ADDRESS IN REPLY
01/03/2012
Adjourned debate on motion for adoption (resumed on motion).
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (18:02): I rise to support the adoption of the Address in Reply to the Governor’s speech and I wish to thank His Excellency for his ongoing service to the state of South Australia. In the Governor’s speech, he outlined seven primary areas where we will see the government’s action focused. They all sounded wholesome and reasonable; however, as many of my colleagues have noted, it is ongoing reform, rather than words, that we must and will judge this government on.
I begin by outlining my response to each of the seven areas. The first three refer to our state industries—industries that are seen to make our state great and that our economic wellbeing supposedly hinges upon. The government says we need to foster a clean, green food industry, support the mining boom and sustain our advanced manufacturing industries. I mention all three together because I see them as being inexorably linked.
Without a stable water supply, we cannot have clean, green food industries, yet manufacturing and mining are greedy consumers of water. The need for water is so great for the approved Olympic Dam expansion, a desalination plant will be constructed at Point Lowly, adjacent to the giant cuttlefish breeding grounds. Now, whatever your views on desalination plant locations and construction, you have to wonder whether the same would ever be considered for farmers in our food bowl regions. It is no coincidence that there are farmers’ markets in Angaston and Willunga, adjacent to our two premier wine regions in the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale.
To support a clean, green food industry, we need tourism to support what we are already famous for; that is, our local foodie fare and wine. While securing the health of the River Murray and appropriate water allocations are a valuable part of this, I would have thought that having a functioning, accessible tourism centre would also be helpful. At present, we do not have this.
In addition to exporting our food and wine interstate and overseas, in times of global economic crisis, it is local uptake of our produce that is more important than ever. A great example of supporting small and medium-size local industry, manufacturing and produce was recently aired on an episode of the ABC’s Foreign Correspondent. In A Bavarian Fairy Tale, they examined the concept of ‘mittelstand’ and Germany’s role as the world’s second-biggest exporter, that is, after China. I encourage all members to view this episode on iView because I believe it provides a fascinating insight into how economic success can still occur while the rest of a continent is besieged with economic instability and crises.
Germany has high labour costs, excellent workers’ rights, and salaries and safety are not only enshrined in law but also in workplace culture. As I understand it, Germany has fairly stringent environmental regulations also, and these are some of the reasons that southern Germany continues to thrive. They have excellent training for workers, and company bosses are keenly attuned to all the workings of their business.
In Bavaria, there is no hysteria or shouting from the rooftops or chest-beating from the government, nor from the industry for that matter, about booms or crises or coups. Instead, there is a steady work ethic that fosters long-term benefits ahead of short-term political gain. As a consequence, this region of the world is successfully weathering the storm of the global financial crisis.
I wonder whether our South Australian manufacturing and trade minister has visited this region and whether a state like South Australia might possibly benefit from some of the ideas we see there. We keep providing corporate welfare to Holden to stay open so that it can continue to employ workers. The government is terrified that it will be blamed for unemployment. I do not understand why a highly-developed first-world country like Germany can run a successful automotive industry yet we keep having to bail out the Holden factory at Elizabeth. What is it that we are doing wrong?
I do not have figures on Germany’s uptake of people with disabilities in the workforce, but I can tell you that Australia ranks 21st out of 29 OECD countries when comes to workforce participation for people with disabilities, according to the December 2011 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: And, as the Hon. Ms Franks interjects, that is a point of great shame for this country. I also add that South Australia has gone backward, not forward, in the past few years when it comes to employing people with disabilities in the Public Service.
Our state government says that we are having a mining boom and that thousands of South Australians will be employed as a consequence of this. This is all very well, but when I queried the Olympic Dam Task Force and BHP in early December on employment figures for people with disabilities, it was clear that it had not even entered into the equation. I do not believe it had even been considered.
Employment of local youth and indigenous people is, of course, on the agenda, and I am the first to say that that is a great thing, but there has been no innovative thinking when it comes to people with disabilities and their employment opportunities. This is unfortunate since the sector has lower employment participation rates than both the youth and indigenous sectors.
The Weekend Australian employment section discussed the PricewaterhouseCoopers report less than three weeks ago. It highlighted the economic benefit of people with disabilities gaining employment. I am seeking to meet with minister Koutsantonis and the Olympic Dam Task Force on this very issue. I think it is essential that the government ensure BHP looks at employing people with disabilities if this mining boom is to be truly for all South Australians.
The fourth government priority area is a vibrant city—referring, of course, to the City of Adelaide. I strongly support the government’s agenda here. I enjoy a good working relationship with Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood. His role is critical to the success of such a project, but I would remind everyone that, while I support the idea of a vibrant city, I am also very aware that we have a long way to go before we have an accessible city. As an example, I would say the Splash Adelaide project needs to ensure that it stops encroaching on accessible car parks.
Making Adelaide more wheel accessible is something I am also passionate about. I would love for all footpaths and corridors around the city to accommodate all wheelchairs hospitably—and prams as well as people on frames and crutches, for that matter. There is no doubt that having a city that feels available to all people in wheelchairs, to people on bikes and to families with children and prams will help make Adelaide a flourishing cosmopolitan city.
This brings me to action No. 5: Safe and active neighbourhoods. People with disabilities would love to feel safe and be able to be active in their communities, but their options are sometimes limited. For a start, not all people with disabilities can rely on buses and trains being accessible. As I have stated in this place before, only 82 per cent of buses in our current public transport network are accessible to wheelchairs and other mobility aids. This makes catching an accessible bus something of a lottery.
My office gets calls from constituents who are waiting at bus stops in all kinds of weather, hoping that an accessible bus will turn up soon, since those that have already been past were not so. The quicker the state government updates the bus fleet, the sooner people with disabilities will be able to get out into the community and into the workforce.
As for feeling safe, it would be wonderful if police in this state were given training on how to manage interacting with people with disabilities. People with disabilities are over-represented in our criminal justice system—this is no secret—both as victims and as perpetrators. I will talk more on this but for now I will say that, as I have already said today in this chamber, I have sought to meet with the Minister for Police and her predecessor Kevin Foley to discuss the inadequacy of current police training on disability.
Area action No. 6 is affordable living. Living with a disability in this state is currently a full-time job, either for the person with the disability or for the carer. This is due to the burden of navigating the confusing array of government and non-government services. This sure is not affordable. So, this area seems a pipe dream if you are living with a disability.
I get sick of raising this repeatedly but I guess I am going to have to until something actually changes—unmet needs. There is an accommodation crisis for people with disabilities in this state. There is not adequate affordable housing to meet demand. We are not talking about a few people either. There are nearly 1,200 people awaiting accommodation support and more than 1,700 awaiting community support and access and respite, for example. It is not good, and I will expand on this a little later.
No. 7, Early childhood: cherishing early childhood and ensuring early intervention, especially for children with disabilities, is something I again feel very passionate about and something this government fails at. I was very happy to join with the government in enshrining rapid passage of legislation that will see improved education and training of child workers as well as improved staff to child ratios in child care.
But that only tells one small part of the story. We must introduce a system for not only early diagnosis of disability in children but also for adequate support and programs for both children and their families. The community needs choices so that, for example, a parent told that their child has autism does not just get given a cheque and a few phone numbers to try but a choice of comprehensive integrated programs that are shown to work.
In the spirit of the government’s predisposition for espousing bold visions for the future, I am now going to outline my own. Just like the government’s seven steps to a brave new South Australia, I have seven steps which I think would bring us closer to a South Australia in which people with disabilities have a quality of life which is equal to that of others.
The first step is pretty simple and pretty obvious. How about if the government is so committed to prioritising the rights of people with disabilities it makes a start by clearing that infamous unmet needs list? I was on the radio talking about this very idea with the Minister for Disabilities this very morning. Minister Hunter said that his government did not want to pour any more money into a system which is failing people and leaking dollars. Instead, the government is going to institute an entire reform of the disability services system.
I am the first to say that this is wonderful, absolutely wonderful. The government has finally admitted that it has been epically failing at disability services provision and now it is going to think about fixing that failure. Great! Brilliant! The disability sector would certainly be rejoicing if it were not so busy dealing with homelessness, lack of essential supports, and financial and emotional stresses. Unfortunately, long-term wide-arching reforms—these things that sound great dripping from the lips of a government minister—take time, and time is not something that these people languishing on the unmet needs list have.
In the years that it will take the government to fully implement its much-needed reform, people who have nowhere to live, people who have no-one to help them access showers or food, people who have no social interaction each week will continue to suffer. I say to the government, ‘Congratulations on your agenda of reform, but you are still failing those people on the unmet needs list who need your help and need it now. They can’t wait for this reform to happen so if you actually care about those individuals with disabilities, you will help them with an immediate injection of funding.’
Next on my wish list for disability reform is a call for universal self-managed funding. I will explain this concept quickly for those listening.
Self-managed funding is a model of service delivery which recognises that the person with a disability or their carer knows what is best for them.
Astoundingly, at the moment, South Australians who receive government-funded services are forced to accept whoever shows up on their doorstep to provide that service.
They do not get to choose which agency delivers their service necessarily. They often do not get to choose when that service is delivered and sometimes they do not have a choice in where. It is a paternalistic and dysfunctional model. Self-managed funding hands back the power to the people with disability, giving them the ability to choose how their services are delivered. To reinforce how important this is, think about it this way, just from one example: if you had to have a stranger help you shower every morning, would you like the power to at least choose who that stranger is? I think the answer is yes.
I must congratulate the government for committing to implement this model. I am very pleased that it has recognised the need for people with disabilities to be involved in their own service delivery and life outcomes. However, I am worried because people in the service provider industry have been telling me that there has been no support provided to them thus far so that they can prepare for this huge change.
We are supposed to have up to 2,400 people transitioning to the new system from July of this year, but disability services agencies have not been offered any help to change their accounting and administration to suit the new method. If the government is serious about this change, I would expect some more action to happen very soon on this front. The system of self-managed funding is but one small step in the direction of a rights-based approach to disability services delivery.
The third piece of my vision is another step which will enable the rights of people with disability to be prioritised. The first thing we need to do is also no secret: overhaul the Disability Services Act. The problem with the current act is that it is this legislation that has delivered us to our current standing, where we are reliant on an inefficient, ineffective and condescending system that puts bureaucrats at its centre ahead of the people it is supposed to serve.
The government has in fact committed to reforming the Disability Services Act and, in that weird governmental way, has talked around the idea of aligning it in a rights-based approach but, of course, first they will be doing consultation. You know how much I love that word, Mr President. This, quite frankly, blows my mind. The disability sector has just waited through two years of consultation to deliver the current Blueprint for Disability Reform, and it is certainly worth mentioning that this blueprint comes on top of all the other documents that are currently sitting on governmental shelves in terms of disability service provision.
As a result of this consultation, the Social Inclusion Unit has recommended that the Disability Services Act be overhauled and redrafted in line with a rights-based approach. What else does the government need to know from the community, or can the government not be bothered to pick up the phone and call the Social Inclusion Unit to ask for the documentation of the consultation that has just been done?
Honestly, I think we all know what is going on here. Minister Hunter is obviously in this case using the word ‘consultation’ as shorthand for ‘We’re going to delay doing anything because this is a giant problem, and it’s too hard.’ Consultation is great, but the government has done that on this issue. Now it is time for some action, so I say: get drafting, government, or else I will be happy to draft my own disability services act and you will be very welcome and surely obligated to support it.
Next on my wish list is action No. 4, preparation for the national disability insurance scheme. Undoubtedly, the things I have mentioned already will act as good preparation for South Australia to become part of an integrated NDIS, especially if we keep an NDIS in frame while drafting that infamous new disability services act. However, there is a lot more that needs to be done.
In Victoria, for example, the state government has been funding research into transitioning into an NDIS since 2010, and that government is constantly pushing the federal government to make the interim financial commitment, which was recommended by the Productivity Commission, to quickly raise the quality of life for thousands of Australians with disabilities, so again not just leaving them to wait. Queensland is another state that has actually put its money where its mouth is and started funding transitional moves towards the NDIS.
My fourth wish is that our government stands up and does the same as these other states, that it proves its commitment to the NDIS by beginning to prepare all the agencies, including the government departments involved, for this huge switch over. Even if these four steps were completed alone, I know that South Australians with disabilities would be immeasurably better off. However, I do not think we should stop at ‘better off’. We must go all the way and look at how we can give South Australians with disabilities the same standard of living that other South Australians expect and enjoy.
Next on my list is the implementation of a suite of protective measures to better safeguard vulnerable people with disabilities. It is important to note that not all people with disabilities need the things I am about to touch on. Some people with disabilities are very capable of standing up for themselves and decrying abuses or breaches of rights, but others, be it through intellectual disability, physical disability or a lack of understanding, cannot protect themselves, and because of that it is the duty of the state to step up and provide protection from predators, abusers and neglect.
We do these things for our children and for our elderly, but if you are a person who is vulnerable due to disability between the ages of 18 and 65, sorry, but you are on your own. That is why I have suggested we implement a mandatory reporting system for people with disabilities. I know it is not a perfect model, but we have it in aged care and in schools, and there is no doubt that it is effective in at least identifying hundreds of cases of abuse every year. We can, of course, make it better, and I am willing to work on doing that. We can apply it to vulnerable people with disabilities. I have drafted the legislation, and all the government needs to did is support it.
We can also provide better protection for people with disabilities by not cost-cutting in areas where vulnerability is exacerbated. Instead of letting bus drivers transport kids with severe disabilities to school unsupervised, fork out the extra money to put school support officers on buses, as well as a CCTV camera and GPS tracking devices on these buses transporting the most vulnerable children. It may cost a little to begin with, but it is worth it to keep our children safe.
Since we are talking about protecting children or indeed anyone from abuse, we also need to talk about what is the process when a crime is actually committed by or against a person with a disability. It is evident from speeches I have made in the past that the justice system is currently dismally failing to include South Australians with disabilities. Many of them have no voice in a court of law, and many of them are ignored or excluded by the police. Lawyers in the department of public prosecutions are forced to drop their cases often because they are considered unreliable witnesses.
The sixth part of my vision for a better South Australia is the development of an inclusive justice system. We need to address every part of the process—from the way police are trained to think about disability to the way they interview people with disabilities. The perception of people with disabilities as unreliable by the courts is a huge issue, as is the inability for someone with a communication disability to give evidence.
It is a big job, and I am pleased to say that the Attorney-General does seem keen to begin work on this. However, I am still very concerned that the Minister for Police is opting for an ‘ignore and avoid’ approach on this issue. My office requested a meeting with Jennifer Rankine a month ago, as I have already touched upon, and we have not heard a whisper of response. If South Australians with disabilities are to be given a fair go in our justice system, the overhaul of it needs to be holistic, so I call on this government to get all portfolio areas involved.
Finally, on a slightly cheerier note, I come to my final wish. You may have noticed a general theme in my wishes, that is, a desire for people with disability to have their rights realised. This last wish has to do with the same idea but through a different medium of expression. I want all South Australians and, indeed, all South Australians with a disability, to have the right to an empowered and fulfilled life. It might seem like I have been talking about empowerment and fulfilment this whole time, but really what I have been talking about are very basic human rights. Empowerment and fulfilment can sometimes involve a higher level of participation in society than just having appropriate accommodation. To achieve these fulfilments, you need access to what are sometimes more subtle things, such as sexual expression and, indeed, employment.
I want the workforce participation rate of people with disabilities to be lifted out of the shallows it currently resides in. People with disabilities should be able to look forward to a career and career development, not feel lucky if they get a casual job for a six-month period. Of course, for people with disabilities to work they need support and workplaces often need support so that they can understand and cater for the employee with disability needs. The government, at a federal and state level, need to provide this support.
Something else that needs to be considered when it comes to empowering people with disabilities is their access to sexual expression. For plenty of people with disabilities, accessing sex is not a problem. They have partners or lovers or other people in their life with whom they can be comfortably sexually active. Of course, for other people with disabilities, sex also is not a problem because they are not particularly interested, just like some people without disabilities are not. They might have religious beliefs, which means that they do not want to engage in sexual activity, or they might just not have a high sex drive.
But there is a significant number of people with disabilities for whom sexual activity is both wanted and very difficult. People who live in group homes, for example, and have little privacy; people who might have physical conditions which mean they need extra help to achieve sexual pleasure; and even people who find it difficult to find sexual partners because of their disability. These people, who are capable of making informed choices about wanting to engage in sex but are not always able to make that choice become a reality, are some of the people on whose behalf I want to run this campaign. It is worth noting that for a lot people with disabilities, particularly people who have acquired disabilities in a car accident, for example, sex can also be a form of rehabilitation, physical and, indeed, emotional therapy, and it must also be addressed this way, and this is something I look forward to working on in the near future.
When you think about it, there are lots of things many of us take for granted, including housing, social interaction, fulfilling employment and, indeed, personal intimacy. I think it would be great if people with disabilities could take these life-enriching things for granted, too. So, that is what I think we should be working toward, and it is what I and my party, Dignity for Disability, will be working towards.
To sum up, we start this new parliamentary session with some big problems and some big opportunities to make lives better. We will not solve all these problems by just sticking to this government’s seven step plan for a ‘better South Australia’. So, I hope we can work together to implement some more diverse ideas like those I have just outlined. I look very much to that.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.E. Gago.
