Address in Reply
20/05/2014
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I take the floor to support the adoption of the Address in Reply to the Governor’s speech and thank His Excellency for his ongoing service to the state of South Australia. I also thank Uncle Lewis O’Brien for his very passionate Kaurna welcome. I have been very privileged to enjoy that on a number of occasions and certainly am always very happy to see Uncle Lewis.
In his speech the Governor reiterated seven primary areas where we will see the government’s action focused with some updates given the impending closure of Holden and a decision by BHP not to proceed with the Olympic Dam expansion. On behalf of Dignity for Disability I welcome the government’s statement that it must lead by example in developing stronger innovation in South Australia and look forward to what we hope will be the state government supporting industries that Dignity for Disability believes South Australia can develop through natural advantage.
The corporate welfare that the government had been offering large multinationals such as Holden was not fair. What we need is fair opportunities to be given to small and medium enterprises (or SMEs) in this state. This includes supporting SMEs that seek to make Adelaide and this state more accessible to residents and tourists with disabilities, older tourists and residents who use mobility aids, through retrofitting and pop-up accessibility concepts and design.
We also need to continue to push to make Adelaide and the entire state amiable to bikes and their riders. This is also a niche tourist market we could target on the back of the continuing success of the Tour Down Under. To me, wheel-friendly and disability access go hand in hand. We want our streets to be a welcoming environment for people, not cars. It is people who are the lifeblood of our communities, not the petrol engine.
As I have said before, I would love for all footpaths and corridors around the city to accommodate all wheelchairs and mobility aids properly. Making Adelaide more wheel-accessible is something I am, for good reason, very passionate about, because it is not just for those of us who use mobility aids or have some other mobility impairment right now: it is for those of us who will acquire them in the future and it is also for people using prams as well as walking-frames and crutches, too, for that matter.
There is no doubt that having a city that feels available to all who use mobility aids, people on bikes and families with children and prams and so on will help to make Adelaide a truly international city—not only because Lonely Planet says it is so, but because we know it to be so and it is deserving of that title. But engines and cars are needed in modern day Australia and I wonder if SA might not become a national leader in modifying cars to suit a range of disabilities, for example, given that we have the oldest population on mainland Australia in particular.
Looking at the issue of employment, I would urge the government to look in its own backyard. Given that the state government’s own public sector continues not to meet its own targets for employing people with disabilities, as I mentioned in question time just this afternoon, I look forward to the Premier and his ministers ensuring that their own government departments are developing more inclusive attitudes, as well as physical infrastructure, towards employing people with disabilities, so that we do not face the highest unemployment rate of any group within the community.
Still on the topic of employment, I would like to strongly recommend that the state government supports the commonwealth government’s phasing out of Australian disability enterprises in their current form and more particularly the wage tool that the High Court found to be unfair and to be a breach of human rights, and indeed any other tool that may amount to this. We need to pay people with disabilities a fair wage for fair work and, where we do not have the capacity to work, to provide basic community options, including comprehensive respite for families. It is time to end the skill apartheid that says that, because you were born a certain way, you are suited to one particular job, whether or not that job necessarily caters to your abilities or indeed your aspirations. It is time that the employment opportunities of people with disabilities were dictated by our aspirations and our abilities and our life goals, not the limited imaginations of other people.
Considering action No. 5—safe and active neighbourhoods—where have we come in the past two years? Well, I am sure we people with disabilities would love to feel safe and able to be out and about in our communities, and in some cases this may well already be true, but the opportunities are often limited. For a start, not all people with disability can rely on buses and trains being accessible or even arriving on time, and the failings of the Department of Transport and Infrastructure to provide a reliable public transport service in this state has been a continuous and ongoing problem for the past two years, leaving commuters stranded all over Adelaide.
I hope we will be moving past this situation soon because, again, if we are truly going to deserve that spot in the Lonely Planet booklet not just now but in the future, this is something we must fix. The problems with the SATSS voucher schemes continue to exist: a lack of them and inflexible rules still create barriers to accessing social, education and employment opportunities.
But being safe in your own neighbourhood is more fundamental than just being able to safely get around. It is about knowing that there is a decent police, courts and corrections system in place that is fair and that is just. To get to this point we must fully implement the disability justice plan (or DJP) in its entirety, including resourcing and legislative change.
I have been impressed to see the constructive cross-departmental teamwork with stakeholders on the DJP, but until we see the current draft become reality, we must continue with a multipartisan approach to reform our justice system. Indeed, it is my hope that that multipartisan, constructive cross-departmental approach will continue in other departments as well, not just on what you might call ‘special occasions’, because that is how we achieve real and effective outcomes for the people of South Australia.
Dignity for Disability, like all parties and individuals in this parliament I am sure, never want to see the situations we have recently seen in South Australia occur again. People who sexually abuse vulnerable children with disabilities, or any child, should feel the full force of the law and know that society does not tolerate this behaviour. Instead of justice being served, however, we have seen lawyers in the department of public prosecutions forced to drop their cases because witnesses with disabilities are considered unreliable, often because of a lack of support for them in court to tell their story.
I am reminded of a recent case where a young woman with disabilities was indecently assaulted while using an access cab in Adelaide. When interviewed about this case, the young woman’s father (who was speaking on her behalf because she is non-verbal) was asked whether there really had been an effect on the victim because there was no way that she could communicate whether or not this was the case. Again, this is treating people with disabilities as a different class of person. The fact is it is wrong to abuse any person, whether or not they have a disability, and so reforming the justice system must also be about not only the supports readily available to people who need to use that system but also people’s attitudes towards the people who go through the system.
People with disabilities are also, of course, offenders sometimes, and it is essential, particularly when those offenders have cognitive disabilities, that they understand their rights and can access protections and equal rights in the same way as the rest of the population. Moving back for a moment to the issue of victims or alleged victims of crime: in recent days and months we have seen some tragic cases of domestic violence against women, resulting ultimately in the murder or alleged murder of these women. What I would remind this chamber of is that women with disabilities are at a higher risk of experiencing domestic violence than their non-disabled peers and are often in situations of financial dependence or personal support needs that make it incredibly difficult to leave that situation.
Still on the topic of women, I noticed with some dismay during the state election that Dignity for Disability had the highest proportion of female candidates of parties that stood 10 or more candidates in that election.
The Hon. S.G. Wade: You’re the only party with 100 per cent of women in the parliament.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: That’s right. As the Hon. Mr Wade rightly points out, we are also currently the only party with 100 per cent female parliamentary representation. I look forward to making that 200 per cent in the near future—and that is why I did not become a maths teacher, but you know what I mean. I am much safer in here.
The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: This is actually a very serious topic, if you don’t mind, Mr Wade—
The Hon. S.G. Wade: Is that about child protection—protecting children from your maths?
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Protecting children from my maths, yes. It is a vital child protection issue that this state faces at this time; let us all remember that. But I would also expect us to provide leadership, Mr Wade, in running candidates for election who have disabilities—but to have to lead us in the area of female representation is not a mantle I was expecting to take.
Even more concerning is the fact that we have fewer women in parliament that we did before 15 March this year. I think this is a timely reminder for all of us, including other political parties, to look at our candidate selection process. Instead of saying it is difficult to have female candidates if they do not put themselves forward, perhaps those parties should be asking themselves what those barriers are presented to women that inhibit them from coming forward and how they can help to get rid of them.
The South Australian population is now represented by women in only 17 of the 69 positions in parliament. I might not be a maths teacher, but I do know that that is less than 25 per cent, and this is, to put it lightly, not good enough. Women make up more than 50 per cent of the South Australian population and so should be duly represented in the state legislature in the same numbers. This is not the case and the old parties, Labor and Liberal, need to take a good hard look at themselves and at the opportunities they offer, or fail to offer, women in the political realm.
Moving on to affordable living, or action area No. 6, I have said on countless occasions before, and I will say it again: living with a disability in this state is currently a full-time job, but I am going to have to do it until something actually changes. There is not affordable living for people with disabilities in this state while we still have an ever-growing unmet needs list. There is an accommodation crisis for people with disabilities in this state. There is not adequate affordable housing to meet demand, including in the private rental sector.
We are not talking about a few people either. Back in my 2012 Address in Reply, nearly 1,200 people were awaiting accommodation support, and more than 1,700 were awaiting community support, access and respite. Now, in 2014, incredibly there are even more. In particular, the area of category 1—critical need—continues to grow.
So I say to the government: on your agenda of reform, keep it up, but you are still failing those people on the unmet needs list who need help now. They cannot wait for the NDIS to happen, so if you actually care about individuals with disabilities, you will help them with an immediate injection of funding. This also includes funding to address some of the stereotypes and misconceptions around people with disabilities wanting to enter the private rental market.
Finally, regarding area No. 7, early childhood, South Australia’s commitment to implementing the NDIS for young people is to some extent commendable, but not enough. Until we arrest the situation within the Department for Education and Child Development that sees future South Australians damaged, it is not good enough.
I will continue on behalf of Dignity for Disability to work with the government, opposition and crossbenchers, and indeed whomever we have to, to improve the lives of all South Australians, but hope to see much more rapid action in the areas of disability and social disadvantage. Dignity for Disability certainly remains committed to those areas in particular and will continue to lobby to make sure that the government and other parties are as well.
