And what an exciting time to be the ambassador, as we move into a new chapter, farewelling Dr PJ Rose, our long-serving artistic director. PJ is an incredibly strong woman of many talents. She has a PhD in contemporary political theatre, she has worked as radio producer, a lecturer, director, cab driver, and probably everything else you can think of in between. She has been involved with No Strings as its artistic director on and off since about 1997, managing many successful programs, such as 2connect, a program pairing emerging artists with professionals to create work on a common theme, Preparing the Garden, another development program for emerging artists, and, of course, organising the annual end of year showcase.

We may have had disagreements over the years about procedure and about how things should be done in the company, but I have never once doubted PJ’s commitment and loyalty to No Strings. She has been a wonderful mentor and a fierce friend to me, and I thank her for her work and ongoing friendship.

As I said, it is a very exciting time as on leap year day, 29 February this year, another mentor, kindred spirit and personal hero of mine will leap into the role of new artistic director. Many in this chamber would probably already know actor, writer and director Alirio Zavarce for his work on many award-winning productions, the most relevant to this speech being Sons & Mothers, a No Strings Attached production about seven men with disability and their personal relationships with their mothers. Under Alirio’s leadership Sons & Mothers picked up several awards and toured the country, arguably becoming the company’s most recognised and most successful production to date.

Whether it is telling his own story as a migrant and self-labelled ‘adopted son of Australia’ from his native Caracas in Venezuela, or facilitating the stories of people with disability, or running the True North Youth Theatre Ensemble, giving artistic and social opportunities to young people in our state’s northern suburbs, who are often disenfranchised and isolated, Alirio’s work is always about amplifying the voices of those we do not always hear. For this reason, and for many others, I cannot think of a better person for this exciting new role.

Alirio always demands an extremely high artistic standard, both of himself and of others, but at the same time his work is always genuine, real and human. He is a man of great bravery, humour and wisdom, and I am sure I speak for all involved with No Strings Attached when I say that I am very excited to see what he makes of his new role and to assist him in it where I can. PJ and Alirio, congratulations on everything you have achieved and will continue to achieve. You are extraordinary people and I look forward to continuing to work with you. I am so lucky to consider you part of my family.

The Universal Periodic Review, or UPR, allowed member states of the HRC to assess how Australia is tracking against its human rights obligations. The UPR provides a platform for Australian NGOs to update the international community on the human rights situation of Australia.

The UPR Disability Coordination Group has been working as part of the 200-strong UPR NGO Coalition to raise priority human rights issues for people with disability, including forced sterilisation, indefinite detention, involuntary treatment, restrictive practices, legal capacity and violence in institutions. Members of the UPR Disability Coordination Group were in Geneva for the UPR of Australia. Rosemary Kayess, who is the Australian Centre for Disability Law chairperson, has pointed out:

There are many critical human rights issues in Australia, including those for people with disability. We are pleased that key disability recommendations were made by numerous HRC member States.

These recommendations focused on the prohibition of forced sterilisation, ending violence against people with disability, including the high prevalence of violence against women and children with disability, and addressing the indefinite detention of people with disability in the criminal justice system. We implore the Australian Government to accept and implement these recommendations.

Therese Sands, the Co-CEO of People with Disability Australia said:

Australia’s approach to forced sterilisation is still a serious concern to the international community. It is time that Australia prohibited this practice.

Violence against people with disability—particularly those in institutional and residential settings—is an urgent, unaddressed national crisis. It has a devastating impact on some of the most vulnerable and marginalised people in our communities, particularly women and children with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with disability and people with disability from non-English speaking backgrounds. It occurs because of failures in legislation, policy and service systems, and it is time for Australia to now act decisively.

Damian Griffis, CEO of First Peoples Disability Network, also said:

We welcome Australia’s commitment to address the indefinite detention of people with disability in the criminal justice system who are deemed unfit to plead.

The over-incarceration of Aboriginal people is a national shame. More and more data is now coming to light that confirms the anecdotal evidence we receive relating to the high rates of incarceration of Aboriginal people with disability. The indefinite detention of Indigenous people with disability, without conviction, is a clear example of this.

Here in South Australia, we also celebrate, with a multitude of events, the United Nations-sanctioned International Day of People with Disability. This is why it is essential that we keep front of mind the concerns that the United Nations are raising.

In 2015, it is a complete human rights violation that people with disabilities cannot access the justice system, the education system, the health system and the community on an equal basis with our non-disabled peers.

We are not yet equal and must continue to fight for our rights. Yes, there are positives—the Disability Justice Plan being one—yet, every day, people with disabilities face cuts to programs and constant battles with bureaucracy to access what the rest of the community would take for granted. Dignity for Disability looks forward to continuing our work alongside every member in this place to ensure that the human rights of people with disabilities are accepted fully, adequately and without question, now and into the future.

Whether it be funding, resourcing, advocacy, out-of-home care (otherwise known as respite), protections against abuse, employment, buses being accessible, accommodation, support for family carers, wheelchairs being fixed or serviced in a timely manner, training for disability support workers or a justice system that works for all, it seems that the answer to everything is the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Well, I am sorry, but it is not.

Yes, the NDIS at a commonwealth level is a once in a generation reform that could, in the long term, vastly improve the organisation of services, provision and resourcing of the disability sector. This improved system could help increase awareness of people with disabilities in our community and our basic rights by improving our access to it—that is, our right to access housing, transport, the community, employment, entertainment, recreation, education, travel and all other life opportunities, just like everyone else.

However, what it cannot do in and of itself is remove many of the barriers still facing us. It does not immediately educate the media or community about the importance of not stereotyping or portraying people with disabilities as a giant homogenous group: ‘the disabled’. It does not educate employers about employees with disabilities being more loyal and dedicated employees.

That is why it was disappointing to listen to our new Prime Minister, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, introducing his new ministry on Sunday and make no specific mention of disability in general or the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Yes, I know that the Hon. Christian Porter now has responsibility for disabilities and the NDIS as social services minister, but Dignity for Disability, like the community, believe that it is important that disability has a portfolio and be acknowledged on its own merit. After all, one in five people has a disability.

It was also pleasing to see a number of women elevated to the ministry, but I think it is worthwhile noticing that I as a disability MP, and a politician with a disability (and a visible one at that), am still something of a novelty in this country. With one in five Australians with a disability, and two in five who support or care for a person with a disability, this is a mainstream issue, not an exclusive club. I do, however, look forward to working with the Hon. Christian Porter MP, especially to negotiate a new bilateral agreement in terms of the NDIS for this state.

The other event I would like to briefly mention is a news story of a security guard at a retail hi-fi store refusing entry to a 21-year-old man with Down Syndrome. He did this because he thought he was some other person who had been already banned from the store—someone who also has Down Syndrome. However, the young man refused entry was of a Fijian background, with dark skin and hair, unlike the photo of the man who had in fact been banned from the store, who I understand was quite clearly Caucasian. The man who was refused entry was fair-haired and light-skinned, yet the security guard’s comments, I understand, as they were reported in the media, were, ‘They all look the same.’

This story quickly went viral on social media and then entered mainstream media across the country. As if the security guard’s actions were not bad enough, the media reporting referred to this man as a ‘Down Syndrome boy’ and ‘suffering from Down Syndrome’. A 21 year old is not a boy—he is a man or young man—and you do not ‘suffer’ from disability; you have a disability. You suffer from ignorance and stigma. We really need to be more careful and respectful about how we portray disability and report on disability in this country. I encourage you all to reflect on your own perceptions and misconceptions and how words perpetrate myths and stereotypes about people with disability. We need a more enlightened and respectful thinking in 2015, not regressive concepts and outdated ideas.

Recently, the Westermans came to Adelaide for assessment appointments. They stayed at Highgate Park. Despite repeated assurances from Disability SA, what occurred during their stay there was unacceptable. My office wrote to the minister about this issue and the response was, in turn, totally unacceptable. The Westerman sisters feel that the minister is not facing up to the realities of what has occurred in this situation nor the inadequate service being provided at Highgate Park. So, in light of the poor response to date, I will raise their questions in this forum:

Why did no Highgate Park workers know what type of care we needed? Why did they assume we had a cognitive disability and ask us if we were anorexic? Why did none of the equipment suit our needs? The toilet chair seating was for males and our legs fell through the gap at the front of the seat. The seating was not padded…we are very bony due to having no muscle, so it hurt to sit on the toilet. We were told by Disabilities SA that Highgate had the same equipment we currently use. Not true. The mattress on the bed was hard and left us with pressure sores.

Being on the toilet covered with a sheet and wheeled through the corridors like this is not acceptable. We were informed that some clients can ram you in their chairs, plus at this time we were still using the male seat. We lean on our arms, so we balance, so one small knock, or even moving the seat too fast, will make us fall and end up on the floor. Would you, as someone who can walk and do what you want when you want, go to the toilet in the middle of a busy shopping centre with only a curtain as a privacy screen where someone can walk in at any time, and go naked from A to B?

A simple toilet shift often takes an hour for both of us—at Highgate Park this took three hours. How is that possible when we were told the staff at Highgate Park are highly trained ? This wasn’t just a one-off. Can you understand how stressful and hurtful it was to go through this every day? We had to wait for ninety minutes to get out of bed because by the time the support workers got ready they left again..Meanwhile, we didn’t eat breakfast because we were still waiting to get up. It was 10:15 when we were in our chairs and eating breakfast. Usually we’d be up and ready by 8am.

At home we go to the toilet five to six times a day, at Highgate, it was reduced to twice because they did not have enough staff rostered on. Staff refused to toilet us—they would literally hide, leave half way through a shift, bicker like we weren’t there, swap workers during a shift, leaving us to re-teach the new workers what to do. This was not just frustrating but unsafe. We got treated like we were a burden. Cyanne was left in her room, as her chair was broken, and no-one was informed during shift change. She never got to leave her room—only once during her stay.

Prior to the visit we had asked about bringing valuable belongings and if we should name clothes. They said we could take valuables because it was very unlikely that anything would be stolen. And that naming our clothes was optional. It was a different story once we were at Highgate. I was told to lock up all my valuables because they do go missing, and that putting names on our clothes wasn’t good enough because they too would disappear as the washing is done all together. So we kept our dirty clothes in our room in a box for it to be washed separately as to everyone else.

These are not my words. These are quotes from correspondence sent to me by Zia and Cyanne Westerman who have given me permission to name them in the chamber today. I do so to raise awareness, not only that the services provided to them during their stay at Highgate were inadequate, but that the minister’s response clearly shows that he does not understand the true ramifications of the issues.

I ask everyone here today to imagine what it would be like to be a young woman in this situation in which Zia and Cyanne Westerman found themselves during their stay at Highgate Park. I am hoping for a more adequate response from the minister that will take into account the true ramifications of what the Westermans were told versus what actually happened to them during their stay at Highgate Park.

Thirty years ago, when Australia was in the grip of what was then known as the gay plaque, or simply as AIDS, a few brave people started to speak up and change things. Most of those brave people are no longer with us: they are the ones who ensured that Australia had a peer-driven, community-based r esponse to what we now call HIV AIDS. For 30 years this has been recognised globally as the best practice model for reducing HIV transmissions.

Our state government has now decided to dishonour the legacy of those courageous people by defunding Positive Life SA, the only community-based HIV organisation in South Australia. We have a state government that wants to silence community voice. It wants pretend that forming community advisory groups constitutes genuine consultation with the people most affected by its decisions.

PLSA has supported HIV positive people for more than 20 years. It has an impeccable financial record. It has met all its contractual obligations to SA Health. In spite of this, all government funding for HIV services has been hijacked by Centrecare Catholic Family Services and a bizarre partnership between the Victorian AIDS Council and SHine SA, previously known as family planning SA. How will a faith-based agency like Centrecare deliver impartial, non-discriminatory and supportive services?

This is Geoff Hood’s question. He continues:

When did Victoria achieve zero HIV infections, making them the experts for South Australia?

In fact the most recent data from the Kirby Institute show that the transmission rate in Victoria is more than three times the SA rate. Victorian AIDS Council, fix your own backyard first!! We do not need more clinical services from a big, corporate organisation like SHine SA. As a gay man I can assure you that big is not always necessarily better. The quality of delivery is what is important.

Last year the Minister for Health, the Hon. Jack Snelling MP, along with all other state and territory ministers, signed the AIDS 2014 Legacy Statement. He has committed to working towards the virtual elimination of new Australian HIV transmissions by the end of 2020. Underpinning this Legacy Statement is the meaningful involvement of people living with HIV, in the development and delivery of HIV programs and policies. Now he has done a breathtaking backflip by defunding PLSA. His health bureaucrats are equally to blame for choosing this un-South Australian option for his approval. SA will now have the dubious distinction of being the first state or territory in Australia without a community-driven response to HIV.

As a member of the disability community, I strongly believe in the mantra ‘Nothing about us without us’. I know that this is equally important to many living with HIV in South Australia. It is a great shame that people living with HIV will no longer have control over their own services and thereby their own destiny.

So, a refresher on the work of Pos Life SA. The organisation used to be known as people living with HIV Aids SA, but is now Positive Life SA. Positive Life SA is a small community organisation based in the inner southern suburbs, and they provide community support and engagement to people living with HIV in a non-judgmental, peer-based fashion. They practise what they preach: all of the board is HIV positive.

At their modest Glandore premises they run a range of programs and services, they connect with the community and provide peer support programs, including pos day out, HIV treatment forums, planet positive, living up, pos on pos and chat club. Their services include complementary health services and an emergency food program called ‘the hive’, a small loans program, no interest loan schemes and a positive speakers bureau. They also have health promotion resources, short-term support referrals to other agencies, advocacy treatments information, a community drop-in reading library, internet access and family space and games areas.

The organisation has very much evolved to become an independent voice for people with HIV in South Australia, ensuring that their lived experiences of HIV directs the provision of effective health and wellbeing support services and activities. As a peer-driven organisation, Pos Life is led by a community-elected HIV positive board of management and has grown from modest beginnings to become an integral provider of information, advocacy and support to positive people across South Australia.

Since July 2009 Positive Life SA has been reorienting its services from individual client case management to a ‘population health promotion’ approach, involving the delivery of lifestyle engagement and change management programs that build HIV positive people’s capability for self-management, health and increased quality of life.

As someone who is passionate about human rights, I have continued to be impressed that the Positive Life SA adheres to the keystone principles and practices of the Ottawa Charter 1986 and the Jakarta Declaration, and actively works to balance the wishes and needs of individuals with long-term health issues affecting the wellbeing, longevity and quality of life of all HIV positive people.

Additionally, Positive Life SA is committed to the principles underpinning the greater involvement of people living with HIV, principle 1994, and actively seeks to involve and sustain HIV positive people in all aspects of the organisation. In the past two years both myself and my office staff have attended various events, forums and educational opportunities that Pos Life has run. We have always been impressed by the professionalism, passion and dedication of their staff, volunteers and board members.

To learn today that the tender for the services that Pos Life SA has been dedicated to running for two decades has instead been awarded to a partnership between a Victorian organisation and a local semi-government organisation is incredibly disappointing. I will certainly investigate as to whether the same services will be provided under this partnership, but I am sad to say at the outset that it is not to say that the Victorian council does not do a great job, but that they certainly are not local and they do not appear to be community based in the same way that Pos Life has been to date. I will investigate that, but I have to say that this appears to be a sad day.

They do not have a board, as I understand it, that is 100 per cent HIV positive. Pos Life SA is committed to and lives the concept ‘Nothing about us without us’. It is a devastating slap in the face for South Australians with HIV and the gay community that the health minister has awarded the contracts in this fashion. It is also incredibly disheartening to the staff and volunteers of Pos Life. I sincerely thank all those involved with Pos Life over the past two decades and wish them all the best with their future endeavours. I will continue to work to make sure we get no loss of services here in South Australia.

Time expired.

As you are probably aware, Stella was born with osteogenesis imperfecta, more commonly, and certainly more crudely, known as brittle bone disease, a physical disability. What she lacked in height she certainly made up for in hilarious wit and sarcastic comments. She was a talented writer, a journalist with the ABC and a comedian, as well as a public speaker on disability rights issues. Today, nearly three months since she died, Stella’s loss is still keenly felt by me and by others in the disability community. Family and friends, of course, would be feeling it more keenly on the occasion of her birthday.

Stella had a tattoo on her arm which was a quote from a Laura Hershey poem, which stated ‘You get proud by practising’. I would like to touch on some of the things I mentioned at her memorial service and some of the ways that people with disabilities are still ‘getting proud by practising’.

In my opinion, Stella embodied so many of the best things about several movements that are greatly important to me. As a woman, she was outspoken, funny and fearless. As a disabled person, she was proud, honest and a leader who was not going to wait for the world to catch up but was out there actively showing the world how it was done. Stella never took the easy way out not only because I believe that this was an innate part of her driven nature but also because, like me, she knew that for too many people with disabilities there is still no easy way.

If we lived in a world in which every person had the option of living the easy way, then, for example, those of us who use mobility aids would be able to jump on a bus, train or tram to get to and from work without worrying about the accessibility of that particular vehicle or whether there would be a kerb ramp at the train, tram or bus stop.

The easy way of living is one in which no disabled person sees their taxes time and time again paying for services which we ourselves cannot use, and in this world you would not have to wait for someone well-respected and loved in our community to pass away to hold an event as accessible as the memorial for Stella Young was. This standard ought to be the norm so that we can not only come together as a community in times of grief but also get on with living our daily life.

Stella knew, as many of us do, that this is not yet the world in which we live. People with disabilities are still burdened, stifled and squandered by the low expectations of others. We are still all too often denied educational opportunities equal to those offered to our non-disabled peers. We are still expected to carry out menial work, regardless of our individual interests or talents, for wages that would be not only insulting but also illegal for others to receive. We can be held in prison for years without charge, and we can be denied a say in our own reproductive rights. These are just some of the ways that people with disabilities are having to ‘get proud by practising’. We will fight against these things, against the better judgement of society at large.

We know that our population is ageing at an alarming rate and that we need to prepare a society that is accessible and welcoming to everyone. We know that providing someone with a good education helps them live a longer and healthier life, with less reliance on government services. We know that all of us need access to our community as the population ages, and we must continue to make these arguments clearly, loudly, without fear and, of course, proudly. Stella, we miss you, we need you, and we will be here ‘getting proud by practising’. My thoughts are with Stella’s family and friends every day and especially on the occasion of her 33rd birthday. Happy birthday, Stella; thank you for everything.

Almost half of people with disabilities in this country live at or below the poverty line and undergo unfair wage assessment, which sees many of them being paid less than the minimum wage, something that would be considered immoral and illegal for any other worker without disability, and this often occurs in a misguided attempt to preserve their entitlement to commonwealth benefits such as the disability support pension or health care card. This occurs in what are known as sheltered workshops or Australian disability enterprises, which are, in my view, a relic of a bygone era and an unsatisfactory answer to an outdated question.

To keep people in sheltered workshops or Australian disability enterprises on the basis of their disability is like saying that the way we should solve racism in the workplace is to make sure that all people who are non-Caucasian work in a separate factory to those us who are, or the way we solve the issue of unequal pay for women is to again have them work in separate workplaces where they are assessed differently and paid different wages. We would not tolerate these solutions to these problems, so why should we continue to tolerate them for the issue of payment of people with disabilities?

Another example is like observing that many people in the workforce who are left-handed have trouble operating the tools used by those of us who are right-handed. Therefore, do we put them away in a separate workshop where they can use tools specifically for their left-handedness, where they can work at their own pace, or where they can be paid and wage-based just on their productivity because of the fact that they are left-handed? We would not tolerate this. Why then are we still tolerating the underpayment and immoral low wages for people with an intellectual disability based on the fact that they may produce fewer products than those of us who are not intellectually disabled?

I do not get paid less on the days I am less productive, and I do not get paid less for having social interaction as part of my work. Why then should these workers be expected to tolerate this? I also refute the argument that these sheltered workshops provide parents of people with intellectual disability a much needed break from their parenting duties and also give the person the ability to socialise with others outside their family home. It is my view that, if this is what a person needs and they need support to socialise, they should be funded to have that support, as well as be given the opportunity to be given fulfilling and fairly-paid work.

If the aim of work is not to earn a living wage and the dignity that comes with that, then it is not really work at all. It is ridiculous that, in a wealthy country like Australia, we continue to find excuses to underpay workers just to make ourselves feel better about providing people with disabilities socialisation and other opportunities. As I said earlier, none of us are paid less on the basis that we enjoy our work and make friends through doing so, so we need to make sure the funding is available for people with disabilities both to be supported to have social opportunities if that is what they need and to earn a living, adequate, dignified wage.

This argument is not just about the dignity of work: it is an argument that is fundamentally about the dignity of a human life and about whether the opportunities offered to that life should be less just because of the way that person was born. I understand that changes are coming under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and that makes it even more important that we as a parliament and as a country work together to ensure the dignity of work and the dignity of a fulfilling life for all Australians.

Almost half of people with disabilities in this country live at or below the poverty line and undergo unfair wage assessment, which sees many of them being paid less than the minimum wage, something that would be considered immoral and illegal for any other worker without disability, and this often occurs in a misguided attempt to preserve their entitlement to commonwealth benefits such as the disability support pension or health care card. This occurs in what are known as sheltered workshops or Australian disability enterprises, which are, in my view, a relic of a bygone era and an unsatisfactory answer to an outdated question.

To keep people in sheltered workshops or Australian disability enterprises on the basis of their disability is like saying that the way we should solve racism in the workplace is to make sure that all people who are non-Caucasian work in a separate factory to those us who are, or the way we solve the issue of unequal pay for women is to again have them work in separate workplaces where they are assessed differently and paid different wages. We would not tolerate these solutions to these problems, so why should we continue to tolerate them for the issue of payment of people with disabilities?

Another example is like observing that many people in the workforce who are left-handed have trouble operating the tools used by those of us who are right-handed. Therefore, do we put them away in a separate workshop where they can use tools specifically for their left-handedness, where they can work at their own pace, or where they can be paid and wage-based just on their productivity because of the fact that they are left-handed? We would not tolerate this. Why then are we still tolerating the underpayment and immoral low wages for people with an intellectual disability based on the fact that they may produce fewer products than those of us who are not intellectually disabled?

I do not get paid less on the days I am less productive, and I do not get paid less for having social interaction as part of my work. Why then should these workers be expected to tolerate this? I also refute the argument that these sheltered workshops provide parents of people with intellectual disability a much needed break from their parenting duties and also give the person the ability to socialise with others outside their family home. It is my view that, if this is what a person needs and they need support to socialise, they should be funded to have that support, as well as be given the opportunity to be given fulfilling and fairly-paid work.

If the aim of work is not to earn a living wage and the dignity that comes with that, then it is not really work at all. It is ridiculous that, in a wealthy country like Australia, we continue to find excuses to underpay workers just to make ourselves feel better about providing people with disabilities socialisation and other opportunities. As I said earlier, none of us are paid less on the basis that we enjoy our work and make friends through doing so, so we need to make sure the funding is available for people with disabilities both to be supported to have social opportunities if that is what they need and to earn a living, adequate, dignified wage.

This argument is not just about the dignity of work: it is an argument that is fundamentally about the dignity of a human life and about whether the opportunities offered to that life should be less just because of the way that person was born. I understand that changes are coming under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and that makes it even more important that we as a parliament and as a country work together to ensure the dignity of work and the dignity of a fulfilling life for all Australians.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: It should be a capital offence!

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: The Hon. Mr Parnell interjects that it should be a capital offence. I do not know if I am going that far, but I do have a plausible solution. Recently, a Lane Cove councillor by the name of Karola Brent—and, yes, I believe that is her real name—was caught illegally parked in an accessible car park without a permit. Instead of hearing the usual excuses that we often hear from those who illegally use these car parks, such as, ‘I was only there for a short time,’ ‘I was in a hurry,’ and so on, the transport minister of New South Wales, Mr Duncan Gay, proposed a rather innovative solution.

He asked the transport department of New South Wales to introduce legislation introducing demerit points on licences of those who illegally use these parks. As some members may be aware, this incidentally has been something that Dignity for Disability has been considering for quite some time, so it is pleasing to see this idea being taken up elsewhere so that we may have the research and experience to further back this idea.

I have to say I am surprised that the illegal use of these accessible car parks is not already better policed. After all, it would seem to me that this is an easy stream of potential revenue for councils. In fact, it would seem that it would be a very easy and very large stream of revenue for councils, given that the illegal use of accessible car parks is, I kid you not, one of the most commonly raised issues with my office.

Of course, revenue is not the only reason why we need to take this issue very seriously. Stopping the illegal use of accessible car parks is not only a matter of respect: it is a matter of ensuring safety for those of us who require accessible car parks. Let me illustrate this point.

If I, or someone else who is a wheelchair user, requires the extra space to get out of the car to their wheelchair from the side of their vehicle cannot do so, and have to park in a non-accessible car park, meaning that we have to walk further, perhaps through the car park, to get to our destination, this places us at risk because we are less visible in our wheelchairs to oncoming traffic and traffic in the car park. It is an issue of respect, morality and safety.

As I said, this is an issue very commonly raised with my office and, in fact, it is raised by those on both sides of the issue; that is, it is raised by people with permits who are upset about their car parks being taken from them illegally, and those who do not have permits and disagree with those who illegally use these car parks. This clearly shows that there is a lot of goodwill to change the landscape in this area and to ensure that people understand the gravity of the situation they are putting people in when they illegally use accessible car parks, even for a short time. I think it is important that we labour that point. It is not only inconvenient and immoral, it is illegal.

So far my office has received good feedback about the situation in New South Wales and about our plans to replicate it here, and I will be pleased to discuss this further with members of parliament and members of the community so that we can find other workable solutions if there are any. I am excited to see how this plan will develop in New South Wales so that we can gather the evidence and research needed to further the concept here in South Australia.

I am pleased to again announce that Dignity for Disability plans to amend legislation to replicate the situation, hopefully before the end of the existing year. So I welcome feedback from members of parliament and members of the community. I look forward to working with you all on this very important issue and hope that soon we will have a solution that truly understands the gravity of the situation regarding the illegal use of accessible car parks.