2), (3) and (5) are framed as requests, amendment (1) is also framed as a request.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (2), (3) and (5)

If the effect of the respective amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.

Amendment (1)

This amendment is consequential on the respective requests. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.

These amendments relate to improving the accessibility to and improving the rate of the disability support pension, which are critical and central to meeting the objective of this act to achieve the economic and social inclusion of people with disabilities. As I noted in my second reading speech, the Senate community affairs committee did a very comprehensive inquiry into the adequacy of the disability support pension a couple of years back. That committee made some consensus recommendations, but we have not had a response from government on those recommendations, which is pretty upsetting given how much work went into that committee report and the input that we had from people with disabilities. As I said, the recommendations we came up with had cross-party support. What these amendments seek to do is to implement some of those recommendations.

In our final report, the committee made some important recommendations to improve the disability support pension. We wanted the government to investigate how the requirement that a condition be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised is preventing people with conditions that are complex, fluctuating or deteriorating over time from accessing the DSP. As I noted in my second reading speech, yes, we do acknowledge that there have been changes to the criteria, but they don't go far enough to deal with the barrier for people to have their condition assessed as being reasonably diagnosed, treated and stabilised. We asked that the government consider reforming the income test for recipients of the DSP to better support individuals facing structural barriers to participating in the workforce and to better recognise the fluctuating nature of people's ability to work. The committee envisaged that such reforms could, amongst other things, raise the income thresholds at which the DSP payment is reduced and lower the rate at which it's reduced once this threshold is reached.

We also asked that the Department of Social Services review the program of support requirement and consider making participation in an employment service program voluntary for all DSP claimants. And we recommended that the government investigate ways to better support people on the DSP who are at risk of poverty, particularly those in the private rental market, and ensure that people can participate in their communities and cover their living costs. And of course with the skyrocketing cost of housing, the limited availability of housing and the limited amount of social housing we have so many people with disabilities who are struggling. They cannot pay the rent, pay to put food on the table or pay for their medical and housing expenses and the extra expenses often entailed because of their disabilities.

The amendments that we are moving today respond to those recommendations of that committee report. These amendments would raise the base rate of the Disability Support Pension. They would increase the income-free area for people under 21, make the program of support voluntary and remove the requirement that a condition be diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised. Our amendments go further than any recent reforms to the payment, and are an absolutely critical step to improving the accessibility, the inclusivity and the adequacy of the payment.

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

This is a very significant amendment being moved by the Greens, and it doesn't fall within the bill itself. The government will not be supporting it.

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

I'd just like to respond to that, and then I'll be happy to move on. The fact that the minister has said the amendment doesn't fall within the scope of the bill goes to the very point we've been making: that the so-called objectives, the aim of this bit of legislation, of achieving social and economic inclusion for people with disabilities, is not being reached by this bill. A vast range of things are being left out of this bill. If you are going to have a piece of legislation that actually ensures and improves economic and social inclusiveness for disabled people then you need to address the income they live on. You need to address their ability to get a Disability Support Pension. You need to address the fact that currently 43 per cent of people who are on JobSeeker have only a partial capacity to work.

These are the very issues that legislation dealing with improving inclusiveness, improving the social and economic abilities for people with disabilities to live in our society, needs to address. So absolutely we very strongly believe that the amendments that we are moving today should be included in this legislation.

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

The question is that the request for amendments and the amendment be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, I have four questions. I'll do a little bit of explaining to get to the point. One Nation simply cannot support a bill that establishes an entirely new disability bureaucracy when the bill does not even define 'disability'. I wonder: is this an admission that the NDIS has failed or that the government is letting it run completely out of control? I'll come back to that.

I remind everyone of the hasty and ill-thought-out concoction of the NDIS. Prime Minister Gillard hastily introduced it for election purposes before an election. Then she was voted out, and the Liberals and the National Party inherited a complete mess. They tightened it up, but it's still sloppy. In tightening it, we got mixed signals going about services that are being provided to the disabled. That leaves them in a totally inadequate situation. I'm concerned about taxpayers and the disabled in these remarks and questions. If the NDIS continues in its current form, it will send the entire country broke and continue to provide inadequate services to the disabled.

This bill does not deal with the NDIS. It establishes an entirely new bureaucracy in an entirely new agency. If the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and the associated consequential bill pass into law, the Minister for Social Services will be given legislative authority for new spending programs to cover the 88 per cent of Australians living with a disability who cannot access support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme at the moment.

I want to talk about the NDIS now because it provides financial support to just 610,000 participants, or 12 per cent of Australia's estimated population living with a disability, while being the second-most expensive social program after the age pension. The annual running costs in the year ending 30 June 2023 were $38.8 billion. That is 26 per cent higher than Medicare, $30.8 billion; 40 per cent higher than aged care, $27.7 billion; and 40 per cent higher than the support for state government hospitals, $27.3 billion. Minister Bill Shorten expects the annual running cost in 2026 to be $50 billion, making it almost double what is spent on state government hospitals. The NDIS is unsustainable at these levels and will not be able to properly provide services for the disabled.

I'm not going to sign a blank cheque for any government. I won't be giving the government more spending power until I know how taxpayer money goes to those to whom it is intended, and many of the disabled are not getting the services necessary. Like many Australians, I've worked hard to bring up my children and to pay my taxes. Every tax dollar that the NDIA wastes is a dollar that is not spent on health, education and keeping us safe. NDIS participants using their plan money to holiday in exotic places and paying excessively for ordinary items like transit wheelchairs and aluminium shower chairs diminishes support for the program and prevents services to other disabled people who deserve support. Until I'm satisfied the Labor government can manage their departments, I'm not going to give them any more spending power.

The Auditor-General investigated decision-making in the NDIA, the agency, between 1 July 2016 and 31 March 2017 as part of his report Decision-making controls for sustainabilityNational Disability Insurance Scheme access. In one group of 150 cases that were reviewed, the decision-maker's name was not recorded in 42 cases. In another 18 of the 150 cases, there was no record of the reasons for the decision. That's not accountability for taxpayers' money. In a review of another 1,339 cases, 13 per cent—that's almost one in seven—did not have sufficient evidence to support decisions to give lifetime support under the NDIS Act 2013.

These findings in 2017 led to the Auditor-General making a number of recommendations. Seven of the nine recommendations made in relation to improving decision-making controls and fraud controls were not fully implemented by the time the Auditor-General investigated the NDIA again last year. Despite a history of approving access to the NDIS without lawful authority, senior bureaucrats in the NDIA will not make sure all delegates are trained. Of the 1,147 NDIA planners employed by the NDIA on 30 June 2020, only 73 per cent—under three-quarters—of them had been trained to spend billions of hard-earned taxpayer money. No wonder the NDIA costs cannot be controlled!

Not only does the government need to show me it can manage the NDIA in accordance with the law passed in this chamber, but it also needs to deal with the demand shock created by the introduction of the NDIS. The sudden high demand created by the tsunami of money in NDIS participant plans has caused the cost of seeing an occupational therapist, a speech therapist or a psychologist—as well as others—to skyrocket. NDIS is more generous than the Department of Veterans' Affairs or aged care, and that leads to inequality. That should not be the case. It's a mess. It's time the government aligned the price it pays for the same service across different government programs.

Anyone can apply for a participant package under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, but only people with a disability who meet the age, residency and disability requirements and can demonstrate that support is reasonable and necessary are intended to get support for a lifetime. As I've already said, it's a lottery at the moment because decision-making is so poor in the National Disability Insurance Agency due to its messy and improper formation and its lack of foundation at its birth.

While public servants sit in air-conditioned offices, an army of poorly paid disability workers provide the core supports needed by people with a disability. Disability workers are poorly paid, trapped in a system with little job security or prospects. They're often working with questionable service agencies. Their employers are small businesses which often have no relevant experience and are unable to provide training or support in what can be confronting and stressful situations. No wonder there's a shortage of disability workers right now.

I want to see all National Disability Insurance Agency plans de-identified and made public. Australians need to know what is being funded. They're the ultimate payers for this service. Employing a qualified chef to teach someone how to cook at home is a luxury that we cannot afford. Prior to NDIS, it was estimated that families provided 80 per cent of the support for a person with a disability and the government provided 20 per cent. The introduction of the NDIS was to shift some, but not all, responsibility to government, with families providing 60 per cent of the support and the government providing the remaining 40 per cent. We don't know much about the level of family support provided today, but we do know only 30 per cent of all plans are managed fully or partially by the participant or their family, which suggests that government is taking on far more responsibility than was ever planned. Participant managed plans account for 30 per cent of the number of plans but just 12 per cent of the NDIS budget. These budgets are spent, but not overspent. Another 60 per cent of plans are managed by someone other than the participant or their family. These managed plans account for 46 per cent of the NDIS, four times as much. The remaining 10 per cent of NDIS plans are NDIA managed, and they account for 42 per cent of the NDIS budget. The NDIA consistently underspends these plans. Why?

Until I see lawful, responsible and effective by the National Disability Insurance Agency, I will not be supporting any new spending power by government. One Nation supports disability services, yet they have to be sustainable for the Australian taxpayer or there will be no services in the future, and those services that there are won't be fit for the disabled. Spending on the NDIS will outstrip all Medicare services. There is billions of dollars of fraud currently happening in the NDIS that the government has done next to nothing to stop. We'll be opposing this bill until the government can prove it is running the NDIS in a way that isn't going to send the country broke.

I'll go back to my opening question from my first question: is this new legislation an admission that the NDIS has failed or that the government is letting it run completely out of control?

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

The answer to that is no, and this bill is not about the NDIS.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why are we are we setting up a duplicate and parallel bureaucracy when we can't even rein in the first one?

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

We're not.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How much money will be required to implement this bill?

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

There's no funding attached to this bill.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're already in a deficit. Where is the money coming from to pay from this parallel disability system?

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

The government already provides support and services outside the NDIS.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will you do a root-and-branch review to assess the basic NDIA design, intent and strategy?

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

There's work being led by National Cabinet in relation to reform to the NDIS, and that work will proceed at first minister level.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you give me some details on that, Minister, because it's the taxpayer and the disabled who need to be treated with respect here?

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

There are communiques that are issued outside of National Cabinet. There's also the work that's been done under the NDIS review. I think parts of that information, including the terms of reference, are publicly available.

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

by leave—In respect of the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2181, amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 2182 and amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2172 together:

SHEET 2172

(1) Clause 17, page 22 (line 23), omit "this Part", substitute "section 13".

(2) Clause 17, page 22 (line 27), omit "that section", substitute "that Act".

(3) Page 23 (after line 3), at the end of Part 2, add:

18A Segregated accommodation or housing

(1) Despite subsection 13(1), the Minister must not make an arrangement for the making of payments, or make a grant of financial assistance, to a person in relation to the provision, on or after 1 January 2038, of accommodation supports or services that involve the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

(2) Despite section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, the Commonwealth must not, on or after the commencement of this section, make an arrangement, or make a grant of financial assistance, under that Act in relation to accommodation or housing, on or after 1 January 2038, for people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

(3) Despite subsection 14(1) of the NDIS Act, the National Disability Insurance Agency must not, on or after the commencement of this section, provide funding in relation to accommodation or housing, on or after 1 January 2038, for people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

(4) Despite Part 3 of the NDIS Act, an amount is not payable under the National Disability Insurance Scheme in respect of a plan (within the meaning of that Act), that comes into effect on or after the commencement of this section for a person who is a participant in that scheme, if:

(a) the amount is in relation to accommodation or housing, on or after 1 January 2038, for the person; and

(b) the accommodation or housing involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

_____

SHEET 2181

(1) Clause 8, page 10 (line 3), at the end of the definition of education supports or services, add ", including supports or services to facilitate participation in mainstream education settings".

(2) Clause 17, page 22 (line 23), omit "this Part", substitute "section 13".

(3) Clause 17, page 22 (line 27), omit "that section", substitute "that Act".

(4) Page 23 (after line 3), at the end of Part 2, add:

18B Segregated education

(1) Despite subsection 13(1), the Minister must not make an arrangement for the making of payments, or make a grant of financial assistance, to a person in relation to the provision, on or after 1 January 2051, of education supports or services that involve the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

(2) Despite section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, the Commonwealth must not, on or after the commencement of this section, make an arrangement, or make a grant of financial assistance, under that Act in relation to education, on or after 1 January 2051, for people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

(3) Despite subsection 14(1) of the NDIS Act, the National Disability Insurance Agency must not, on or after the commencement of this section, provide funding in relation to education, on or after 1 January 2051, of people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

(4) Despite Part 3 of the NDIS Act, an amount is not payable under the National Disability Insurance Scheme in respect of a plan (within the meaning of that Act), that comes into effect on or after the commencement of this section for a person who is a participant in that scheme, if:

(a) the amount is in relation to education, on or after 1 January 2051, for the person; and

(b) the education involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

_____

SHEET 2182

(1) Clause 8, page 10 (line 12), at the end of the definition of employment supports or services, add:

; (d) supports or services to facilitate participation by people with disability in employment that does not involve the segregation or isolation of people with disability.

(2) Clause 17, page 22 (line 23), omit "this Part", substitute "section 13".

(3) Clause 17, page 22 (line 27), omit "that section", substitute "that Act".

(4) Clause 17, page 22 (line 30), omit "This Part", substitute "Section 13".

(5) Page 23 (after line 3), at the end of Part 2, add:

18C Segregated employment

(1) Despite subsection 13(1), the Minister must not make an arrangement for the making of payments, or make a grant of financial assistance, to a person in relation to the provision, on or after 1 January 2034, of employment supports or services that involve the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

(2) Despite section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, the Commonwealth must not, on or after the commencement of this section, make an arrangement, or make a grant of financial assistance, under that Act in relation to employment, on or after 1 January 2034, for people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

(3) Despite subsection 14(1) of the NDIS Act, the National Disability Insurance Agency must not, on or after the commencement of this section, provide funding in relation to employment, on or after 1 January 2034, for people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

(4) Despite Part 3 of the NDIS Act, an amount is not payable under the National Disability Insurance Scheme in respect of a plan (within the meaning of that Act), that comes into effect on or after the commencement of this section for person who is a participant in that scheme, if:

(a) the amount is in relation to employment, on or after 1 January 2034, for the person; and

(b) the employment involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

(5) Despite Chapter 2D of the Social Security Act 1991, the Employment Secretary (within the meaning of that Act) must not, on or after the commencement of this section, make an arrangement for the making of payments, or make a grant of financial assistance, in relation to employment, on or after 1 January 2034, for people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society.

These amendments end segregation for disabled people in housing, in work and in education. In Australia in 2023, a disabled child is forced to go to a segregated special school where disabled children are physically prevented from being educated alongside their non-disabled peers. In 2023, a disabled person can legally be paid dollars on the hour for their labour packing earphones for Qantas or putting food in packages for the Defence Force. Twenty thousand of us are forced into these forms of segregated work, and don't you tell me about choice. I hope that in the course of this debate the government does not once bring forward the discriminatory nonsense of choice. When disabled people and our families are repeatedly refused entry to mainstream settings including mainstream schools, when employers don't return our requests to be interviewed for a job and when we are told that our support needs cannot be met by an employer in the workplace, we are left then with no option. Don't you dare tell disabled people that, just because of certain policies and procedures of the disability support pension, it is perfectly fine for us to be paid dollars on the hour, when this government sets the policies of the disability support pension. And don't you dare tell us that we have to choose between being segregated together in institutional housing settings and loneliness in isolation. I am so sick of advocates for segregated housing explaining to me: 'Oh, Senator, if we got rid of segregated housing, disabled people would be lonely. Don't you know that disabled people like to live together?' We sometimes do. We sometimes don't. We are human beings, and we deserve the same choice in housing that is afforded to every other person in this country. It is true that renters right now may need to club together to afford their rent in this rental crisis, but there is not a government policy that has the explicit intent to require them to do that. That is what we currently have in segregated housing in Australia. These settings in which segregation occurs have been identified by the disability royal commission as key parts of the cycle of segregation in which disabled people are trapped and forced into segregated schools, forced into segregated work and forced into segregated housing. What is the result? The result is violence, abuse, neglect and early death.

The government may well say: 'There is need for more consultation. There is a need for a transition.' These amendments give you 10 years for the transition to fully inclusive work, 10 years to pay us a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. It gives you 10 years to ensure all disabled people have the right to live in the forms of housing that we choose. It gives you until 2051 to decide that disabled children will be educated alongside our non-disabled peers wherever we live. Thirty years is long enough. In fact, in the view of the Australian Greens, it's too damn long. We think that you should get on and do this within the next decade, but let us take this moment to decide that inclusion is the destination and there are to be no caveats upon the rights of disabled people in Australia. Enough of us have spent long enough in the dark, chained to beds and denied our rights to control where we go to sleep at night and who shares our spaces. Enough of us have spent long enough having our labour systemically exploited with the support of Labor governments. Enough is enough. The cycle of segregation must end.

It falls to this government, at this place and at this time, to make a decision: are you going to join with the disability community and the disability justice movement in our work for the collective liberation of disabled people, where no body or mind is left behind in that transition? Or are you going to continue to administrate a system which sees us segregated, exploited, abused and driven to early death? These are the decisions before you now. These amendments by the Australian Greens give you the opportunity to make a choice, to decide to join with us and to back the rights of the disabled people, and I urge you to join us today.

Urgency is needed. The lives of disabled people, our lives, matter. We will no longer accept mumbling words about consultation or transition. Action is how we will judge you now. I commend these amendments to the Senate. I commend the transformation they will enter us into, and I pledge my whole body and soul to the realisation of a fully inclusive Australia. I know that every single one of my Greens colleagues join me in that.

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

The question is that Greens' amendments on sheets 2181, 2182 and 2172, moved by Senator Steele-John, be agreed to.

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

I seek leave to move all remaining Australian Greens amendments en bloc.

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

Is leave granted?

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

We're very happy to facilitate putting all of those together, but we would indicate we would vote separately on the amendment on sheet 2174. We would want that question put separately.

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

I'm happy to have the question on the amendment that the minister just flagged put separately from the rest. I move, in respect of the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2169, amendment (1) on sheet 2170, amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2171, amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2173 revised, amendment (1) on sheet 2174, amendment (1) on sheet 2175, amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2176, amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 2178, amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2179, amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2180, amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2204 and amendment (1) on sheet 2209; and, in respect of the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, amendment (1) on sheet 2177, amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2202 and amendment (1) on sheet 2211:

SHEET 2169

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph (a), substitute:

(a) in conjunction with other laws, give effect to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including by ending segregation in education, employment, accommodation and housing for people with disability; and

_____

SHEET 2170

(1) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 23), after subclause (7), insert:

(7A) People with disability, regardless of age, have the same rights as other people with disability, including to receive supports and services.

_____

SHEET 2171

(1) Clause 4, page 5 (lines 2 to 4), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) If this Act requires or permits an act or thing to be done, the act or thing is to be done, so far as is practicable, in accordance with the following:

(a) the general principles in this section;

(b) the Closing the Gap priority reforms;

(c) the Disability Sector Strengthening Plan guiding principles.

(2) Clause 8, page 8 (line 2) to page 12 (line 12), insert:

Australian Local Government Association means the Australian Local Government Association Limited (ABN 31 008 613 876).

Closing the Gap priority reforms means the 4 priority reform areas set out in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap.

Disability Sector Strengthening Plan guiding principles means the 12 guiding principles set out in the Disability Sector Strengthening Plan that was agreed in principle by the Joint Council on 26 August 2022.

Joint Council means the council of:

(a) Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers; and

(b) a representative nominated by the Australian Local Government Association; and

(c) representatives nominated by the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations;

that is known as the Joint Council on Closing the Gap.

National Agreement on Closing the Gap means the agreement between the Commonwealth, the States, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, the Australian Local Government Association and the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations that took effect on 27 July 2020.

_____

SHEET 2173 REVISED

(1) Clause 30, page 40 (line 7), after "rules", insert "and guidelines".

(2) Page 43 (after line 7), at the end of Part 5, add:

37 National Assistance Animal Guidelines

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make guidelines for or in relation to the following:

(a) the accreditation of assistance animals for people with disability;

(b) access to public and private spaces by people with disability with assistance animals.

(2) The Minister must make guidelines under subsection (1) before 1 July 2024.

(3) Before the Minister makes guidelines under subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that:

(a) consultation has been undertaken with:

(i) such people with disability, as the Minister considers appropriate, who have lived experience of being assisted by assistance animals; and

(ii) such representatives of organisations, as the Minister considers appropriate, that advocate for people with disability; and

(iii) the Disability Reform Ministerial Council; and

(b) relevant input received as part of that consultation has been taken into account adequately.

(4) Subsection (3) does not limit section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003.

Constitutional basis of this section

(5) This section relies on the Commonwealth's legislative powers under paragraph 51(xxix) (external affairs) of the Constitution.

Additional operation of this section

(6) In addition to subsection (5), this section also has the effect it would have if:

(a) a reference to the accreditation of assistance animals for people with disability were expressly confined to the accreditation of assistance animals for people with disability for the purpose of access to:

(i) a Commonwealth place; or

(ii) a place in a Territory; and

(b) a reference to access to public and private spaces by people with disability with assistance animals were expressly confined to access by people with disability with assistance animals to:

(i) a Commonwealth place; or

(ii) a place in a Territory.

Definitions

(7) In this section:

Commonwealth place means a Commonwealth place within the meaning of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970.

Disability Reform Ministerial Council means a body (however described) that consists of the Minister of the Commonwealth, and the Minister of each State and Territory, who is responsible, or principally responsible, for the administration of matters relating to disability reform.

_____

SHEET 2174

(1) Clause 8, page 8 (lines 15 to 18), omit paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of advocacy supports or services, substitute:

(a) to assist a person with disability to exercise choice or control in matters that affect the person, including the provision of legal services; or

(b) to assist a person with disability to understand and advocate for their rights and to uphold and enforce their rights, including the provision of legal services; or

_____

SHEET 2175

(1) Clause 8, page 8 (line 5), after "physical environment", insert ", to access and participate in online or digital spaces".

_____

SHEET 2176

(1) Clause 8, page 11 (after line 7), after the definition of NDIS Act, insert:

out of home supports or services means supports or services to provide short term care for a person with disability as an alternative care arrangement.

(2) Clause 8, page 12 (lines 3 to 8), omit the definition of respite care supports or services.

(3) Clause 13, page 16 (line 13), omit "respite care", substitute "out of home".

_____

SHEET 2178

(1) Clause 14, page 17 (after line 30), after paragraph (3)(a), insert:

(aa) must deal with monitoring of compliance with the code of conduct; and

(2) Clause 14, page 18 (line 5), omit "may", substitute "must".

(3) Clause 20, page 25 (line 10), omit "may", substitute "must".

(4) Clause 20, page 25 (after line 20), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) Rules made for the purposes of subsection (1) must not require a person not to comment on, or advocate support for, a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country if the comment or advocacy is lawful.

(5) Clause 20, page 25 (after line 22), at the end of the clause, add:

Periodic review of the code of conduct

(4) At least once every 3 years, the Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the code of conduct to be undertaken.

(5) The review must be undertaken by at least one person with disability.

(6) The person or persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(7) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

(6) Page 25 (after line 22), at the end of Division 2, add:

20A Disability Services Commissioner

(1) The rules must make provision for or in relation to the establishment of an independent Disability Services Commissioner to monitor, investigate, report and enforce compliance with the code of conduct.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), rules made for the purposes of that subsection:

(a) must establish the Disability Services Commissioner; and

(b) must establish the Office of the Disability Services Commission with the function of assisting the Commissioner in the performance of the Commissioner's functions; and

(c) must specify the terms and conditions of appointment of the Commissioner; and

(d) must specify the functions and powers of the Commissioner, including powers in relation to monitoring, investigating, reporting and enforcing compliance with the code of conduct; and

(e) must specify a quota for the employment of people with disability as staff of the Commission; and

(f) must provide for the Commissioner to notify the Secretary of any alleged breach, or actual breach, of the code of conduct; and

(g) must provide for the Commissioner to perform the Commissioner's functions, and exercise the Commissioner's powers, in way that is efficient and minimises, to the extent possible, duplication of activities undertaken by the Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission; and

(h) may create an offence or civil penalty for a breach of the code of conduct.

(7) Clause 36, page 42 (line 25), omit paragraph (2)(a).

_____

SHEET 2179

(1) Clause 3, page 4 (after line 8), after paragraph (h), insert:

(ha) in conjunction with other laws, give effect to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007; and

(2) Clause 3, page 4 (line 31), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

(3) Clause 3, page 4 (after line 33), at the end of the clause, add:

Note 2: The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007 could in 2023 be viewed on the United Nations' website (https://www.un.org).

_____

SHEET 2180

(1) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 19), after subclause (6), insert:

(6A) People with disability should be included in a co-design capacity.

(2) Clause 8, page 11 (line 31), after "evaluate", insert ", with the involvement of people with disability,".

(3) Clause 36, page 43 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:

Co-design of the rules

(4) Before the Minister makes rules under subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that the rules are co-designed with people with disability.

_____

SHEET 2204

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 26 to 29), omit paragraph (e), substitute:

(e) promote respect for the inherent dignity, difference and individual autonomy of people with disability and dismantle barriers to inclusion to ensure the full participation of people with disability on an equal basis; and

(2) Clause 3, page 3 (line 20), after "to the extent possible", insert "within the powers of the Commonwealth".

(3) Clause 3, page 3 (line 23), after "to the extent possible", insert "within the powers of the Commonwealth".

_____

SHEET 2209

(1) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add:

(9) People with disability have the same right as other members of Australian society to be protected against discrimination on all grounds, including protection from facilities or activities that result in segregation or isolation.

_____

SHEET 2177

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 8 — Amendment of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Disability Discrimination Act 1992

1 Section 52

Repeal the section.

2 Application of amendment

(1) The amendment made by this Schedule applies in relation to a provision in the Migration Act 1958, or a provision in a legislative instrument made under that Act, that was made before, on or after the commencement of this Schedule.

(2) The amendment made by this Schedule applies in relation to a visa application under the Migration Act 1958:

(a) made, but not finally determined, before the commencement of this Schedule; or

(b) made on or after that commencement.

(3) The amendment made by this Schedule applies in relation to any visa in effect on or after the commencement of this Schedule, whether the visa was granted before, on or after that commencement.

_____

SHEET 2202

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 9 — Amendment of the Age Discrimination Act 2004

Age Discrimination Act 2004

1 Paragraph 41( 1)( fba )

Repeal the paragraph.

2 Subsection 41(2C)

Repeal the subsection.

3 Application of amendments

The repeals of paragraph 41(1)(fba) and subsection 41(2C) of the Age Discrimination Act 2004, made by this Schedule, apply in relation to anything done by a person on or after the commencement of this Schedule.

_____

SHEET 2211

(1) Page 1 (line 9) to page 20 (line 22), omit "and Inclusion"(wherever occurring).

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2714 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That was the only one that was seeking to be carved out. The question now is that the remaining amendments be agreed to.

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

I would like to make a short contribution in relation to one of the amendments that Senator Steele-John has moved. Just briefly, I wanted to draw attention to Australian Greens amendments on sheet 2173 on national assistance animal guidelines. I wanted to put on the record that the coalition very strongly support the recommendation or the intent of this amendment by Senator Steele-John. We know that assistance dogs in many instances provide the kinds of changes in the lives of people with disability that make the difference between them being able to live a largely normal life and not.

I'd like to draw to the attention of the chamber a very good friend of mine who lives with almost total blindness. His gorgeous seeing-eye dog, Eva, makes so much difference to his life. I discussed this issue with him yesterday, and I know Senator Steele-John also caught up with Chris yesterday and beautiful Eva to discuss this issue. People who live with assistance animals, particularly those that make so much difference to their lives, are very keen to make sure that there is a framework in which we can define the level of service that that animal gives to the person and, more particularly, to make sure that it identifies the level of training that that animal has, because it is so important to make sure that these animals that provide this kind of quality-of-life enhancement to people living with disabilities are seen for the value proposition that they are to those people.

Whilst we will support the government in its intention, I believe, to vote against the remaining amendments that have been put forward, I'd like to put on the record that the coalition will be very keen for the government to work with the state and territory ministers through the DRC, or whatever other mechanism it has to make sure that we progress a set of national guidelines, so that we can provide certainty and support to Australians who rely so heavily on assistance dogs.

I commend Senator Steele-John for putting forward this amendment and commend the intent, and I ask the government to perhaps indicate its intention to support the intent of this amendment, because of the extraordinary importance of these animals to the lives of people who live with disability.

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

I agree with the contribution that has been made by Senator Ruston in response to the amendment moved by Senator Steele-John, and I can advise that the Department of Social Services is leading work at officials level right now. Presumably that will work its way up through decision-making processes around nationally consistent guidelines for assistance animals. That work has certainly commenced, and we should keep an eye on it.

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

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

The question is that the amendments on sheets 2169, 2204, 2179, 2171, 2180, 2170, 2209, 2175, 2178, 2173, 2211, 2176, 2177 and 2202, moved en bloc by Senator Steele-John, be agreed to.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, in the interests of time, if my opposition to the following amendments could be noted, I would appreciate it. They are amendments on sheets 2204, 2176, 2178, 2211, 2177 and 2202.

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

Thank you, Senator Pocock. That will be noted.

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

by leave—I move government amendments Nos (1) and (2) on sheet ZB271, together:

(1) Clause 25, page 32 (line 11), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; and (d) the person has appropriate internal controls and complaints processes.

(2) Clause 25, page 32 (line 18), omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (d)".

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that government amendments Nos (1) and (2) on sheet ZB271 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, as amended, agreed to; Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 agreed to.

Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 reported with amendments; Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 reported without amendments; report adopted.