Leave granted.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I move:

That this council—

1. Notes the recent New Zealand case of Charley Hooper, the now 10 -year-old girl whose parents had her undergo growth attenuation treatment , meaning that she will now never grow over 130  centimetres tall, as well as a hysterectomy and ovary removal at the age of seven due to her disability;
2. Notes that this case is not unique; in fact Hooper’s parents drew inspiration from the 2004 case of a child with disability in Seattle, known only as ‘Ashley X’, who was subjected to the same treatment;
3. Notes that the use of growth attenuation and sterilisation as a response to disability is in fact known colloquially as The Ashley Treatment;
4. Condemns the use of medical treatment on the ground of disability without the consent of the person on whom the procedure is to be performed, or significant evidence that the procedure is necessary as all other options, including additional supports, have been exhausted;
5. Calls on the South Australian government to ensure that children and adults with disability in South Australia are legally protected from forced medical treatment (or the denial of medical treatment) without consent or consent by guardians who have a clear conflict of interest;
6. Calls on the commonwealth government to ensure nationally consistent protections around growth attenuation and sterilisation of children with disabilities; and
7. Calls for a total ban on such treatments for which there is no medical indication.

I thank several of my parliamentary colleagues for their team effort in seconding the motion.

In 1997, in Seattle, Washington, a child—now a young woman, who has only ever been known to the media as Ashley X—was born with a significant level of developmental disability. According to statements from Ashley’s parents that I have read on the internet, they presume that Ashley’s level of cognitive function is somewhere around that of the average infant.

I understand that Ashley X’s disability means that she is reliant on her parents and grandmothers to carry out everyday tasks, like helping Ashley get out of bed, bathe, dress and so on. These factors prompted Ashley’s parents to think about what might be the best way to ensure that Ashley could be properly supported far into her future, and they came up with what I think we can say is a pretty unorthodox solution, to say the least.

In 2004, when she was only six years old, Ashley X, at the request of her parents, underwent a full hysterectomy, a procedure which the hospital later admitted was performed unlawfully because it was done without a court order. At some point, she also had her breast buds removed to ensure that she would forever remain flat chested, and her appendix was also removed.

In 2006 or 2007, Ashley X underwent and completed oestrogen therapy, also known as growth attenuation. The purpose of growth attenuation is to close the growth plates in the body so that a person stops growing much sooner than they would have without this intervention. A year or so after the treatment, Ashley X had reached what would now be her full adult height: 135 centimetres, or four foot five, weighing just 29 kilograms, or 63 pounds.

It is clear from their statements in the media, as well as their own blog (which they set up in 2007 to respond to criticism of Ashley’s treatment and then somewhat even promote the treatment as a potential solution for children and young people whose conditions are similar to Ashley’s), that Ashley’s parents believe the treatment has been a success and that it was the right decision to make.

On this blog, pillowangel.org, there is a rather complex and convoluted PowerPoint slide demonstrating which treatments were undertaken and the perceived benefits derived from those treatments that Ashley X underwent. It states that Ashley’s small size will make it easier to care for her, to lift her, carry her around and turn her in bed, preventing such issues as bed sores.

Her parents state that the aim of removing Ashley’s uterus was to prevent her from experiencing the discomfort and inconvenience of menstruation, as well as eliminating the possibility of pregnancy and even uterine cancer. They also state that this will minimise the risk of Ashley X being sexually abused. Ashley also, as I said, had her appendix removed, the perceived benefit of which being the elimination of the estimated 5 per cent chance of her developing appendicitis.

The name of the blog on which Ashley X’s parents discuss the treatment is pillowangel.org, pillow angel being a nickname they have given to Ashley and other children with similar disabilities to hers. This name was inspired by the fact that these children and young people are often seen propped up on a pillow to support their bodies and their heads.

You can read more about Ashley and her treatment and her family on that blog, but for now let us analyse just a bit of what we have already heard. Firstly, I note that the PowerPoint slide, which talks about the treatments that Ashley X underwent, talks about the ‘removal of tiny uterus’ and says that alternatives were explored but were found not to be nearly as effective. I also notice that the removal of Ashley’s breast buds were discussed in terms of removing glands that were only ‘almond sized’ and would ‘enlarge at puberty’. So, removing them, it is suggested, would eliminate the discomfort of large breasts, particularly while Ashley is lying down, which I understand she does often, or is in her support harness.

The slide show also states that the removal of breast buds will eliminate the risk of fibrocystic growths and, perhaps most interestingly, ‘avoid sexualisation toward caregiver’. Let us analyse those words for a moment. It is obvious that a six-year-old’s underdeveloped uterus and breast buds will be small, so I must say I cannot help but feel that the use of the words ‘tiny’ and ‘almond-sized’ is a deliberate attempt to downplay the gravity of the operations, not very much unlike the way in which doctors used to describe what we now know as diabetes as ‘a touch of sugar’, or the way I have been telling people that I have just had a small, lumpy mole removed from my left leg in an attempt to distract myself from my fear that I may, in fact, have skin cancer (I am pleased to report that this is not the case).

Let us be clear: this is a grave decision. It is a grave decision because no surgery, no medical procedure, is completely free of risk. No matter how tiny the piece is, you are still removing—permanently—a piece of another human being’s body. Nothing I have read makes it clear to me that menstruation would have been any more uncomfortable for Ashley than for the average person; hence, I see no medical reason for this case.

Next, we come to the assertion that stopping Ashley from developing breasts will prevent sexualisation towards the caregiver. It is not 100 per cent clear to me from this statement whether it is meant that Ashley will exhibit sexual behaviour as a result of growing breasts or whether the person supporting her might subject her to sexual behaviour, on their part, because of her breasts. Either way, this assertion would be laughable if it were not so sad. I dearly wish, as I am sure that we all do, that it were true that people without fully developed organs, including sexual organs, were immune from being sexually abused. If this were the case perhaps we would not see names like Shannon McCoole in our newspapers on what feels like an almost daily basis.

If the suggestion that Ashley’s developing breasts would enable the person supporting her to sexually abuse her, this must also be dismissed as completely false. Yes, a woman’s breasts can be used in some sexual contact, but their primary function is biological: that is, to provide milk in the case of birth. Breasts do not cause sexual assault. Uteri do not cause sexual assault. The person committing sexual assault causes sexual assault. It is violence, and no matter who that violence is perpetrated against it is violence.

If a person is not able to understand that they are being sexually abused, because they have an intellectual disability or they are undereducated or they are intoxicated, for example, it is still abuse. If I were to steal money from someone’s bank account a few dollars at a time in such a way that they did not immediately realise it was happening, it is still robbery. As such, it is dangerous to talk about such factors perhaps in a way excusing abuse. Violence is violence, assault is assault, no matter in what context it occurs.

I am also yet to meet a young woman who genuinely became completely and insatiably sexually rampant the moment she became aware she had breasts and a uterus. In fact, it has been argued before and I will argue it again—and I will elaborate on this shortly—that sterilisation does not decrease the risk of abuse but may in fact increase it. That is for a few reasons. One (and these are in no particular order) is that in the event a woman is sexually abused there is no risk of pregnancy where she does not have a uterus, so potentially there is no marker that she has been abused if she is unable to communicate that this has happened.

Of course, in a case where a person is not able to readily communicate they have been abused, and they are not known to be in any form of consensual sexual relationship, then that person suddenly turning up pregnant would, I hope, create some cause for concern and for further investigation. Secondly, the removal of the uterus diminishes the need, or at least the perceived need, for education around biology and sexuality.

I am a big advocate for people with disabilities needing to be more readily provided with education about sexuality and biology and for that education being provided in a way that is accessible to them, depending on their experiences and their disability. We know anecdotally that large numbers of people with disability miss out on sex education and education about their bodies purely because they have a disability and it is assumed that they will not be able to understand this education or that they will not need it because of the way in which people with disabilities are often at a societal level infantilised, seen as asexual, or worse still, seen as undesirable and that no-one would ever or could ever enter into a relationship with us, because why would you? As I said, I hope to elaborate on that later.

I would also challenge the assertion that the small size of people like Ashley is the only way that they can properly be supported by making it easier to lift her and prevent bed sores. How does this logic explain the number of people, for example, who have acquired disabilities later in life, perhaps as the result of a car accident well into adulthood who still manage either independently or with some assistance from family, friends or paid support workers or the use of equipment such as wheelchairs and hoists to live very happy and healthy lives?

Next we come to the frankly bizarre measure which as far as I can see is in no way directly related to Ashley’s disability—that is, the removal of her appendix to take away the quoted 5 per cent chance of her developing appendicitis. I am no doctor, but I have done some preliminary research into this and from that I take that a 5 per cent chance of developing appendicitis is really the same risk as exists in the general population.

We all have, all of us in this room, a 5 per cent chance of developing it and, from what I have read, the only factor that is consistently agreed to increase the chance of developing appendicitis and associated conditions is age. The only factor known to increase risk of cancer of the appendix is age. In other words, in this case, there is no proof that the risk of appendicitis is increased by Ashley’s disability nor that the appendix was causing any medical problems which would normally necessitate its removal such as it was making her uncomfortable in some way.

I find it hard to believe that most doctors, hopefully any doctor, would perform this procedure on a child without disability where there was no medical proof that it was needed and that there are no other options. I see this removal of the appendix as moving into the area of not being about disability and supporting the person’s disability by using the person’s disability as a gateway to gain bodily control of that person.

That brings us briefly to the case of Charley Hooper, the case that is mentioned in the text of this motion. Charley Hooper is now aged about 10 years and she is a young woman from New Zealand. She is blind, as I understand from what I have read. She has cerebral palsy and she does not speak. Her story came to light in about 2014-15 when her parents spoke to the media about their decision to have Charley undergo growth attenuation—the stopping of the growth—and a hysterectomy after coming across information about Ashley X.

What is unique about Charley Hooper’s case, though, as opposed to Ashley X’s case, is a rather strange loophole that enabled her growth attenuation treatment to go ahead. I understand from what I have read that, once Charley Hooper’s parents decided that this was the best way to support Charley, they began looking for a doctor in New Zealand who would prescribe the oestrogen therapy, the growth attenuation procedure. They did not find one, and the relevant medical ethics board would not approve the treatment. However, what they would approve is a doctor in New Zealand maintaining the treatment through the provision of oestrogen patches if the initial treatment was provided elsewhere.

So Charley and her family were soon on a plane to South Korea where the initial oestrogen treatment was provided and upon returning to New Zealand, as I understand it, a doctor there provided oestrogen patches to maintain the growth attenuation treatment. Charley Hooper has now completed that treatment.

Her parents state that as a result of this oestrogen treatment for growth attenuation her seizures on, which were previously as I understand unexplained, have stopped. However, apart from that I must say that most of the perceived benefits I have read about are really as obscure as those given in the Ashley X case.

Her family states that they can now take Charley on holiday more easily as she can sit on one of her parent’s laps on the plane. They say it is easy to now walk with her down the mall as they can carry her, and take her to the beach. Anyone who knows me—and I guess that is at least everyone in this room—has probably seen me walking down the mall, has probably seen me at the beach in my full adult size in my wheelchair.

What concerns me is again this assumption that where disability comes in we stop asking the questions about what other measures might be possible to be used. We stop asking the questions about whether this is the right thing to do, and we enable these loopholes to occur where people like Charley slip through them. Even though no medical board would approve the treatment, she slipped through this bizarre loophole. If these loopholes can exist in New Zealand, just across the pond, I am not convinced that they cannot exist here—and I will elaborate on that in a moment.

In fairness to Charley Hooper’s family, particularly in fairness to her mother, Jen Hooper, she has discussed in the media considering the use of hoists and other measures to assist in lifting and supporting Charley if she were to grow to full adult height and weight. However, the conclusion that she reached was that given that Charley is assumed to have the cognitive functioning of a newborn that she might want the same things as a newborn. Newborns want to be held, they want to be cradled—you do not often see a newborn in a hoist to get them in and out of bed.

However, if this is true, if we are really thinking about what a newborn wants, I think we also have to ask ourselves if a newborn would want to be subjected to some pretty invasive medical procedures that will impact their life from that day on and for the rest of their life. Is that really what we want to put a newborn through?

I want to pause to make a few things clear at this point, the first being that I am not against and Dignity for Disability is not against these procedures where there is a clear medical need for them separate to the disability. That is indeed why the motion that is before us talks about a total ban on such treatments for which there is no medical indication. I have drawn the words ‘no medical indication’ from advice from the Australia Medical Association (AMA) SA Branch. I have met with them about this motion.

I have to say those representatives I met with were quite shocked that any doctor, no matter where they are—Seattle, New Zealand or Australia—would consider these things unless there was a clear medical indication that is separate to the disability. Of course, if a person with a disability has cancer, appendicitis, uterine cancer and so on and so forth and there are medical procedures that need to be undertaken to improve the health and the longevity of life and save a person’s life, I am not against that. However, what I am against and very strongly against, and what I believe we should be against in this chamber and in this parliament today, is the denial of bodily autonomy and integrity of people with disabilities simply on the grounds of our disabilities.

I also want to make it clear that I am not here to demonise particular individuals and the decisions they have made. As I said, it is very clear from the statements that have been made by the parents of people like Charley Hooper and Ashley X that they believe that this was the best decision in the best interests of their family and their child, but what I do question and challenge, and what I think we should all challenge here today and far beyond, is the social context which in some ways must inform these decisions.

This social context was again brought to my mind by another case that I read about a month or so ago in the media. I regularly keep up with disability rights news. I came across this story which is again from New Zealand. I am not sure what is happening in New Zealand at the moment, but this was another case in New Zealand where a young woman with an intellectual disability had her family apply to a court to have her sterilised, despite the fact that this woman is an accomplished athlete which, I guess, indicates that she is able to contribute and make decisions about her career path, her hobbies, her life and what she wants to do. She is clearly able to make those decisions.

But what was most chilling about this case is that the court found that this young woman was already taking a contraceptive pill regularly and responsibly. She was already taking measures to control her contraception and her fertility. She was already taking measures that most other people would consider adequate on their own. I know of no person without a disability who has had their mother or father apply to the court because they did not think that taking the pill was measure enough to prevent against pregnancy.

Again, we saw the quotes in this article from this person’s parents saying, ‘Well, what are we supposed to do if this young woman does get pregnant? We are getting older. We are not going to take care of her baby.’ This, again, shows how clearly these decisions are focused on the perceived incapacity of people with disabilities to make decisions about our own bodies and our own lives and to provide us with the tools to make those decisions rather than taking away those choices before we have had the chance to develop these skills.

This is something that I have talked about a lot and I want to talk about it again. We still, as a society, are focused far too much on the perceived or presumed incapacity of people with disabilities in a way that we would not presume incapacity of a person without disability, and this happens in everything from education—I mean strict academic education—to education about our bodies and education about sex and relationships and our social opportunities. We are still, at a societal level, so focused on the presumed incapacity of people with disabilities that that fear and that assumption controls the lives of people with disabilities unnecessarily.

My one-year-old nephew, Jordy, has not yet learnt everything that I hope he will learn throughout his life to keep himself safe, to achieve the life he wants to lead, to make friends, and all those things, but I have not said, ‘Well, I gave you a year and you have shown no ability to learn these things yet. You’re not tying your shoes yet. You’re not making your own friends yet. You’re not cooking your own meals yet, so let’s assume that you will never be able to do those things.’ Yet so often we make assumptions about people with disabilities that we have not yet learned to cook our own meals, dress ourselves, make decisions about our bodies, and learn about our bodies in relationships and sexuality, and therefore we will never be able to.

There are some quotes from a report which further talks about some of the reasons that sterilisation is often seen as an option for people with disabilities in modern-day Australia, and I want to talk about some of those. This is a report from Women with Disabilities Australia, the peak body representing—as you would have guessed—women with disability in Australia, which was done in 2013. It is called Dehumanised, and it talks about the experience of sterilisation of women and girls with disabilities in Australia.

Let’s keep in mind too that this report was done, I repeat, in 2013, so as much as we like to think that the issue of sterilisation or forced and coerced sterilisation was dealt with around the eighties, the fact that we are still discussing this and still reporting this in modern-day Australia shows this not to be the case. I want to read a bit from this report and go through some of the reasons why sterilisation of women and girls with disabilities is often seen as the default option and why those reasons need to be refuted. The first reason talks about what is called in this report ‘the good of the state, community or family’, and the quote reads thus:

Arguments here centre on the ‘burden’ that disabled women and girls and their potentially disabled children place on the resources and services funded by the state and provided through the community. A related and very commonly used argument, is the added ‘burden of care’ that menstrual and contraceptive management places on families and carers.

In a recent case, the Family Court of Australia authorised the sterilisation of an 11 year old girl with Rett Syndrome. The application was made by the young girl’s mother to prevent menstruation. No independent children’s lawyer was appointed to advocate for the girl, as the judge determined it would be of ‘no benefit’. In accepting ‘without hesitation ‘ the evidence of Dr T, an Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, the judge said:

‘Undoubtedly and certainly of significant relevance is that there are hygiene issues which must fall to the responsibility of her mother because Angela cannot provide for herself…the operation would certainly be a social improvement for Angela’ s mother which in itself must improve the quality of Angela’ s life.’

The report then goes on to state:

The ‘burden’ of parents having to deal with menstrual management of their disabled daughters is often used as a valid justification when Australian Courts authorise the sterilisation of disabled females—even before the onset of puberty. For example, in authorising the sterilisation of a 12 year old girl in 2004, the Court accepted medical ‘evidence’ that caring for her was an ‘ onerous responsibility ‘ on her parents and that sterilisation would make the task of caring for her ‘ somewhat less onerous ‘, including that it would ‘ make it easier for her carers if they had one less medication to administer.’

In the case of Re Katie,118 the Court authorised the 15 year olds sterilisation at the onset of her menstruation, on the grounds that there would be ‘appreciable easing of the burden’ on the parents as primary carers.

A quote from the judge went on to say:

‘It will lessen the physical burdens for the mother, in particular by decreasing the number of changes necessary in toileting, and quite possibly lessening the physical reactions, such as stiffening in body tone, which make Katie more difficult to handle during menstruation. It would lessen, for the parents, the risks of infection…Katie’s emotional welfare is best served by her continuing to reside in the family and by the demands of her presence being lessened as much as possible, to maximise the ability of the family, in particular the mother, to cope with Katie’s needs. Thus the interests of Katie are inextricably linked with the ability of her parents to cope with the burdens of Katie’s care.’

In late 2011, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) authorised the sterilisation of ‘HGL’, a ‘severely intellectually disabled’ 18 year old girl whose menstrual periods had commenced at the age of 17, which according to her parents, caused her ‘distress’. Although it was agreed that ‘ the current hormone treatment is managing HGL ‘ S menstruation ‘ , a hysterectomy was authorised because:

‘ there are risks that the medication will over time fail to achieve this effect and…HGL ‘ s current impairments mean that she will not be a candidate for surgery indefinitely. ‘

Again, even in Australia, in cases where menstrual management medication is being used and is being proved to be effective, we still see this vying for further control over the bodily autonomy of a person with a disability. The report goes on to state a further case, the case of Re S:

…a 12 year old ‘severely intellectually disabled girl’ who lived in an institution and who had not yet begun to menstruate , the Family Court granted authorisation for her [sterilisation] because , according to the specialist paediatric surgeon [who agreed] to carry out the operation:

‘it would be wiser to avoid problems rather than to wait and see if S copes with menstruation…surely there is no need for her to suffer the problems that may arise with…menstruation’ , which included ‘the possibility that she would develop a phobia of blood’ . The judge agreed this was a ‘realistic and appropriate view’ and that ‘there is no point in the child going through the problems associated with menstruation if she is not ever to bear children’.

In another case, the case of Re M:

… the Family Court authorised the sterilisation of a 15 year old girl prior to the onset of menstruation upon the basis that such treatment was ‘necessary to prevent serious damage to the child’s health.’ The rationale for this decision included that: the young girl’s mother and sister experienced ‘painful periods’ and ‘there is a very real risk that the same will happen to M’ …the young girl… played with herself’ and this ‘behaviour’, coupled with menstruation, ‘could cause infections’ . Additional reasons for the decision to sterilise M included that she was: ‘aggressive’; ‘strong-willed’; ‘stubborn’ ; had a ‘poor frustration tolerance’ , was ‘unco-operative’ ; was ‘a loner’ and had ‘few friends’ .

In yet another case of a young disabled girl aged 15 years who had yet to commence menstruation, sterilisation was authorised by the Family Court in support of her mother’s submission that menstruation ‘might induce a higher incidence of fits; and the sight of unexplained blood will lead to confusion and fear , which could lead to an increased incidence of fitting’ .

The report continues:

‘Bad and unruly behaviour’ associated with menstruation is another dimension in applications for, and authorisations of sterilisation of young disabled girls and women…

In a 2011 application to the NSW Guardianship Tribunal , a specialist gynaecologist (Dr HJK) lodged an application to perform a sterilisation procedure on a 22 year old woman with Down Syndrome. In [his] application form Dr HJK recorded the proposed treatment, but he did not provide any details of the treatment , its consequences or provide details of complications likely to be associated with the procedure. He did record that Miss XTV has Down’s Syndrome and that ‘Patient becomes distressed and difficult to manage during menstruation’ . The ‘ behaviour management problems during menstruation’ identified by Miss XTV ‘ s mother in the application , and supported by the gynaecologist, included that Miss XTV became ‘obsessive with possessions; exhibited anxiety at any change in circumstance and routine; regressed with self-help skills; and developed a phobia about barricades on upper floors of shopping centres ‘.

All of the application was dismissed in 2012. The tribunal stated:

We take this opportunity to note that should the alternate procedure of the insertion of a Mirena IUCD not be carried out, or carried out but not prove effective, and/or other causes of Miss XTV’s behaviours be eliminated, the…onus required to be satisfied to give consent to endometrial ablation may be met. In those circumstances there is nothing to prevent a further application to the Tribunal for consent.

The report goes on to read—and this is a point that I want to make very strongly, and the report makes it very eloquently, so I want to again read from this report:

In terms of the ‘burden’ on families of the care of girls and women with disabilities, lack of resources and appropriate education and support services, respite care, school and post-school options, see many families already struggling to manage the care of their girl or young woman with disabilities. Faced with the prospect of added personal care tasks in dealing with menstruation and in the limited availability or accessibility of specific reproductive health and training services (including those for menstrual management), families may well see sterilisation as the only option open to them. The denial of a young woman’s human rights through the performance of an irreversible medical intervention with long term physical and psychological health risks is wrongly seen as the most appropriate solution to the social problem of lack of services and support.

Evidence suggests however that menstrual and contraceptive concerns, even for women and girls with high support needs can be successfully met with approaches usually taken with non-disabled women and girls. Research has found that when parents and carers are given appropriate support and resources the issue of sterilisation loses potency.

The report continues:

A diagnosis of intellectual disability does not by itself constitute a clinical reason for sterilisation. The onset of menstruation is the same in girls with and without intellectual disabilities, and girls with intellectual disabilities present with the same types of common menstrual problems as the rest of the young female population. Arguments for elimination of menstruation in girls and young women with disabilities are primarily about social taboos.

Sterilisation is not ‘a treatment of choice’ for non-disabled females who are approaching menstruation, who menstruate, or who experience menstrual problems. Like their non-disabled counterparts, women and girls with disabilities have the right to bodily integrity, the right to procreate, the right to sexual pleasure and expression, the right for their bodies to develop in a natural way, and the right to be parents.

Then of course we get onto the issue of the perceived incapacity for parenthood, which many people with disabilities face. The report on this issue reads:

Australia has a history of removing children from their natural parents based on the personal characteristic of the parents, such as indigenous background or marital status. In Australia today, a parent with a disability is up to ten times more likely than other parents to have a child removed from their care.

I will conclude my remarks after the dinner break.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I think when we left off we were up to the discussion around the incapacity or perceived incapacity of people with disabilities to parent, and how that sometimes leads to the decision to sterilise and thereby eliminate the possibility of becoming a parent. Certainly, there have been many policies in Australia that have seen the forced removal of children from parents including, of course, people of Aboriginal backgrounds and people based on their marital status. In present-day Australia, it is still not uncommon to hear of parents with disabilities having their children removed from their care on the grounds of their disability, even if their need for support is not properly assessed.

It is these widely-held views that disabled women, in particular, cannot be effective parents that leads to pressure for them to be sterilised. That is another issue that we face as well, and that issue indicates very strongly that this is not even about sterilisation or menstrual management. It is not about any of those things. It is about society’s perception of the capacities of people with disability. At every turn they are demonised, they are not trusted and they are not supported to achieve what they could achieve with support, because we prevent them from having children but, at the same time, if they do have children we take them away.

Clearly, it is not just about the menstrual management and the biological function but about the societal perception of people with disabilities which continues to be based on what George W. Bush once accurately termed ‘the burden of low expectation’. I certainly do not often agree with George W. Bush, but I think he got it right in that instance.

I want to talk about the fact that sterilisation is often seen as being in the best interests of the person on whom the procedure is being performed. This ideology, in effect, does not meet the best interests of the person with a disability, but has quite the opposite effect. It results in disciplinary attitudes and actions against girls and women with disability in particular, and has only served to facilitate the practice of forced sterilisation. We are yet to hear of a case where somebody has said, ‘Okay, it might be in the best interest of this person to be left alone and to figure out what they want to do in their life.’

In fact, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has made it clear that the principle of ‘in the best interest of a child’ cannot be used to justify practices which conflict with the child’s human dignity and right to physical integrity. Clearly, ‘in the best interest’ cannot be used as a reason to take away somebody’s natural bodily function unless, of course, there are, as I said, medical indications, where not performing that procedure would result in severe negative impacts on a person’s health or longevity and so on.

I want to touch on just a few quotes, and these are quotes, so I hope you will forgive me for reading them out, but the reason that I want to touch on them is that I think they talk about the long-reaching effect that forced sterilisation has on women, in particular with disabilities. One woman said, ‘It has resulted in the loss of my identity as a woman and as a sexual being.’ Another person says, ‘I have been denied the same joys and aspirations as other women.’ Another says, ‘It stops us from having children if we want to.’ Another says, ‘I worry about the future health effects like osteoporosis and other problems.’ Another says, ‘The fact that services are not there is no reason for sterilisation,’ and that certainly goes to what we talked about before and what is mentioned in this motion where it says that sterilisation must only be an option when all other measures, including increased support, have been exhausted.

Interestingly, another woman says, ‘I want to experience a period.’ So often we hear those stories that I touched upon earlier where people presume that they are taking away from a woman the pain, discomfort and inconvenience of menstruation, but no-one has actually ever asked that woman whether she wants to experience that and whether she would like to have the choice to decide whether it is too much for her to bear or not. So just let that sink in—’I want to experience a period.’ Another woman says:

If they told me the truth and asked me, I would have shouted no. My sterilisation makes me feel like I’m less of a woman when I have sex because I am not normal down there. When I see other mums holding their babies I look away and cry because I won’t ever know that happiness.

A final quote:

I was sterilised and I wasn’t even told when I was getting it done. The specialist told mum about it but I didn’t know I’d had it done until I was 18.

It is clear that women with disabilities do have the capacity to make choices about their reproductive health, their bodily integrity, their autonomy and their futures, but to do that we need to be supported. We need to have accessible education about these things. We need to have a societal discussion that focuses on presumed capacity rather than incapacity that we talked about before and, most of all, we need a government that will take leadership on this.

That is the final point that I want to make in my contribution today, because when I first heard about the case of Charley Hooper in the media, I wrote to the Minister for Health in the other place seeking his perspective on whether such a case might be able to occur in Australia and in South Australia in particular. I was particularly interested in the idea of that loophole that we talked about before where Charley Hooper could not find a doctor to approve the initial procedure in New Zealand but found one in South Korea, and then fell into this bizarre ethical loophole where the doctors would then maintain it even though they did not condone it being done in the first place.

The minister wrote back to me (and I apologise that I do not have a copy of his letter with me this evening, but I am sure that if I misquote him in any way he will be quick to tell me, but I will certainly be making an effort not to do that), and he assured me that in Australia we need court approval for sterilisation and other extreme medical procedures, including growth attenuation. Of course we have other statutory offices like the Office of the Public Advocate as a back up, so to speak. Certainly I am very pleased we have those procedures in place, but given some of the loopholes or cases we talked about earlier in those quotes, where courts have deemed sterilisation to be necessary, even when there is not a clear medical indication I am not convinced that that on its own is enough.

The minister’s letter then closed with words to the effect of, ‘Australia is also a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which protects the rights of people with disabilities’. With all due respect to the minister, it is certainly not news to me that Australia is a signatory to the UNCRPD, which of course is a document putting in place standards and guidelines concerning the legal, social and political rights and freedoms of all persons with disability, particularly around gender.

But the fact of the matter is that as well written a document as it is, the UNCRPD is a document—it is just that, it is a piece of paper. Certainly it is a very aspirational, very ambitious, document, and certainly puts in place some standards and guidelines that we should all work toward implementing, but the document itself cannot implement those. Without proper action from government, the guidelines in that document will come to little or in fact no good.

What might interest the minister, if he is so convinced that the UNCRPD protects people with disabilities in and of itself, is that the United Nations as a body has in fact recognised that this is not the case. In fact, in July 2010, at its 46th session, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (or the CEDAW) expressed its concern in its concluding observations on Australia report, the ongoing practice of non-therapeutic sterilisation of women and girls with disabilities, and recommended that the Australian government enact national legislation prohibiting, except where there is a serious threat to life or health, the use of sterilisation of girls, regardless of whether they have a disability (adult women with disabilities), in the absence of their fully informed and free consent.

That is exactly what we are debating here today: the ability of women and girls with disabilities, with or without disabilities, to make fully informed, free consent about our futures. Certainly of course there are many reasons why their support does not come. Ultimately it is cheaper to sterilise someone than it is to provide accessible ongoing education, hoists, lifts and all those other supports.

Let me put it this way, and when I put it this way I want you to think about quotes from those women who have experienced forced and coerced sterilisation without their consent: if you are paying for something with a piece of your body, if you are paying for something with your autonomy, if you are paying for something with your sense of integrity, if you are paying for something with your sense of gender and your sense of identity, if you are paying for something with the future that you had perceived for yourself, if you are a person who planned on having children and now cannot do so because of the decisions that were made for you by others, then it is not cheap. It is not cheap to pay for things with the souls of South Australians, the integrity of South Australians, the futures of South Australians and the rights of South Australians.

So, certainly I hope that the Minister for Health will join us in ensuring that on the state level we have legislation and other measures in place prohibiting the non-therapeutic, non-medical sterilisation of women and girls with disabilities, and I certainly would also like to see him advocating this on a national level as well. As I have said, the CEDAW, Women with Disabilities Australia and the World Health Organisation have all long called for a legislative nationally consistent ban on the non-therapeutic, non-medical sterilisation of women with disabilities. To date, the Australian government has failed to comply with that recommendation.

I am acutely aware that given that this motion was based on the cases of Ashley X and Charley Hooper they are probably the people whom I have spent the least time talking about in my contribution today, but that is because, simply, it is not about Charley Hooper and it is not about Ashley X; it is about the fact that we have legislation and that we have a societal attitude still in modern day South Australia that allows this practice to happen, and unfortunately Ashley X and Charley Hooper are just two examples of those people.

Certainly, we would like to see the minister work for a more consistent approach on this and keep a more consistent eye on this issue, because it will not properly be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It needs a concerted, concentrated, conscious effort, because if, as the minister says, we are signatory to the UNCRPD and we believe in the legal autonomy and the bodily autonomy, integrity and capacity of every person, then those things must always be recognised as human rights and thus must be afforded to every human, every time, every day, consciously and continually, without exception and without excuses.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.A. Darley.

That this council—

1. Notes the widespread concern in the Australian arts community about the new National Programme for Excellence in the Arts recently announced by the federal government, expressed through the “#FreeTheArts” social media campaign;
2. Recognises the importance of supporting creativity and expressing a diversity of views and experiences in the arts;
3. Recognises the vital role played by new and emerging artists and small to medium-sized arts enterprises in ensuring the future of the arts industry in South Australia; and
4. Recognises the economic and social contribution of the arts industry and festivals to the South Australian economy.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition): I move to amend the motion, as follows:

Paragraph 1—Leave out paragraph 1 and insert new paragraph—

1. Welcomes the federal government move from the proposed National Program for Excellence in the Arts to Catalyst and urges the federal government to be sensitive to and supportive of the arts and festival sectors in smaller states and territories which are rich in small to medium e nterprises and emerging artists;

The Australia Council is the federal government’s principal arts funding body and uses an arm’s length, peer-reviewed grants model. The scheme proposed by minister Brandis as the National Program for Excellence in the Arts (NPEA) was not going to be peer reviewed and was to focus on large arts companies.

Arts organisations complained that funding decisions could be subject to political interference and said that wealthy organisations would be likely to benefit at the expense of smaller, emerging organisations. That is why we have moved this amendment—to make sure that the federal government is sensitive to and supportive of the arts in all sectors of the nation, especially here in the smaller states and territories.

Under the NPEA scheme, South Australian arts stakeholders would be significantly disadvantaged in terms of their access to federal funding. The model would favour the larger arts companies that are predominantly based in the Eastern States. The shadow minister for the arts (Hon. Stephen Wade) wrote to Senator Fifield in October to express concern about the National Program for Excellence in the Arts and, in part, the letter read:

Whilst I appreciate that the program i s still under development, I wanted to be in contact with you to highlight the potential impacts in South Australia.

South Australia is a state which has a strong arts and festival culture. In both arts and the wider economy, South Australia is particularly strong in small to medium enterprises. These enterprises are often the training ground for emerging artists, who go on to larger venues.

There is widespread concern in the arts sector in South Australia that the Commonwealth proposal will, in particular, hit small to medium enterprises.

I ask that in any changes to the Commonwealth approach to arts funding you avoid adverse effects on the impacts in South Australia.

In a recent announcement, minister Fifield renamed NPEA to Catalyst. He said there will be approximately $70 million worth of funding redirected from the Australia Council to Catalyst. As is to be expected, the relocation of funding was very controversial and met with much backlash from the arts community nationally, but in particular in South Australia. The new Catalyst fund will be open to small, medium and large arts organisations at a national, regional and community level. It has been stressed that the fund will recognise the essential role of small to medium organisations.

Applications for funding under Catalyst will be assessed with the input of the independent expert assessors. That is why I have moved this amendment. We have seen the state government here attack the federal government mercilessly over the last couple of years, with millions of dollars of advertising campaigns. I am not sure that in the end it has actually had any impact, though they might say they claimed the scalp of a prime minister, but at the end of the day I do not believe—

The Hon. G.A. Kandelaars interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Gerry Kandelaars laughs at that, but in the end I expect that you will see the federal government make some sensible decisions about the future of South Australia in relation to a whole range of programs the federal government funds. The government has been prepared to bloody the nose of the federal government, and really all they have done is damage relationships between South Australia and the federal government. Why I have moved the amendment is that we should be a bit more respectful, but then ask the government to be sensitive in this new program. I repeat:

…to be sensitive to and supportive of the arts and festival sectors in smaller states and territories, which are rich in small to medium enterprises and emerging artists;

I would urge all members to support my amendment.

The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition wants to be respectful. That is good to see. The Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the motion of the Hon. Kelly Vincent, and indeed to amend it to reflect the current state. I move:

Leave out paragraph 1 and insert new paragraph—

1. Recognises that the federal government has moved from the National Program for Excellence in the Arts to its Catalyst program and notes that there is still significant concern among people in the arts industry about this program, and recognises that the widespread preference among arts workers is that the federal government restore all lost funding to the Australia Council for the Arts;

The motion that the Hon. Kelly Vincent put before us was indeed to raise awareness of this council and this parliament of the vicious federal government attacks on the arts. Minister Brandis may have moved on, but minister Fifield has not remedied the errors left for him to sort out. He has attempted to make amends, and there has been general alarm in the arts community. A Senate inquiry into the arts budget as a result of these changes attracted 2,260-plus submissions.

There were so many that even a week before the inquiry was due to table its report, they were still not all uploaded to the Senate inquiry’s site. Overwhelmingly, these submissions argued against the NPEA. Submission after submission called for evidence-based policy. The previous attorney-general was intransigent on this issue, so I will commend minister Fifield for at least attempting to make amends, but as arts ABC reporter and blogger Alison Croggon wrote:

The announcement followed months of unprecedented lobbying and protest from a galvanised arts community, and in some quarters was hailed as a victory. But reports of the death of the NPEA are greatly exaggerated.

We may have something slightly better, but it is still not what the people of Australia deserve and certainly the arts community of our state deserve. This motion is most important because it focuses on the small to medium sector and, in fact, South Australia has the most to lose from attacks on that part of the arts industry. The media release from #FreeTheArts on 20 November this year notes that ‘$8m/year goes back for individual artists,’ under the Fifield changes, ‘but small to medium companies are at major risk.’ This is hardly a victory for the small to medium sector of this industry. It continues:

Arts Minister Mitch Fifield has missed the perfect opportunity to repair the damage done by his infamous predecessor. The government has decided to ignore the overwhelming advice in thousands of submissions to the Senate Inquiry to return the NPEA funding to the Australia Council in full. The return of $8m per year over four years for individual artists is welcomed, and will hopefully alleviate some of the extraordinary pressure on project funding rounds, where success rates have reportedly fallen below 10 per cent . It is a significant win for the sector and the Free the Arts campaign. However, despite being named a priority for Catalyst project funding, the big losers look to be small to medium arts companies.

Free the Arts spokesperson Norm Horton said:

‘On balance we have to say this looks to be a bad deal for the arts sector, and small to mediums in particular…’

Free the Arts spokesperson Sara Moynihan said:

Although the new Minister has taken time to meet and consult with the sector unfortunately it seems he hasn’t listened to some key messages. The fact that this major decision has again been taken without an evidence-based national arts policy in place means that this is another example of policy on the run. The Minister should really have gone back to drawing board and worked with the sector to fix the problems together.

My party’s spokesperson on this issue, Senator Scott Ludlam, supported a Labor motion condemning this move on 23 November in the Senate. Senator Ludlam was an active member of that Senate inquiry, which was chaired by Senator Lazarus, and also actively attended by Senator Bilyk. Senator Scott Ludlam says his statement in the parliament:

Senator George Brandi s broke something that did not need fixing. The alternative plan is to have not established this $100 million vanity project which has been condemned from one end of the country to another.

He continues:

I have been to a lot of Senate inquiries in my brief time in this place, and I have never seen this degree of unanimity of representation from one end of this country to another. Senator Bilyk and I have been chasing the inquiry that Senator Lazarus has been chairing for a couple of months now. I have never seen such a diversity of witnesses with such a unanimity of point of view. The NPEA, which has now been renamed, rebranded, as Catalyst, is uniformly despised. I should say that it is almost universally despised. We did find one witness, who gave evidence on a rainy afternoon in Parramatta a couple of weeks back, who had been knocked back for Australia Council funding a couple of years ago, who had a gripe and who thought this new thing could be good.

I note that that witness was a former Family First candidate, and certainly finding one voice among the many thousands to support former minister Brandis’ vanity project, as my colleague quite rightly called it. Senator Ludlam goes on to say:

Apart from that, we heard from contemporary performing arts companies, dance companies, theatre companies, the local music industry, visual artists and designers, writers, digital artists, community and regional arts centres, practitioners and those who support them, arts lawyers, community arts centres, regional arts centres, peak representative bodies, publishers and teachers the length and breadth of the country and of Australia’s extraordinarily diverse and powerful arts sector who thought this should never have happened in the first place. In fact, they thought that they should not have been brought into the Senate inquiry, into this format where they had to defend something that had been broken when simply it did not need fixing—by Senator George Brandis or by anybody else.

This was an announcement that happened in May and that the Australia Council found out about on budget day, when Senator Brandis condescended to give the head of the Australia Council a phone call to let him know the government had ripped this money out of the Australia Council’s peer-reviewed process, which allows all comers to put forward their creative proposals, and put it into this isolated slush fund. There were a couple of draft guidelines that followed a few weeks later that simply made the problem wors e , and made the apprehension and the misgivings even worse.

We saw 2,260 submissions made to that inquiry.. . if you comb through them [as Senator Smith in the Senate has said] you will find a very small handful, you will find one or two; you will find not more than a dozen of those 2,500 submissions that supported the idea, for various reasons—that is fine; they have the right to submit to these inquir i es as well—and an avalanche of dissent to this proposal. We have held 10 hearings across the country, and 218 organisations have presented, with this extraordinary opposition. We saw something last week from minister Fifield—and give him his due; there was a selective sigh of relief around the country when Senator Brandis lost that portfolio; go out and concentrate on other staff and leave the arts the hell alone. There was a bit of a sigh of relief, but you could not miss the intent. The intent, laid on Senator Fifield’s broad shoulders is: ‘Fix this mess. Make this go away.

So now, instead of a $20 million Senator Brandis slush fund, we have a $12 million Senator Fifield slush fund.

Not good enough! New leader, same old policies; new arts minister, same attitude. It is not good enough for our arts sector in South Australia, and those members of the opposition in this house should be standing up for our arts sector.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I rise on behalf of the government to support the Hon. Kelly Vincent’s motion. I am happy to support the Hon. Tammy Franks’ amendments that she just moved. I thank both the Hon. Kelly Vincent for moving this motion and the Hon. Tammy Franks for moving the amendments subsequently.

Back in May the federal government announced that $104.8 million over four years would be cut from the Australia Council for the Arts to establish the National Program of Excellence in the Arts (NPEA). This announcement was made with no consultation with the arts community, and with no clarification about what it would mean for the future of our small and medium arts sector.

In South Australia our independent artists in our small and medium arts community are the lifeblood of our creative sector and rely on a mix of state and commonwealth funding as well as private sponsorship to thrive.

The reduction of funding to the Australia Council, while requiring it to continue to deliver government-directed programs at current levels, including the Major Performing Arts Framework and the Visual Arts and Crafts Strategy, will affect its ability to support smaller arts organisations and independent artists.

When the changes to funding were made, the Australia Council had to suspend its Six-Year Funding for Organisations program to which many of South Australia’s arts organisations had applied. This funding would have seen organisations, such as Windmill Theatre and Slingsby, secure long-term funding, ensuring their future and removing the red tape of having to apply for funding on an annual basis. These changes created so much anxiety in our community as some of our brilliant small and medium organisations, after pouring their heart and soul into these funding applications, were left in limbo.

Following the announcement of the NPEA, the Australian arts community expressed its concern through the social media campaign #Freethearts, amongst other avenues. Locally, our Arts Industry Council led the way, and I was pleased to see all sections of our arts community coming together and presenting a united front to oppose the changes.

The Minister for the Arts, the Hon. Jack Snelling MP, led the opposition through these changes on a national front. After many unanswered letters and meeting requests, in October this year minister Snelling participated in the meeting of cultural ministers with representatives of all Australian states and territories. Minister Snelling expressed in no uncertain terms the views of the arts community and the dire consequences of the changes to our vibrant arts sector.

While minister Snelling fought against the changes, the state opposition was nowhere to be seen. As with the submarines, when it came to standing up for the community, they went into hiding. I note that today the Hon. David Ridgway moved on behalf of the shadow minister, the Hon. Stephen Wade, an amended version of this motion. I must say, it is rich for him to now try to commend the government for the compromised Catalyst program when, while the Labor government and the federal Greens Party were fighting against these changes, they were denying there would even be an impact.

I refer the house to the comments in the other place by the member for Dunstan, who interjected while minister Snelling was responding to a question around changes on 22 September, dismissing the concerns of the arts community as rubbish. Now that the changes have been made, they want to jump on board. They want to acknowledge that the NPEA was a bad idea and give themselves a pat on the back.

While over there they are patting themselves on the back, the government will continue its fight against the new Catalyst program. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. This program will still see cuts to the Australia Council. It continues to ignore the importance of our individual makers and presenters. It still creates a double-up of bureaucracy in the arts ministry.

The state government welcomes the federal government performing a partial backflip, restoring some of the funding through this compromised Catalyst program, but ultimately we support the amendment, and obviously the motion, because we acknowledge that these changes have not alleviated the concerns of the arts community. We call upon the federal government to listen to the arts sector and restore the full funding to the Australia Council.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Kelly Vincent’s motion.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Can I thank all the speakers to the motion: the Hon. Tung Ngo, the Hon. David Ridgway, the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Mr Darley. I do not think I have forgotten anyone. I also thank Ms Franks for moving the amendment to my motion, as I was not able to move it myself as the motion was in my name, but I did think that having that amendment in place was far better and far more respectful of the concern in the arts community than the Liberal opposition’s amendment.

I do appreciate what the Liberal opposition is trying to achieve. I think, to put it bluntly, they are trying to straddle two worlds—that is, show support for the arts community but not upset their Liberal brethren at the federal level too much. I am here moving this motion to support the arts community point blank and, quite frankly, I do not really care who I have to upset to do that.

Can I also say in regard to the Hon. Mr Ngo’s motion that I thank the government for their response and very much look forward to seeing his Fringe show where he attempts to put lipstick on a pig. I think it will be a great one-man show and I am sure that all of us will come to see that.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Yes, English is weird. It is clear that artists currently working in the industry see this move to the Catalyst program, away from the National Program for Excellence in the Arts, as not much of a move at all but rather as an attempt at a quick fix to stop artists speaking out against the government rather than actually supporting artists and adequately recognising the social and economic impact they make to our state and our nation.

It seems clear, too, that the preference is still to return the funding to the Australia Council and for this reason I do not support the Liberal amendment to the motion. Furthermore, I note with some dismay that the opposition amendment asks the federal government to be ‘sensitive’ to the needs of artists, particularly emerging artists and artists of diverse background. I respectfully suggest that one can actually be sensitive to a need, or a feeling or a concern, without necessarily acting on that. As an example, when I take my cat to the vet and she has to be poked and prodded in all kinds of horrible ways, I am extremely sensitive to the fact that she does not enjoy that at all, but I still do it.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I am sure the vet could put lipstick on a pig. Next time I take Daisy to the vet I will be sure to ask her. Furthermore, moving right along, call me bitter and twisted and cynical, but given that the government has already, under its move to the National Program for Excellence in the Arts, thrown the funding cycle of many artists and organisations—and therefore their livelihood—into uncertainty earlier this year, I do not actually have a lot of confidence in the ability of government to be sensitive to the needs of arts workers, given that it threw their livelihoods and their futures into disarray and into uncertainty without so much as a peep of consultation earlier in the year. Therefore, I am very pleased to see the amendment (which I drafted but was moved by the Hon. Ms Franks) passed with the support of the council.

To surmise why the arts industry does not see the move to the Catalyst program as much of a shift at all, I want to quote from an article which was published in Daily Review just the other day,written by Richard Letts, who I understand is the chair of The Music Trust. He says:

The new Federal Arts Minister, Senator Mitch Fifield, visited a very political meeting of arts industry leaders a few weeks ago. It was called by #Freethearts to continue opposition to recently ousted Arts Minister Senator George Brandis’s transfer of $105 million of Australia Council funds to his own Arts ministry.

Senator Fifield was warm, conciliatory, and—for a few moments—frank in his criticism of Brandis’s management.

By way of introducing himself to his audience, Senator Fifield said that he was often asked whether he attends arts performances.

And yes, he does. He reeled off a list of events in which the artists were disabled people.

At a guess, this was meant to surprise. But I recall meeting him years ago when he was supporting music education programs in disadvantaged schools because, among other things, they were so broadly beneficial to the kids. There was no apparent political advantage in this. His interest in the disadvantaged and disabled seems quite genuine.

The music education program is an example of the ‘instrumental use’ of the arts. Senator Brandis proclaimed that he was an art-for-art’s-sake man. He was critical of Labor’s Simon Crean who as arts minister created an arts policy that ‘joined the dots’—the dots being all the places in which the arts could bring public benefit. This could include using the arts to rehabilitate prisoners, give stroke victims back their voice, or children the desire to be at school.

I would assert that the arts do all of these things best when the arts are at their best. Arts for art’s sake and arts for people’s sake.

For Brandis, art for art’s sake meant support for high ‘heritage arts’ and that tends to be the world view of conservative parliamentarians. But not, apparently, of Mitch Fifield.

The very strong opinion of the #Freethearts meeting was that Senator Fifield should return all of the funds Senator Brandis hijacked from the Australia Council.

He was asked at the meeting to explain what was the benefit of putting the Australia Council funds under the control of the arts ministry. He had no answer. You can add him to a very long list of people who have been unable to describe any benefit.

So would he return the funds to the Australia Council then?

His answer was he would decide within the next two weeks, because ‘people needed certainty’.

Senator Fifield has made his decision. As was announced last week, about a third of the purloined funds will be returned to the Australia Council ($8 million).

He is retaining the rest and putting it into a fund, no longer under Brandis’ ‘National Program for Excellence in the Arts’, but now called ‘Catalyst’.

Catalyst will in particular support innovation. The guidelines do not mention ‘excellence’ though it surely will be a criterion.

In Daily Review recently I suggested the new minister could bring something positive out of this debacle by supporting innovation in the arts—following new PM Malcolm Turnbull’s declaration that Australia should be an innovative nation. And so Senator Fifield has.

But I also made the suggestion that he return the funds to the Australia Council and not keep them in the Arts ministry.

Can there be any advantage in his ministry running a program in support of innovation in the arts (or indeed any other arts grants program)?

Perhaps one. Arts assessments are inevitably partly subjective. Different panels may make different choices among applicants. The Ministry and the Australia Council will use different panels.

But then there is a question about the expertise of assessors. Will the best project s be funded?

At the Australia Council, applications are assessed by panels of arts peers whose expertise is, as far as possible, matched to the art of the applicants. It seems that in the Arts ministry there will be panels of three assessors of whom one may be an artist peer and the others are arts bureaucrats.

I will leave that quote there for now, but I will briefly quote from another article, just to make the point, which recently appeared in ABC Arts by Alison Croggon, as the Hon. Ms Franks mentioned, titled, ‘Catalyst: New arts policy name, same old story':

Last week, Attorney-General George Brandis’s highly criticised National Program for Excellence in the Arts (NPEA) finally bit the dust.

Senator Mitch Fifield, appointed the Minister for Communications and the Arts by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in September, announced its replacement by the much more artspeak-friendly initiative, Catalyst.

The announcement followed months of unprecedented lobbying—

As the Hon. Ms Franks pointed out, some 2,260-plus submissions—

and protest from a galvanised arts community, and in some quarters was hailed as a victory. But reports of the death of NPEA are greatly exaggerated.

Although one third of the money taken from the Australia Council, $8 million a year, has been handed back, and every mention of ‘excellence’ in the NPEA’s guidelines has been assiduously replaced by ‘innovation’, even 21 st   century buzzwords cannot disguise the fact that in their essential aspects there are few differences between policies.

It continues:

For those unfamiliar with the arcane world of Australian arts funding, it may be difficult to understand why there has been so much fuss.

As Senator Brandis pointed out, the NPEA was still funding art, it just widened the choices for those shopping around for funding.

But many within the arts saw the creation of the NPEA as the beginning of the end of the Australia Council, and perhaps a step towards ending arts funding altogether.

It has certainly been a convulsive couple of years in the Australian arts world. In 2013, with much fanfare, the doomed Gillard government launched Creative Australia, an ambitious, upbeat policy that was the long-awaited result of years of consultation with the arts community.

Within weeks, Creative Australia was as dead as the government.

After months of speculation, Senator Brandis launched the Abbott government’s new arts policy in a lavish event at the Sydney Opera House in September 2014.

The Australia Council’s restructure, a key part of Creative Australia, was also announced, although the whole policy was disturbingly light on detail.

Less than six months later, Senator Brandis announced the NPEA, blindsiding the Australia council, which was still adjusting to the restructure.

New programs such as proposed six-year funding terms were cut before they had even been implemented.

Hundreds of companies had spent thousands of hours applying for programs that no longer existed, and instead of seeing the beginning of new stability, were facing the prospect of closing altogether.

It was not long before protests began to gather momentum. Campaigners against the NPEA saw it as a political attack on free speech in the arts—the campaign against it was called ‘Free the Arts’.

I will end that quote there. I think I am painting quite a picture of why this move is so shocking, not least of which because it removes peer assessment for arts grants by peers who are actually practising the same discipline as applicants, as well as experts, toward focusing on the opinions of bureaucrats. It was done without consultation and pulled the rug out from under many individual practising artists, many of whom practice on low incomes, with scant funding, and many small to medium organisations which are making a great impact on not only the economy in South Australia and Australia but the society as well.

One example of this that I gave in my speech introducing this motion was the example of True North Youth Theatre, which works with young people to create theatre about their lives and their experiences as young people in the northern suburbs. Two years ago there was no theatre company in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, much less a theatre company that was actually responsive to the needs of some very disengaged and disadvantaged, isolated young people. Two years later I understand that True North has over 60 participants in a variety of workshops, and has just this year been specifically invited to perform its show A Kid like Me, that very important piece of theatre that talks about social pressures on young people today in modern-day Australia—issues like peer pressure, weight loss, bullying, anxiety and so on—on the world stage at the World Festival of Children’s Theatre in Canada.

So I certainly refute, in the strongest terms, this idea that art is simply for art’s sake. It is most definitely for people’s sake. They were, perhaps, not so few words as it turned out, but I think it is important to get these issues on the radar and also to quote the people who are actually currently practising in the arts, because they are, of course, the experts on how this move has affected them and will continue to affect them under the catalyst—I hasten to say perhaps the catalyst, not shake up—of the renaming of Catalyst. With those few brief words—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Catalyst the pig, the Hon. Ms Franks interjects. Perhaps that would be a good name for a pig, perhaps we could get a parliamentary mascot. I can see quite a campaign coming together, perhaps we could all send a letter to George Brandis with a picture of Catalyst the pig. I have some lovely new shades of lipstick that he or she could borrow.

With those words, I again commend this motion to the chamber, and thank all those members who have indicated support, particularly for the motion in its amended form. I hope that we as a parliament will continue to work together to truly, holistically and permanently free the arts.

Hon. D.W. Ridgway’s amendment negatived; Hon. T.A. Franks’ amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

1. Notes the contribution that Australian non-government organisations make to improving the welfare and quality of life of disadvantaged people living in less resource d settings in developing countries, including our new neighbours such as the small island nations in the Pacific region;

2. Notes the South Australian non-government organisation, Motivation Australia, works in partnership with local organisations in the Asia-Pacific region and rural and remote Australia to improve the quality of life of people with mobility disabilities in the Asia-Pacific region;

3. Notes that over 100 million people globally have a mobility disability. Currently it is estimated that only 5 per c ent to 15 per cent of people who require mobility equipment can access it. Across the small island nations in the Pacific region there are more than 150,000 people in need of a mobility device, with this number set t o rise due to the diabetes epidemic. There is a heavy reliance on inappropriate and donated equipment and a desperate lack of rehabilitation staff and services; and

4. Notes and commends Motivation Australia’s work, increasing access to mobility devices to enable people with a mobility disability to be active, contributing participants within their family, community and broader society.

(Continued from 25 March 2015.)

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I rise on behalf of the government in support of this motion moved by the honourable member. Motivation Australia is a not-for-profit disability and development organisation registered in South Australia in February 2007. They are one of few development organisations working within the mobility device sector globally, and the only development organisation working in this field in the Asia-Pacific region. Motivation Australia strives to enhance the wellbeing and quality of life for people living with mobility disabilities.

Their rights-based and inclusive approach brings together local organisations and builds on the knowledge of established clinical and technical personnel. Training is provided in the skills and systems necessary, allowing these organisations to stand on their own, increasing their capacity to provide much needed services to their local communities. These essential services are provided in several Asia-Pacific countries, including Ethiopia, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Thailand, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Timor-Leste and Vanuatu.

Motivation Australia also provides services in remote communities in central Australia. The Department for Communities and Social Inclusion’s statewide equipment program services the equipment and home modification needs of clients of Disability SA and Disability and Domiciliary Care Services, working closely with Australian non-government organisations.

The department has also been working closely with the National Disability Insurance Agency to transition clients to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). During the trial period, Domiciliary Equipment Services continues to provide equipment services to NDIS participants as part of the overall contribution from South Australia. The department’s comprehensive prescriber education program provides training in high-risk areas such as wheelchair prescription, complex seating, pressure management in beds and chairs, communication and access technology and home modifications.

The training is also available to clinicians from external agencies who prescribe equipment or home modifications on behalf of the equipment program. The services provided by Motivation Australia and other non-government organisations enhancing the quality of life of people living with disability are commendable. The provision of mobility devices and other disability equipment assists those living with a disability, especially those in developing countries where there are limited resources and knowledge, to contribute to family life and participate in their local communities. I commend the motion to the house.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I rise to indicate the support of the Liberal team for this motion. I thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent for bringing the motion to the council and commend her for her work personally as an ambassador for Motivation Australia. The motion notes the contribution of all Australian non-government organisations which endeavour to improve the welfare of the world’s needy people. It focuses on the importance of mobility services for the many developing countries in our region, and in particular the work of Motivation Australia.

Motivation Australia has a core mission of enhancing the quality of life for people with mobility disabilities in the Asia-Pacific region. The organisation pursues this goal by providing people with disability in disadvantaged communities with mobility devices such as wheelchairs, supportive sitting, prosthetics, orthotics and other aids. These services are particularly important in developing countries, where mobility challenges are often greater than they may be here. These countries often do not have the resources to invest in making their rural, urban and built environment more physically accessible.

As a Liberal, I am highly supportive of initiatives which promote opportunities and freedoms of people across the diversity of our community. Providing individuals with mobility issues with appropriate mobility devices supports them to engage fully with their community and provides them with opportunities to participate in the workplace. This is important not only for individuals who experience mobility issues, but also for their families or carers who with the effective provision of mobility services are more likely to have time and resources to engage in activities beyond carer support.

Providing people in developing countries with the mobility they need to enter into productive work is one of the best ways we can help to increase opportunities and reduce poverty in developing countries. Motivation Australia is guided by principles of cost effectiveness, gender equity and local partnership. I would like to highlight the importance of local partnerships in particular, as they empower people in local communities to be involved in the planning and implementation of community programs.

Giving local people ownership of projects in their own community will help ensure that the projects are sustainable, culturally sensitive and tailored to local needs.
This model of community-driven development is also adopted in work undertaken within Australia. Motivation Australia is engaged with the First Peoples Disability Network to promote disability services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in remote communities. Motivation Australia advocates for a community-driven approach, which aims to create whole-of-community development.

Finally, I would like to touch on the importance of utilising a holistic approach as we seek to improve health and disability issues in communities. The increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases, such as diabetes and stroke, has created increasing demands for mobility services. The latest ABS health survey indicates that 5.4 per cent of Australians aged 18 years or older have diabetes, more than double the prevalence just two decades ago.

In the Pacific Islands this figure has reached as high as 47 per cent in some countries. Diabetes is known to lead to mobility issues and physical impairment, and is undoubtedly placing increased demands on the need for mobility devices in the Pacific Islands. Where possible, prevention is better than cure. It is important that we encourage and support preventive health initiatives in countries so that as much as possible we reduce the proportion of people at risk of developing health issues that may lead to mobility impairment.

Preventive health, acute care and mobility assistance should all form part of a holistic approach in supporting the development of our developing neighbours. I commend the part that Motivation Australia plays and their dedication to providing community-based solutions to mobility issues in the Asia-Pacific region, and I commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I will say a few brief words to sum up the debate and thank the speakers to the motion, the Hon. Mr Wade and the Hon. Mr Gazzola, for indicating their support and also other members who have indicated their support without necessarily wishing to make a contribution.

As the speakers have rightly pointed out, the work of Motivation Australia is absolutely vital for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it is estimated that over 100 million people globally have a disability impacting on their mobility, and that currently only between five and 15 per cent of people all over the world who require a wheelchair due to their disability or impairment have ready access to a wheelchair.

Motivation Australia works tirelessly to close this huge gap, which has an enormous impact on people’s quality of life but also on their ability to participate socially and economically in their communities, by providing mobility aids—wheelchairs, scooters, gophers, and so on—in areas throughout the Asia-Pacific, as well as in rural and remote Australia, including, as I understand it, the APY lands.

In fact, just a few weeks ago when I attended the Disability, Ageing and Lifestyle Expo, Disability Recreation and Sport (DRS) was there doing a display of some of the services they have available for people with disabilities to participate in sport. I got to sit in one of the special sports wheelchairs they have there. They were telling me that they were provided through Motivation Australia at a much lower cost than would otherwise have been possible.

Motivation Australia is working in a variety of areas to improve access to community, but also a variety of life experiences for people with disabilities, and I am very proud to be an ambassador for them for those reasons. As has been pointed out, often people in rural and remote or geographically disadvantaged areas rely on equipment that is donated with the best of intentions but often is not suited to the terrain on which it is going to be used.

Often it is donated from areas such as right here in metropolitan Adelaide, and therefore the mobility aids, be they wheelchairs, scooters or whatever, are not suited to the terrain. They might have inadequate wheels that work perfectly well functionally and are quite suited to the terrain here in the CBD but they will not necessarily suit the needs of someone living in the APY lands, Fiji or Kiribati, for example.

As the Hon. Mr Wade pointed out, it is important to support small community organisations who are filling the gaps but are not necessarily funded or provided by government. One of the areas that I think Motivation Australia is doing some fantastic work in that I am very proud of is the area of not only providing the equipment but providing peer training and mentoring so that people can actually learn how to use the device or the equipment to the best of its potential.

Motivation Australia actually allows volunteers who have disabilities themselves to go over to the area, be it remote Australia or somewhere else in the Asia-Pacific, to provide training on how best to use the mobility aid so that the person actually gets the best benefit out of it rather than having a bunch of us sending over our old equipment and feeling warm and fuzzy in ourselves when that equipment may not be in fact reaching the outcome that we would wish it to.

Certainly, Motivation Australia is closing a lot of gaps for people who are disadvantaged in many areas throughout the Asia-Pacific. As the Hon. Mr Wade pointed out, they are also working in areas that are not strictly in the Asia-Pacific. In fact, my partner Nick and I, this weekend just gone, actually attended a Motivation Australia event raising funds for a peer-led organisation for women with disabilities in Tigray, Ethiopia.

The Hon. Mr Wade is quite right: my geography is not particular strong. That is not strictly in the Asia-Pacific but, again, I think that just goes to show how dedicated the workers and volunteers at Motivation Australia are that they are willing to expand beyond the strict scope of their work to fund where the genuine need exists.
It was a fantastic event where the passion and the expertise of the people working with

Motivation were clearly demonstrated. In fact, I was sitting just one table in front of a man who is actually a professional occupational therapist. He was quick to tell me that my wheelchair was overly complicated and Nick that his was overly simple, so the passion and expertise are definitely never off the clock. They are always on duty and looking out for the people they are working to service and provide for.

With those few brief words, I will sum up and just say that Motivation Australia is clearly doing extremely important, vital work for people who are disadvantaged, and they do so with very little funding. I would encourage any member here, if anything that has been said has piqued your interest, to please feel free to join us at the fundraising events that will be held throughout the coming year. I thank all members for their support.

Motion carried.

That this council acknowledges the extraordinary Paralympic swimming career of South Australian Matthew Cowdrey and on his retirement from elite sport notes that—

1. He embodies a social model of disability which acknowledges that it is society that creates barriers to people with disability succeeding, not disability itself;

2. Amongst the 20 medals, he won 11 gold medals across three Paralympic Games in 2004, 2008 and 2012, making him Australia’s most successful Paralympian; and

3. Throughout his successful career , he has become an outstanding ambassador for the Paralympic movement.

(Continued from 25 February 2015.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: On behalf of Liberal members, it is with a great deal of pride that I rise to support the motion. Paralympic swimmer Matthew Cowdrey has been an outstanding athlete and, on his retirement, we would like to note that, in fact, he won 11 gold medals across three Paralympic Games (those being in 2004, 2008 and 2012) making him Australia’s most successful Paralympian.

Throughout his incredibly successful career, we concur that he has become an outstanding ambassador for the Paralympic movement of Australia and, in fact, probably worldwide. I have not had the pleasure of meeting Matthew Cowdrey myself but I am reliably informed by a number of Liberal members of parliament that they have had that privilege. They tell me he is an incredibly humble but talented young man and he has the capacity, we believe, to succeed at anything he turns his mind to.
With those few words, it is with a great deal of pride that I, on behalf of the Liberal Party, support the motion of the Hon. K.L. Vincent and congratulate her for bringing this motion to the parliament.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I rise to support the motion. I do not have much more to add to the comments of my colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens other than to say that I have met Matthew and I can only acknowledge that, whilst he has been extraordinarily successful in all that he has done thus far, the world is his oyster.

There are many challenges ahead for Matthew and, given that he is such a personable young man with the capacity to meet many people and make a very favourable impression on all those he meets, I have no doubt that whatever future path he chooses he will be very, very successful. In any role that he was to adopt which involved meeting people, representing people and engaging with people in the wider community, I am sure he would be very successful.

I join with the Hon. Kelly Vincent and my colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens in supporting this particular motion and acknowledging his achievements but, more particularly, wishing him well for future endeavours and future challenges.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I would like to congratulate one of Australia’s most successful sportspersons, Paralympian Matthew Cowdrey OAM, who announced his retirement on 10 February 2015 at the age of 26 after an incredible competitive swimming career. I would like to thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent for this motion.

Matthew was born with a congenital amputation to his lower left arm. He competed in the S9, SB9 classification of physical impairment. He was raised by his parents in South Australia. At a young age, they taught him that he could achieve whatever he wanted. He was allowed to participate in the same activities like everyone else his age, from riding a bike to playing football. Like many parents, they introduced Matthew to water when he was a baby and he found a love for it immediately.

By the age of five years, he had learnt to swim at the Golden Grove State Swim Centre, before joining his first swim club at Norwood. He was guided by his long-term coach, Peter Bishop, who recognised Matthew’s ability. Peter and Matthew have maintained a strong relationship throughout his career.

Before Matthew made the national team at age 13, his coach Peter set a long-term goal for him to become Australia’s best ever Paralympian. In 2000, he broke his first Australian Open record at age 11 and a world record at just 13 years of age. In 2004, at the age of 15, he earned the right to represent Australia and compete at his first Paralympics in Athens. He was incredibly successful on his debut and won three gold, two silver and two bronze medals. For his accomplishments at his first Paralympic Games in Athens, Matthew was awarded with the Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM).

In 2008, he captained the Australian Paralympic swimming team at the Beijing Olympics and he won more medals than any other Paralympian attending the event, claiming five gold and three silver medals. Each of his five gold medals were won in world record time. He also had the privilege of being chosen to be Australia’s flag bearer at the closing ceremony. In London 2012, he won five gold, two silver and a bronze medal, which made him Australia’s most successful Paralympian ever. After competing in three consecutive Paralympics, he has won gold in each of his specialty events: the 100 metres freestyle and the 200 metre individual medley. In three Paralympic Games: Athens, Beijing and London, Matthew won a total of 23 medals.

In 2009, he was named the Young South Australian of the Year. In September 2012, in recognition of his achievements, the Premier officially named the South Australian State Aquatic and Leisure Centre’s main competition pool the Matthew Cowdrey Competition Pool. One of his most treasured possessions are the keys to the City of Salisbury, which he received in 2013. He became the third person to receive the keys to the area in which he grew up.

While swimming competitively, Matthew enrolled in a Bachelor of Law at the University of Adelaide. He completed his law degree and he is now working full time at KPMG. In life, it just shows that when you have courage, dedication and determination you can achieve many things. Matthew is an inspiration and role model for all Australians, not just those with a disability. I am very happy to support this motion.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I have a few brief words to sum up. Can I thank the speakers to this motion, the Hon. Tung Ngo, the Hon. Terry Stephens, the Hon. Rob Lucas and those who have indicated their support without necessarily verbalising it in the chamber today. I will admit that when I first started to think about putting this motion forward congratulating Matthew Cowdrey on his successful Paralympic career, I did it with a small amount of hesitation. I was a little bit hesitant about the way this motion might be interpreted because often the way people’s disabilities are perceived by the broader society, not everyone but the broader society, and particularly the media, is a spectrum of—in fact, I would not even call it a spectrum.

I would call it two polar opposites where one is where the bludgers sit at home all day feeling forlorn and looking sick in crocs and a lap rug—not that there is anything wrong with wearing crocs and a lap rug, if that is what you choose—and feeling sorry for ourselves. The other is what I have deemed affectionately or perhaps not so affectionately as ‘supercrip’ where you are climbing Mount Everest with no oxygen tank despite your complete lack of limbs and so on. Often we forget, and the media in particular forgets, that most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

I wondered whether moving a motion drawing attention to a successful Paralympian would again perpetrate that idea that all people with disabilities are born to be Paralympians who show us how to overcome every obstacle that we have ever faced and so on, but that certainly was not my intention. Neither was it my intention to illustrate that with bravery and courage, as I think the Hon. Tung Ngo put it, you could achieve anything. While to an extent that is true I would respectfully submit that it is not really bravery and courage that give you the opportunities, it is the lack of barriers that you face that translates to you having those opportunities. That is exactly why in the motion I talk about Mr Cowdrey’s work being a great example of the social model of disability where we recognise that it is not the disability in and of itself that is the issue, it is the barriers that are erected to us as society’s reaction to our disabilities that create the issue.

I move this motion to thank Mr Cowdrey for his contribution to the state of South Australia and to Australia as a nation with a proud history of participation in sport and to illustrate that the only difference between people with and without disability is opportunity.

Motion carried.

That the Social Development Committee inquire into and report on matters relating to elder abuse in South Australia including—

1. The prevalence of abuse (including but not limited to financial abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, social abuse, chemical abuse and neglect) experienced by older people in South Australia;
2. The most common forms of abuse experienced by older persons and the most common relationships or settings in which abuse occurs;
3. The types of government and/or community support services sought by, or on behalf of, victims of elder abuse and the nature of service received from those agencies and organisations;
4. The adequacy of the policies, resources, powers and expertise of specialist agencies (including South Australia Police, Office of the Public Advocate, Aged Rights Advocacy Service, Legal Services Commission, Public Trustee, Domiciliary Care South Australia) and other relevant service agencies to respond to allegations of elder abuse;
5. Identifying effective ways to improve reporting of and responding to elder abuse to assist in establishing best practice strategies for multi-agency responses;
6. Identifying any strength-based initiatives which empower older persons to better protect themselves from risks of abuse as they age;
7. The effectiveness of South Australian laws, policies, services and strategies, including the South Australian Strategy for Safeguarding Older People 2014-2021 in safeguarding older persons from abuse;
8. Innovation for long-term integrated systems and proactive measures to respond to the increasing number of older persons, including consideration of their diverse needs and experiences, to prevent abuse;
9. The consideration of new proposals or initiatives which may enhance existing strategies for safeguarding older persons who may be vulnerable to abuse or prevent such abuse, including with reference to international best practice;
10. Identifying ways to inform older South Australians about online scams to which they may be vulnerable; and
11. Any other related matter.

(Continued from 23 September 2015.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: I rise to indicate the government’s support of this motion. In doing so, I would like to point out some of the actions currently in train by the government. In 2014, the Minister for Ageing, the Hon. Zoe Bettison, released the Strategy to Safeguard the Rights of Older South Australians, and then in June this year she issued an action plan to drive its implementation. The focus of this strategy is the prevention of elder abuse across the continuum, from building resilience and reducing risk in the community through to service responses to abuse and opportunities to strengthen supportive legislation.

The cabinet endorsed the plan, including a budget of $753,000 over the forward estimates. The safeguarding strategy and action plan were developed over a number of years through close consultation and engagement with the key stakeholders, including but not limited to SAPOL, Office of the Public Advocate, Aged Rights Advocacy Service, Legal Services Commission, the Public Trustee and Domiciliary Care, to name a few.

All these organisations are currently contributing to the implementation of the strategy. A public consultation on the strategy was also undertaken as part of the policy development. The work of the steering committee overseeing the strategy addressed many of the proposed terms of the proposed inquiry and as such could inform the Social Development Committee in an inquiry to build and leverage from the recent work. There are a number of elements in the action plan which will directly address or inform the proposed terms of inquiry. However, having only been released in June 2015, its implementation is at its very early stage.

The key actions of relevance currently underway include a prevalence research study being undertaken by the University of South Australia to establish a baseline for elder abuse prevalence in South Australia because one does not currently exist; the establishment of an elder abuse prevention phone line to commence operation in October, that is, this month, bringing South Australia into line with all other Australian jurisdictions; evaluation of the phone line during its first nine months of operation to identify support services sought and the effectiveness of service referrals; a community awareness campaign that is both media and web-based to raise the profile of elder abuse as an issue of growing concern; and also numerous research and resource development projects to identify and promote resilient strategies and factors across the community.

Given that the Social Development Committee inquiry is unlikely to commence before late 2016, it will allow the committee to make use of the outcomes of the activities currently underway to inform its findings and recommendations. I also point out that the committee may well like to see the impact of service provision to the elderly at a broader level, including services provided by the federal government and other corporate service providers, as this certainly impacts on the broader issue of elder abuse. As I said, the government supports the motion, and I look forward to the Social Development Committee conducting the proposed inquiry.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I rise on behalf of the Liberal team to support the motion. I thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent for bringing this important issue before us. Elder abuse relates to any kind of harm inflicted on an elderly person occurring within a relationship where there is an expectation of trust. This abuse can take many forms including physical, psychological, financial, sexual and social abuse and can have a devastating effect on its victims.

Given our ageing population, it is not surprising that elder abuse is an issue of growing importance and concern in South Australia. Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics suggest that the number of people aged over 65 could more than double in the next 50 years from 270,000 in 2012 to 580,000 in 2061—a 115 per cent increase. Clearly we must ensure that the rights of this growing segment of our population are protected through initiatives such as education support services and legislation.

It is currently estimated that between 3 and 5 per cent of people aged over 65 have experienced some form of elder abuse. Sadly, the vast majority of these cases go unreported, highlighting the need for concerted action. I acknowledge the comprehensive and well-structured terms of reference put forward for the committee by the Hon. Kelly Vincent and I would like to highlight two particular elements. Point 6 of the terms of reference asks the committee to identify:

…any strength-based initiatives which empower older persons to better protect themselves from risks of abuse as they age.

As the Liberal team, we strongly believe in the dignity of the individual and that the state should act to empower individuals in ways such as empowering people to protect themselves. While these strength-based initiatives are valued, they need to be realistic about the capacity of people to take action on their own behalf, particularly when ageing can also be accompanied by cognitive impairment. There are already over 340,000 Australians living with dementia and this number is set to rise to almost 900,000 by 2050. Conditions such as dementia limit an individual’s capacity to adopt these strength-based initiatives. In any case, even if elderly individuals do not have cognitive impairment, they may not have the capacity to communicate their wishes.

One example of state action to empower older South Australians to protect themselves is the use of advance care planning. I commend the work the government has done in its Planning Ahead program which encourages elderly people to write an advance care directive laying down their instructions for their health, living and end-of-life care. I think it is important that we ensure there are mechanisms to monitor the implementation of advance care directives, including compliance with the orders.

Often there is, I believe, pressure on health professionals to override the stated wishes of the person who has made the advance care directive in deference to the wishes of friends and family and I do not consider that is appropriate. Point 7 of the terms of reference asks the committee to inquire into:

The effectiveness of South Australian laws, policies, services and strategies, including the South Australian Strategy for Safeguarding Older People.

The government’s action plan promises to introduce a series of measures to curb elder abuse, some of which include:

raising awareness in the workplace, particularly in financial, legal and health sectors;

developing a new elder abuse prevention website;

promoting a planning ahead message;

empowering older people by informing them of their rights; and

collaboratively producing a new age-friendly resource to help raise awareness of older people’s rights.

I might just pause there and make a comment that I have had feedback from some organisations serving older South Australians that, whilst there are many older South Australians who readily embrace IT, there have been examples recently of government initiatives built around an IT response which actually significantly impair the access of older South Australians. In particular, I have heard concern expressed in relation to the commonwealth government’s My Aged Care website. Whilst I think it is important to make sure that information is available in a range of formats, we need to be careful that we do not assume that the preferences of older South Australians will be the same as some other generational groups.

I believe it is important that the committee plays a role in monitoring the implementation of the government’s commitments, and I acknowledge the comments of the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars that the likely timing of this committee inquiry may well give the committee a good distance from the implementation of some of the government’s strategies so that assessments can be made of progress. On too many occasions, governments overpromise and under-deliver, and on an important issue such as elder abuse it is important that that not be the case in this area.

In conclusion, I reiterate the Liberal team’s support for the motion of the Hon. Kelly Vincent which seeks to address this important issue. We look forward to the work of the committee, including the contribution made by members of our own team within that committee, and we look forward to the outcomes.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: In summing up, I would like to thank the speakers to this motion, the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars for the government and the Hon. Stephen Wade for the opposition, and I also thank those who have indicated their support without necessarily making a contribution to the motion. I believe I am correct in saying that that is all parties. I certainly thank parliamentary colleagues for that support.

I particularly thank the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars for reminding the chamber of what is being done in the area of elder abuse prevention. I certainly would not want to make it seem as though, by putting this recommendation forward or calling for this inquiry, Dignity for Disability was somehow suggesting that nothing was being done because we certainly understand that the government is doing some quite comprehensive work in this area. However, as has been pointed out, point 7 of the terms of reference asks the committee to review existing government policy, including the South Australian Strategy for Safeguarding Older People, which is the very policy that the Hon. Mr Kandelaars mentioned.

I believe it is important that these policies are regularly reviewed so that they do not languish or become outdated. Unfortunately, we do not have to think too hard to think of examples where that has occurred. While not wanting to deny that things are being done, I want to encourage the regular review of existing policy.

As was rightly pointed out, the time at which this inquiry is likely to start getting traction is likely to be mid to late next year. This will give us some distance from the beginning of that safeguarding policy, and hopefully it will give the committee the opportunity to review what has been done without jumping the gun and trying to review something that has not yet started.

I would also like to thank the Hon. Mr Wade for reminding us about the rate at which the South Australian population is ageing and that the needs of this community need to be taken very seriously, particularly because it is a growing sector. The Hon. Mr Wade also talked quite comprehensively about the need to give people the skills and resources to protect themselves. As a party, Dignity for Disability believes that we need both the resources and the skills to empower people to know their rights and their responsibilities and to recognise and speak out about abuse. We need measures to protect those who might not be able to do so or to protect people where the measures to enable them to speak up for themselves fail for any reason.

The Hon. Mr Wade also rightly points out—as I recall I did in my opening speech in calling for this inquiry—that information technology can be a barrier for some older South Australians because it is not necessarily part of their everyday life, and I certainly agree. That is not to say that all older Australians have trouble with technology. However, I think it is fair to say that, due to the fact that often they have not grown up with it or used it on a daily basis, as some of us in this chamber here tonight might, I think there is significant concern about the potential susceptibility of older Australians to things like telemarketers and online scams. That is certainly covered in the terms of reference.

I would like to again thank the speakers and my parliamentary colleagues from all sides for their support. Again, I would like to place on the record my thanks and Dignity for Disability’s thanks to those advocacy bodies and individuals, particularly the Aged Rights Advocacy Service, the Council on the Ageing and Professor Wendy Lacey for their support and assistance in putting what I believe is a very comprehensive terms of reference together, which will hold the committee in good stead for its inquiry.

In closing, I would like to thank the chamber and my parliamentary colleagues this evening for assisting Dignity for Disability in sending a very strong message that humanity and human worth do not diminish with age. Thank you.

Motion carried.

That the Social Development Committee inquire into and report on matters relating to elder abuse in South Australia including—

1. The prevalence of abuse (including but not limited to financial abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, social abuse, chemical abuse and neglect) experienced by older people in South Australia;

2. The most common forms of abuse experienced by older persons and the most common relationships or settings in which abuse occurs;

3. The types of government and/or community support services sought by, or on behalf of, victims of elder abuse and the nature of service received from those agencies and organisations;

4. The adequacy of the policies, resources, powers and expertise of specialist agencies (including South Australia Police, Office of the Public Advocate, Aged Rights Advocacy Service, Legal Services Commission, Public Trustee, Domiciliary Care South Australia) and other relevant service agencies to respond to allegations of elder abuse;

5. Identifying effective ways to improve reporting of and responding to elder abuse to assist in establishing best practice strategies for multi-agency responses;

6. Identifying any strength-based initiatives which empower older persons to better protect themselves from risks of abuse as they age;

7. The effectiveness of South Australian laws, policies, services and strategies, including the South Australian Strategy for Safeguarding Older People 2014-2021 in safeguarding older persons from abuse;

8. Innovation for long-term integrated systems and proactive measures to respond to the increasing number of older persons, including consideration of their diverse needs and experiences, to prevent abuse;

9. The consideration of new proposals or initiatives which may enhance existing strategies for safeguarding older persons who may be vulnerable to abuse or prevent such abuse , including with reference to international best practice;

10. Identifying ways to inform older South Australians about online scams to which they may be vulnerable; and

11. Any other related matter.

I speak today to introduce this motion on behalf of Dignity for Disability, and in so doing would like to acknowledge the work of organisations and individuals such as Aged Rights Advocacy, the Council on the Ageing (COTA), and law academics such as Professor Wendy Lacey, and the work that they undertake in the area of elder abuse prevention.

Not unlike abuse of people with disabilities, elder abuse is a topic that there is often still much ignorance around and denial of. Although also similar to some vulnerable people in the disability community, older people can often find themselves comparatively isolated and neglected, or viewed as somehow having lesser needs or rights. Australia’s criminal laws must be reviewed in light of the low rate of prosecution for elder abuse, according to a leading expert, who has also called for the various powers of attorney and guardianship laws that we have at a state level to be re-examined.

Professor Wendy Lacey, Dean of Law at the University of South Australia, told the Australian Association of Gerontology national conference on Wednesday that, along with legislative reform, coroners need to be educated about elder abuse and its prevalence. I understand that, while there were mandatory reporting obligations around suspected physical and sexual abuse under the Aged Care Act, these only covered seniors living in aged care residences and did not protect the majority of older people who are not yet accessing federally funded services, Professor Lacey says.

Professor Lacey, who is also a convenor of the Australian Research Network on Law and Ageing, was last year appointed to the SA Minister for Health’s steering committee, which reviewed the state’s framework for responding to elder abuse. She said that under the constitution the federal parliament’s powers to address elder abuse were ‘virtually nil’ with ‘almost no capacity to develop a comprehensive systemic framework’. Therefore, advocates need to look to the states, according to Professor Lacey.

I would now like to touch on some of the barriers to detecting abuse of older people. In some situations, it can difficult to recognise or verify abuse as some forms of abusive behaviour against older people are subtle or intentionally hidden. Making the person feel safe may assist them to raise their concerns about an abusive situation. There are many reasons why older people or others may not be raising issues of abuse. Being aware of why abuse is being kept secret will assist the director of care to raise the issue with sensitivity. Abuse may not be reported because:

of unwillingness to disclose that the abuse is occurring and/or has occurred;

the older person is unable to disclose the abuse due to a lack of mental capacity;

of health professionals, care and other support staff or the public being unaware that the abuse of older people needs to be a consideration; or

signs and symptoms of abuse may be difficult to detect. Many of the signs of abuse are wrongly attributed to changes associated with the natural ageing process, including physical and mental changes.

Older people may be reluctant to discuss their abuse:

due to denial or not wanting to admit to themselves that there is a problem;

due to wanting to protect their alleged abuser (e.g. from perceived potential punishment, a loss of standing in the community or embarrassment, particularly, I imagine, if the abuser is also a friend or family member);

due to feelings of shame or guilt or being judged as bad for allowing the abuse to happen to them;

due to the fear of retaliation or further punishment from the alleged abuser or fear of the abuser harming others in the family;

due to fear of not being believed or accused of lying;

because of doubts about confidentiality being maintained or a belief that there is no-one in whom they can confide;

because they consider the abuse to be normal behaviour;

because they believe that they need to resolve matters by themselves and not involve or burden others;

because they believe that nothing will change;

because they are unable to communicate or express what is happening to them due to confusion, language difficulties, depression, physical or mental illness, or a lack of other supports that would enable them to tell their story;

because of different cultural perceptions;

because they may be unaware of the law, particularly changes to the Aged Care Act 1997 and compulsory reporting requirements; or

because they may have sought assistance in the past, but that response may have been unsuccessful in causing change.

There are also many reasons why other people in the life of an older person may not necessarily disclose abuse. Family members, staff, banking officers, GPs, friends, visitors to the home or other residents may suspect abuse of an older person but may be reluctant to raise their concerns due to:

not wanting to interfere;

concern that the older person may lose trust or confidence in them;

being unaware of services or other supports about where to actually take the allegations of abuse;

believing that they lack the knowledge or resources to intervene, particularly about successful strategies;

believing that nothing will be done to improve the situation; or

believing that the action will be heavy-handed, insensitive and lead to further harm to the older person, or they may be unaware that older people do take action and can take action to prevent abuse and speak out about abuse if properly supported.

From the points I have just outlined about the many factors that make older people more vulnerable to abuse and also why this is not spoken about more readily, I am sure members are probably recognising some unfortunate similarities between the abuse of elderly people and the abuse of people with disabilities. Certainly, there are significant similarities that I think do need to be investigated.

On behalf of Dignity for Disability, through the Disability Justice Plan I believe I have been very pleased to play, I believe, a significant role in closing some of those gaps that leave people with disabilities vulnerable to abuse, giving people with disabilities a greater voice in court and, therefore, sending a very strong message to perpetrators that they have fewer avenues to get away with abuse. I am now very pleased to look at this issue and see how we can identify the similarities and also the differences and work together as a parliament and as a community to prevent and put in place a zero tolerance policy of abuse against elderly people—both a literal policy and one as an attitude of community.

Dignity for Disability certainly welcomes debate on this issue and looks forward to watching evidence that may be collected. We really believe that some legislative frameworks need to be put in place here in South Australia, as I have just touched on, and I would again point to the work of organisations and individuals such as Professor Wendy Lacey. As I have discussed in relation to disability in this place, getting older, like disability, is a mainstream issue in South Australia. We need to do all we can to ensure that our elders can age with the dignity and respect we should all expect and deserve as members of our community.

I look forward to the Social Development Committee undertaking this important inquiry to identify ways in which we can better protect and respect all members of our community. With those brief words, I commend the motion to the chamber.

That this council—

1. Notes the widespread concern in the Australian arts community about the new National Programme for Excellence in the Arts recently announced by the federal government, expressed through the “#FreeTheArts” social media campaign;

2. Recognises the importance of supporting creativity and expressing a diversity of views and experiences in the arts;

3. Recognises the vital role played by new and emerging artists and small to medium-sized arts enterprises in ensuring the future of the arts industry in South Australia; and

4. Recognises the economic and social contribution of the arts industry and festivals to the South Australian economy.

Recently, the federal arts minister, George Brandis, announced changes to arts funding in Australia which will see funding cut from the Australia Council for the Arts and redirected into a so-called program for excellence in the arts.

The cuts, including $104.7 million over the next four years, will support the establishment of a National Program for Excellence in the Arts to be administered by the Ministry for the Arts. The Australia Council will also need to find, I understand, $7.2 million in efficiency savings over the next four years. This represents a 13 per cent reduction in the Australia Council for the Arts’ annual funding from its current budget of $213 million.

These changes have been met with shock and anger by the arts community in Australia nationwide, as they have been interpreted by many as a move towards a ‘captain’s pick’ system which stifles smaller, but not less important, artists and organisations working in the arts industry. It has sparked the social media movement #FreeTheArts and is now the subject of a Senate committee inquiry.

As someone who is very passionate about the arts, with many friends and colleagues currently working in this industry, I feel compelled to take the opportunity to echo these concerns and this disappointment and put them on the public record, so that members are aware of the true implications of these changes and that freedom in the arts is something we should all fight for.

My speech is likely to be relatively brief and will largely consist not of my own words but of quotes from submissions that have been made to the Senate inquiry and of information that has been given to me personally from friends and colleagues in the industry when I asked them for feedback. The first quote I would like to use—because, I think, it outlines the majority of the problems with this changed arts funding quite well—comes from prolific and internationally-renowned children’s playwright, Finegan Kruckemeyer. He writes:

These days, the majority of my commissions come from overseas producers (primarily in the US) — and when Australian works are commissioned, these are generally for a cast of only one or two, financial constraints being translated into artistic constraints.

In truth, the notion of an American relocation makes sense financially given the comparative amount of work — and as the financial provider in my household, this would see my family make the move also. But the love of living in Tasmania—

which is where Finegan relocated after living in Adelaide—

keeps me here, and the ability to send words makes this a practical reality.

I am committed to Australia and its arts community (sitting on the Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board and a number of others, teaching workshops to emerging writers, forming an integrated theatre ensemble for people with and without intellectual disabilities, voluntarily offering dramaturgical support to those embarking on first scripts, speaking and lobbying to promote Tasmania in various capacities, and paying taxes — often generated by revenue earned overseas, and so made up of funds brought into this country).

But if it really were to reach a point where arts funding cuts saw vulnerable companies in the small-to-medium sector (my primary Australian employers) fold, then I feel the choice would no longer be there, and the pragmatics of life and work would lead me to make the move.

I say this not because my personal story or presence in the country is of any particular importance, but rather because I feel my situation is representative of many:

When significant arts funding goes, then the making of artworks goes.

And finally the artists go.

And with them the stories of place, the celebration of Australian life and culture, the chronicling of these times, on this continent. It is an important commodity, and one which I fear would be noticed most tangibly in its retrospective absence.

Another quote that I would like to read comes from Chloe Munro, the chair on behalf of the board of Lucy Guerin Inc., and states:

We have been dismayed by recent commonwealth budget decisions that have already had a significant impact on the sector of the arts to which Lucy Guerin Inc belongs. The reduction in available funds in absolute terms and the sudden and apparently arbitrary change in funding model have thrown our planning into disarray. We cannot and will not make decisions that risk driving the organisation into insolvency . Y et our activities such as development of new work and international tours require us to commit resources long in advance. This can only happen with a reasonable degree of funding certainty.

Arts Access Australia, the peak body representing artists with disabilities, had this to say:

Arts Access Australia Co-CEO, Emma Bennison, is gravely concerned about the implications for artists with disability and arts and disability organisations:

‘Since 2013, when it released its new Disability Action Plan, the Australia Council has demonstrated real and tangible commitment to recognising the contribution artists with disability and arts and disability organisations have to make to Australia. Programs like the Artists with Disability Funding Program which awards project and career development grants to artists with disability are already leading to increased visibility of work made by artists with disability. A recent example is Emma J. Hawkins’ “I Am Not a Unicorn” featured at the Melbourne Comedy Festival.

I am concerned that while the Ministry for the Arts has previously demonstrated some commitment to artists with disability through its support for the implementation of the National Arts and Disability Strategy, funding has been limited, and we have no information about the priorities or funding processes of the proposed new program.

We are worried that the significant progress which has been made in recent years in the area of arts and disability might be jeopardised if the level of dedicated funding to individuals and organisations is impacted by these cuts.’

But it is not just the decrease in arts funding available under this new regime which is causing concern. I have a real fear that moving towards this program of so-called excellence will also help to create—or perhaps not so much to create, more to worsen—a sense of divide between those involved in the arts and those not and, perhaps even more worryingly, create an imaginary and unnecessary concept of what constitutes so-called ‘excellent’ or ‘real’ art. I feel that this point has been made very eloquently in this submission to the inquiry from The Theatre Network of Victoria:

The Australia Council’s funding programs operate beyond a notion of ‘excellence’ and instead provide a range of programs which support emerging and experimental art forms, community arts and cultural development.

We truly believe that the outstanding achievements by Australian artists and organisations—whether in film, writing, performing arts or visual arts—have only been possible because Australia has been so successful at recognising that development, experimentation, and nurturing of talent is fundamental to achieving excellence.

All industries rely on a sophisticated ecology: small, risk-hungry R&D groups; organisations with deep community engagement; stable large-scale enterprises; and avant-garde individuals operating solo. The arts is no exception. Without the finely balanced mix of supported individual artists and organisations at all levels, there is a real risk that the whole industry will fail.

Arts Access Australia, the peak body representing artists with disabilities, which I mentioned earlier, also had this to say:

The question is, why has the decision been made to transfer such a significant funding allocation from the Australia Council, Australia’s arm ‘ s-length, arts funding and advisory body, to a Government Department. This appears to represent a major departure from long-standing Government policy of artistic peer assessment outside of Government.

Moving toward a so-called program of excellence seems to me to suggest that the arts industry has to date been substandard in some way and not meeting the needs of its audience. While, of course, there is always room for improvement in every industry—and the arts industry, like any other, must modernise and change with the times—this is clearly not the case. The arts is a large economic contributor to the nation and, particularly, to South Australia as a state since we do market ourselves as the Festival State after all.

After another successful Fringe and Cabaret season, I read in The Advertiser just this morning that there are now plans to export some elements of our very own Fringe festival to China to encourage tourism and strengthen international ties. Research from the Parliamentary Research Library tells me that in 2014 Adelaide cemented its status as Australia’s leading arts festival delivering a massive $66.3 million injection into South Australia’s economy in the year 2014.

It is clear that this notion that the current funding model under the Australian Council for the Arts, and the Australian arts industry as a whole, has been somehow categorically underperforming is clearly a false notion. In fact, from my reading of the submission to the senate inquiry into these funding changes which I have been watching with some interest, it appears that the council has, in fact, been underfunded historically for the work that it does, and I quote from the Theatre Network of Victoria:

A 2012 review of the Australia Council (by Angus James and Gabrielle Trainor) found that the Council was underfunded by $22.25 million per annum. This has now been compounded by the recent Budget decisions which have both cut the overall Council funds and also transferred critical funding from the Council—a total of $150.6 million over four years—directly contradicting the recommendations of that very review.

TNV recommends that the $25 million funding per year be restored to the Australia Council, and additional $21.25 million be added to the Australia Council’s budget to reduce unfunded excellence.

Since I just spoke about the Fringe festival, now is probably a good time for me to reflect and put on the record some of the concerns which exist in the community, and in my own mind, that this change is being viewed as a captain’s pick system which will weed out small-to-medium arts organisations.

As you may have gathered from some of the points I have already made, small-to-medium arts organisations may not make the news regularly but I know from experience that they do change lives. They changed mine. Not only do they give lesser-known artists the chance to exhibit their talents and hone their skills, but in fact they give a platform to become those better-known artists of tomorrow.

My point is that without taking some risk or perceived risk on funding artists who may not be well known or who may produce non-traditional or controversial works, there can simply be no real future for the arts industry in Australia as no new interesting material is produced and no new voices are heard.

As members may know, I am the very proud ambassador of No Strings Attached Theatre of Disability, a small community-based theatre company making theatre by, for and about people with disabilities. In the scheme of things, I suppose you could argue that No Strings Attached is one of these small players. In fact, it was once put to me that the content that No Strings Attached produces is, in fact, not art but welfare because, of course, it involves people with disabilities, and everything involving people with disabilities is automatically welfare.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Kelly, that is a terrible thing to say.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: It is a quote from someone else; I am allowed to say it because I am about to correct them, don’t worry. I think it is a difference between giving something to somebody that they do not have out of sympathy, and giving someone a platform to find that in themselves out of empathy. Let me tell you, Mr Acting President, it is the latter that companies like No Strings Attached provide.

Throughout my time with No Strings Attached, as well as my enormous personal development—without which I probably would not have the confidence to be sitting in this very chamber today—I have seen some of the people who can be most disenfranchised by society, people with disabilities and mental health issues, for example, become recognised writers, performers, musicians and, in turn, even become teachers of their art.

I have seen people who have, for their whole life, been held back by the low expectations and non-support of others start forging real careers. I have seen multiple awards won, I have seen troupes tour the country to perform sold-out shows to rapturous applause, cheers and even tears. Just this week I saw members of the No Strings Attached men’s ensemble dressed up to attend the prestigious Helpmann Awards, where they had been nominated for Best Regional Touring Production. If that is what welfare looks like, then I think we could use a bit more of it. No Strings Attached current artistic director P.J. Rose had this to say to me on the changes, when I asked for her feedback as a trusted colleague and friend:

Over the past two-plus years, the Australia Council has worked overtime and inclusively to involve disparate elements of the Australian arts community/communities in planning changes that would make the distribution of federal financial support to artists practical, fair and transparent. At the exact moment these plans were to be implemented, Senator Brandis suddenly withdrew money allocated to the Australia Council and redistributed it to his own funding agency. This was a unilateral, non-collaborative, non-consultative decision.

That a minister can make a decision that affects so many, without need for checks or balances or accountability, is anathema to the spirit and practice of democracy. It is inappropriate and dangerous for one human being to have this kind of power, power that has been known in the past as fascism…[and] totalitarianism. This is the same government that wants to put the power to rescind citizenship into the hands of a minister (not the judiciary).

I am not against ministers supporting causes dear to them—in the…1990s, Paul Keating established The Keatings, but he found the money to fund them elsewhere. He did not take money from other artists.

This quote from practising visual artist Kieran Stewart also talks about the importance of supporting small to medium arts industry organisations very eloquently:

Small organisations are where the arts come from. These spaces are run by peer review panels and an arts community exploring the merit and value of creative practitioners is how we mediate and moderate what content gets shown in the arts because things are so competitive. It’s how we challenge each other and push ourselves to create worthwhile content. Because we know that 10 per cent of emerging artists may only get the chance to get a space where they have to pay almost twice their own rent to get a space to share what they are passionate about. Most work extremely hard to undertake this and require small to medium organisations and their support to undertake these endeavours and become better artists. Without the support of these organisations to secure funding emerging artists would have to pay many thousands more to hire a space to exhibit or perform.

This quote, from the artistic director of Black Hole Theatre, Nancy Black, also makes the point very well:

I am especially committed to this small-medium sector because it is the whelping box of our culture. From it spring the new ideas and forms, the startling approaches, and the emerging talent. That sector takes risks that the major companies can’t afford to contemplate. In addition, the small – medium companies reach thousands, if not millions, of people nationally and internationally, spreading those wonderful ideas, engaging those audiences, opening new windows to people at all income levels, enhancing the view of Australia and enhancing our cultural capital. If our culture is a garden , then we, the small- medium sector, are its gardener and compost. We dig the ground, sow the seeds, water them tenderly , and provide the nutrients that enable those seeds to grow.

Juliette Zavarce, the producer of True North Youth Theatre Ensemble, sent me a copy of a letter that she sent to the Senate inquiry, and I would like to read it in its entirety because I think it makes a lot of valid points about the true ramifications of these changes. She states:

My name is Juliette Zavarce and I am the producer of AJZ Productions and also a local youth theatre company True North Youth Theatre Ensemble. We have classes in Hillcrest and Klemzig and also Elizabeth, South Australia.

We do both professional productions along with productions with our Youth Theatre Ensemble under the banner of True North. Our company is led by award winning theatre maker and Director Alirio Zavarce. Alirio is well known in the arts community and has had several award winning works throughout his career. To survive as an independent artist Alirio has had to be extremely resourceful using all of his talents as a teacher, actor, musician, writer and MC. His most recent touring show ‘Sons and Mothers’ explored the relationship between a son with a disability and his mother which toured nationally with a group of artists with a disability and has recently been nominated for a Helpman [sic] Award. This tour would not of been possible without the support of The Australia Council.

True North Youth Theatre Ensemble was developed in 2013 by a partnership with the Port Adelaide Enfield Council and has grown to four groups and 50 members. True North has an ethos to provide quality arts training to young people from a variety of economic and social backgrounds.

Many of the 50 members of our group are on a scholarship and pay no fees to be part of our ensemble. We work with some of the most marginalised families in our community and the impact we are having on young people’s lives is extremely important. At True North [what] we learn by making productions is crucial in terms of our teaching method. It also gives us as a community a reason to come together and the impact on the ensemble members self esteem, confidence and worth is evident.

We employed 12 artists this year who worked with the ensemble developing and delivering performance outcomes. These included set designers, projection artists, film makers, photographers, graphic artists, tutors, play writers and technicians. As a small to medium arts organisation we have limited options in terms of funding. We work hard to obtain sponsorship, fundraise and also obtaining local council support to continue as an organisation. However we rely on Arts grants in order to pay for the production costs that are so crucial to our ensemble. These production costs are the wages of our production team.

The recent changes made by Mr Brandis has essentially moved funding from The Australia Council to his cabinet control. This has given us grave concerns about the future of small to medium organisations such as ours.

Our major concern is that there was no consultation with the Australia Council prior to this funding change. There seems to be no peer assessment in terms of how this money is going to be handed out. And lastly and most importantly this essentially will be a second bureaucracy in terms of the administration of the very limited funds available to the arts community.

This will also be without question a duplicate of what already exists in the Australia Council. What this means is that more money is going to be spent on arts administrators rather than the artists and the project outcomes themselves. This seems extremely unfair and is a duplication that is not necessary.

We are making a real impact on people’s lives , and the work we are doing is as important as the major organisations. We are often the ones who put in incredible hours without pay to stay afloat. We are the innovators and we are at the coal-face, and we do not want state-sanctioned art. I am certainly frightened of a future where the only true option for an art experience is the so-called high art such as ballet, chamber music and the opera that seems to be what Mr Brandis is focusing on. These are largely unaffordable and inaccessible to the community.

So, as you can see, the small to medium organisations which fear they will miss out the most by these funding changes are arguably those who most need our support and those we most need in our community to give a voice and career and social opportunities to those who are most disenfranchised and isolated.

The last point I would like to make is perhaps the most concerning one, and that is the fact that, according to recent media coverage, Senator Brandis does not seem to fully understand or comprehend the extent of his own arts funding changes, and here I will make a brief quote from an article from the online news site Crikey:

Crikey today revealed that Arts Minister George Brandis was ‘completely flummoxed’ by aspects of his own controversial changes to arts funding and their effect on the Australia Council. Regional arts administrators told Crikey that at a meeting with leaders of small arts organisations in Queensland, Brandis misstated elements of his policy and blamed the Australia Council for chaos in the industry.

Brandis reportedly told the meeting that the Australia Council’s six-year funding round for small to medium arts organisations had been ‘p ostponed’ when it has in fact been cancelled. The six-year funding round is one of the Australia Council’s key programs for funding smaller organisations, and the Council was forced to cancel the program when Brandis cut $105 million from their budget over the next four years to establish his own National Program for Excellence in the Arts.

Brandis may be ‘flummoxed’ by these changes, but those who have given me these words to say today are most certainly not. These are the people who operate with the ramifications of these changes in their day-to-day life, and the issues are clear.

I would hope, of course, that all members support the arts, but the fact is that you do not have to be an arts goer or an arts lover to understand that it is wrong to make such a brash decision which will affect so many lives, careers, social opportunities and futures without the proper consultation of those affected. With those brief words, I strongly encourage all members to do what they can to look into these changes to understand the true ramifications and to make sure that we can truly free the arts.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola .

1. That a Select Committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on access to the South Australian education system for students with disabilities, their families, and support networks, including:

(a) The experience of students with disabilities, additional learning needs and/or challenging behaviours, and their families and advocates in the South Australian education system, including early childhood centres, junior primary, primary and high schools;

(b) The experience of discrimination, including victimisation and harassment, of students with disabilities, including, but not limited to, educational institutions failing to provide students with the support needed to reach their full academic potential on an equal basis with non-disabled students;

(c) The experience of segregation, restraint, lack of social opportunities and inadequate supports for personal care requirements, and other personal care routines such as toilet use for students with disabilities;

(d) The current level of initial and in-service training for teachers and other staff regarding students with disabilities, and suggestions for broadening and improving such training;

(e) The appropriateness or otherwise of the current DECD and school based policies and funding mechanisms for behaviour management for students with disabilities;

(f) The availability of specialist DECD staff, including speech pathology and psychology staff in rural and regional South Australia; and

(g) Any other related matter.

2. That Standing Order No. 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it thinks fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order No. 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

5. That the committee hearings be disability accessible and resourced with Auslan interpreters as required.

(Continued from 6 May 2015.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I move to amend the motion, as follows:

Paragraph 1(e)—delete the words ‘the current DECD and'; and

Paragraph 1(f)—delete the word ‘DECD’.

This amendment is to ensure that this inquiry reviews all sectors within the South Australian education system. This will give the committee the flexibility to call witnesses not just in the government schools but also all schools, when necessary. The state government is happy to support the set up of this inquiry with these amendments, and looks forward to working closely with the committee.

We understand and appreciate that issues addressed will be broad and we are here to listen. Be it matters of infrastructure, equipment, equality and services, we know there is always more work to do, and we will never stop listening. Whenever possible we will follow up with actions such as steadily increasing funding to students, which in 2014 totalled $163 million, or significantly increasing investments in infrastructure, such as rebuilding seven special schools and collocating them on mainstream schools.

In addition, the government has increased the number of disability units and special classes across the state. Since 2010, seven new disability units, autism intervention programs at Blackwood and The Heights schools and 12 new special classes have been established. An improved support service structure has also been created. Additional psychologists, speech pathologists and special educators are available to support teachers and students, in addition to attendance officers, behaviour support coaches, social workers and family focus workers.

We know there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to accommodating the needs of these students and their families which is why, whenever possible, we will aim to support choice. For this reason, we have also worked closely with both the Treetop board and now Autism Spectrum Australia or Aspect (a service provider for autism and other disabilities) to set up South Australia’s first autism specific school planned to open in the middle of 2016.

While the kind of supports I have mentioned can make life easier for students and parents, the state government is under no illusion that life for these brave people and their families is a challenge. The committee’s work will be important, and we hope it will complement some of the existing channels already set up to give a voice to families with students who have a disability.

The Minister for Education and Child Development’s office is, and will continue to be, a place where concerns and suggestions for the disability community can be heard. This is further complemented by the work of the Ministerial Advisory Committee: Students with Disabilities. The committee performs a number of roles that include:

1.Undertaking projects and providing advice on matters concerning the care and education of students with disability.

2.Ensuring equitable, transparent and accountable distribution of commonwealth and state money to eligible organisations that support the care and education of students with disability across the three education sectors.

3.Supporting non-government organisations to provide services to children and students with disability in early childhood education and care services and schools across the three education sectors.

When we encounter areas for improvement we work with the community to address them transparently and as quickly as possible. We intend this to be no different when working with the committee, and for this reason we welcome this proactive approach with the sole intention of improving the lives of students with disabilities and their families. With that, I would like to be on the committee as the government representative.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I too indicate that the opposition will be supporting the motion and will be supporting the government’s amendment to that, unless the mover of the motion gives us a good argument as to why we should not.

I see this select committee as almost the second in a series. In the last parliament it was my privilege, along with the Hon. Kelly Vincent and other members, to be part of the select committee on access to justice for people with disability. I say a second in a series because the select committee on access to justice for people with disability very much saw its role in the context of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the optional protocol. Article 13 of that convention specifically lays down the right of people with disability to access justice and, likewise, article 24 focuses on the rights of people with disability to access education. I must say that the contribution of the Hon. Tung Ngo today is very welcome. I think it would be fair to say that the government approached the first committee on access to justice for people with disability with some suspicion. I am delighted to see that the government is taking a positive approach to this committee, and I take that as some confirmation of the work of the first committee.

I think one of the valuable aspects of the first committee was that by accident or design there was a parallel process for the development of a disability justice plan. There was some very good work done, particularly by members of the Attorney-General’s Department, in facilitating that work, to the point where submissions to the select committee were explicitly said by the department to be, if you like, taken as submissions to the Disability Justice Plan, and the parallel work, I think, was very valuable.

I do not know whether there will be other events that will operate in parallel with this committee that could facilitate the integration of the policies into government practice, but I think the parallel development of the Disability Justice Plan certainly facilitated a useful dialogue. Perhaps we would still be developing a disability justice plan now if it had not been developed in parallel. That is a matter for government to consider, but I think other members involved in that committee would speak positively of the way those two processes worked hand-in-hand.

When I think about disability and education I think of two particular values. One is the need for young South Australians with a disability to have full equality of opportunity to achieve their potential, and we see that value in this motion. Clause 1(b) talks about the experience of students with disabilities, particularly the ability of educational institutions to ‘provide students with the support needed to reach their full academic potential on an equal basis with non-disabled students.’ Every South Australian is entitled to the education that they need to fulfil their potential to the maximum. That is particularly a Liberal value and I am delighted to see it reflected in this motion.

As a footnote to that comment, education in the past for people with disability has often been delivered through a separate special schools network. Over recent decades we have seen more and more the value, both within the educational experience and within the broader social experience, of both people with disabilities and people without disabilities, for all South Australians, receiving their education wherever possible in an integrated environment.

In more recent years we might dub that social inclusion, but there certainly is value in terms of people understanding the diversity within our community, embracing the differences, for education to occur together. They are not unrelated. If students are to receive equality of opportunity, a young student with disability may well have a greater range of options in an integrated education system. That value is also reflected in the motion. In clause (b) we see the reference to discrimination and in clause (c) we see the reference to segregation. It also mentions some of the difficult issues in relation to integration, where it mentions behaviour management. Sometimes students with disabilities are excluded because their needs are not properly met, and that leads to a behaviour management issue.

I would also emphasise the breadth of this resolution, and the Liberal Party welcomes that breadth. Disabilities do not have a sharp border, and we appreciate that phrases such as ‘learning needs’ in clause (a) would encompass a broad range of issues for young people. For example, we presume and understand from our discussions with the mover that the motion would encompass people with dyslexia, autism spectrum disorders (of course), and other forms of learning and other disabilities. I commend the Hon. Kelly Vincent for bringing the motion before the council and the opposition looks forward to more good work being done by this council to ensure that South Australians with a disability live full lives within our communities.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT ( 17:30 :27 ): In summing up on behalf of Dignity for Disability I thank the speakers to this motion, the Hon. Tung Ngo and the Hon. Stephen Wade. I also thank those who have given feedback on this motion and this process thus far, particularly with reference to putting the terms of reference together to ensure that it encapsulated all the issues we had envisaged. I also thank those who attended the forum we had on the potential establishment of this committee and on broader issues of education for students with disabilities, including parents of students with disabilities, present and former students themselves, education professionals and members of parliament. I think I am correct in saying the Hon. Mr Darley and staff from the office of the Hon. Ms Franks were there and we certainly appreciate that interest.

We also appreciate the broad support we have for the establishment of this committee. In one sense, that should be a given because the education and thereby the future of our state’s young people should be beyond politics. All we are asking for in establishing this committee is the opportunity for people to come and tell us their real-life stories, their lived experiences of gaps and failings in the education system, as well as what is happening currently that is positive so that we know what we should continue to focus on. As I said earlier in this place: nothing about us without us. We need to be reminded to use those real-life stories to identify positive ways forward.

If I can pick up on a few points from our speakers today. I would like to clarify that Dignity for Disability will support the government’s amendment to the terms of reference to remove references to DECD. It was certainly our intention that this committee would focus on all schools, government and non-government, but if the removal of DECD makes that clearer then we are happy to proceed with that. So, I thank the Hon. Mr Ngo for bringing that to our intention and subsequently moving the amendment.

There was a moment in the contribution of the Hon. Mr Ngo, and I do hope I am not misquoting him here because sometimes it is a little difficult to hear across the chamber, if I am misquoting him I am sure he will tell me, but I recall a moment in his speech where he referred to what I understand as people with disabilities and our families as ‘these brave people,’ is what I have written down here.

I am not brave. I am scared of the dark. I jump when the toast pops up out of the toaster. What I am is intolerant of injustice and tired of seeing my taxes going towards services, including schools, that myself in my school days and my peers with disabilities cannot access. If we are brave it is only because we spend so much of our lives fighting the barriers that the system erects for us. So, rather than congratulating us on being brave, I would humbly suggest it would be better to fix those scary situations.

The other point I would like to clarify briefly—and the Hon. Mr Wade already touched on this—is the fact that the terms of reference certainly cover all types of disability as well as additional learning needs and challenging behaviours. I understand that the Liberal opposition had some concerns that conditions such as ADHD and dyslexia may not have been covered by these terms of reference, but it is certainly my understanding and Dignity for Disability’s view that the phrases ‘additional learning needs’ and ‘challenging behaviours’ will cover those types of situations.

We have certainly worked quite hard on these terms of reference, getting advice from a number of interested parties, because we wanted to make sure that the terms were broad enough to encompass all those things. Ultimately, as far as I am concerned, this is really not an issue about disability at all: this is an issue about the system, the education system in this instance, being inflexible and unable to deal with difference. Given that we have a rapidly diversifying population that includes not only people with disability but also students with all kinds of differences, I think it is important that we try to look at this broadly.

However, there are a number of disability-specific issues, if I may put it that way, that we need to be mindful of and take very seriously. A survey recently conducted by Children With Disability Australia, the peak body representing children with disability, shows that as many as one in four students with disability are currently being denied enrolment at their school of choice or unable to attend school full-time due to a lack of disability-positive supports. Given that these families pay full-time school fees and do not pay their taxes part-time, it is blatantly unacceptable that students should not be properly supported to have their human right to an education met.

Of course, there was also the incident I mentioned in my speech introducing this motion, where a young boy with a disability was kept in the classroom in a cage-like structure made out of pool fencing because it was felt that the school staff did not have the tools to positively support him in the classroom environment. Certainly, we need to look at funding opportunities and whether there are gaps we can close but, more broadly, I think this is about cultural shift, and the way we inform cultural shift is by involving the people who live in that culture day in day out and by respecting the expertise they gain through their life and everyday experience.

That is why I am very pleased to have the support to establish this committee. I thank all members and parties who have indicated their support. I very much look forward to using this, as we did the access to justice committee, as a positive collaborative method to identify workable solutions for our education system in this state.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT : I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. T.T. Ngo, the Hon. J.S. Lee, the Hon. S.G. Wade, the Hon. T.A. Franks and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report on 29 July 2015.

Motion carried.

Kelly Vincent advises that as a result of her motion a Select Committee of the Legislative Council has now been established to inquire into and report on access to the South Australian education system for students with disabilities, their families, and support networks.

Interested individuals or organisations can make a submission to the Select Committee.  Submissions should address the Terms of Reference of the Committee (see below).  There are two methods for submissions: oral evidence, given in person to the Committee at a meeting in Parliament House OR a written submission that can be posted, faxed or emailed.  Written submissions can be sent to the Committee Secretary (details below).  You can make a written submission and request to also appear before the committee.  A submission can be as simple as a letter, a series of dot points or may be a more formal document.  Accessibility requirements can be discussed with the Committee Secretary.  Please note, submissions are to be sent to the Committee Secretary (NOT to the office of Kelly Vincent).

Please regularly check this web link for updated information and uploaded submissions:

http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Committees/Pages/Committees.aspx?CTId=3&CId=320#

Membership of the Committee:
Hon Kelly Vincent MLC
Hon Tammy Franks MLC
Hon Jing Lee MLC
Hon Tung Ngo MLC
Hon Stephen Wade MLC

The committee is currently calling for submissions. There is currently no set date for when submissions will close.

Contact:
Ms Leslie Guy
Secretary to the Committee
Telephone: (08) 8237 9490
Facsimile: (08) 8231 8901
Email: leslie.guy@parliament.sa.gov.au

Address submissions to:
Select Committee on Disability and Access to Education
Parliament House
North Terrace
Adelaide SA 5000

Terms of Reference:

A Select Committee of the Legislative Council has been established to inquire into and report on access to the South Australian education system for students with disabilities, their families, and support networks, including:

(a)The experience of students with disabilities, additional learning needs and/or challenging behaviours, and their families and advocates in the South Australian education system, including early childhood centres, junior primary, primary and high schools;

(b) The experience of discrimination, including victimisation and harassment, of students with disabilities, including, but not limited to, educational institutions failing to provide students with the support needed to reach their full academic potential on an equal basis with non-disabled students;

(c) The experience of segregation, restraint, lack of social opportunities and inadequate supports for personal care requirements, and other personal care routines such as toilet use for students with disabilities;

(d) The current level of initial and in-service training for teachers and other staff regarding students with disabilities, and suggestions for broadening and improving such training;

(e) The appropriateness or otherwise of school based policies and funding mechanisms for behaviour management for students with disabilities; and

(f) Any other related matter.

Please share this information with any person or organisation that you think may be interested.

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on access to the South Australian education system for students with disabilities, their families, and support networks, including:

(a) the experience of students with disabilities, additional learning needs and/or challenging behaviours, and their families and advocates in the South Australian education system, including early childhood centres, junior primary, primary and high schools;

(b) the experience of discrimination, including victimisation and harassment, of students with disabilities, including, but not limited to, educational institutions failing to provide students with the support needed to reach their full academic potential on an equal basis with non-disabled students;

(c) the experience of segregation, restraint, lack of social opportunities and inadequate supports for personal care requirements, and other personal care routines such as toilet use for students with disabilities;

(d) the current level of initial and in-service training for teachers and other staff regarding students with disabilities, and suggestions for broadening and improving such training;

(e) the appropriateness or otherwise of the current DECD and school-based policies and funding mechanisms for behaviour management for students with disabilities;

(f) the availability of specialist DECD staff, including speech pathology and psychology staff in rural and regional South Australia; and

(g ) any other related matter.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the C hairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

5. That the committee hearings be disability accessible and resourced with Auslan interpreters as required.

Since I came into this place some five years ago, matters concerning children’s daily life at school have formed a significant part of the constituent workload with which my office deals. My office is aware of and advocating for a number of families and individuals who have felt disappointed, frustrated, isolated and disrespected by their experience with the current education system in South Australia. However, the tipping point came over Easter this year when a story—which I am sure members would be aware of—of a 10-year-old boy on the autism spectrum being placed in a cage-like structure made of pool fencing in a Canberra classroom made headlines around the nation, and rightly so.

Currently in the Australian Capital Territory an expert panel has been established to work in conjunction with an investigation into how this inappropriate, unacceptable and inhumane structure, reportedly made, as I said, out of swimming pool safety fencing, came to be installed in this Canberra classroom. This investigation will be looking at who was involved and the response of the education and training directorate.

It is on the public record that this structure was installed in a public school on 10 March 2015 and was removed subsequently on 27 March. The ACT government has resolved to have a broader look at the policy framework and practices that support schools in responding to the needs of students with disabilities or other additional learning needs and challenging behaviours.

Following this appalling incident, Dignity for Disability has continued to be approached by families and individuals with concerns about how students with disabilities are treated in South Australian schools. Children and their parents have a right to expect fair access to education in South Australia. It is something that I would hope we take as a given, yet it is not so for many students with disabilities. I am aware through my discussions with concerned parents that certainly all is not well when it comes to providing an equal, fair and well-rounded education for students with disabilities in our education system.

As members would have heard in the media in recent weeks, here in South Australia children as young as four years of age are being suspended from Department for Education and Child Development sites and, while parents may blame the school and the school may in turn blame the parents, it is time to work together as a community to get this situation sorted out.

The working life of classroom educators has changed dramatically, and the reliance on school support officers (or SSOs as they are known) to deliver programs to children with disabilities is increasing and problematic. As hard-working and as dedicated as they may be, the work of SSOs is no substitute for qualified developmental educators.

Parents have contacted me in dismay over situations where, for instance, they are telephoned by their child’s school on a daily basis and asked to come and collect their child from school due to the child’s behaviour. The child’s behaviour could be a normal, everyday part of their disability and may reasonably be expected at times to be arguably disruptive, yet the effect of this is that because the school cannot cope, the parents cannot work.

I am hearing stories of parents who are told by school principals that their child cannot attend school full-time due to a lack of support resourcing in that school. Not only is this flatly unacceptable from a human rights and an educational development perspective, but I also think it is flatly insulting when the school continues to receive full school fees for the full term from that family, regardless of the fact that their child may not be able to attend full-time.

Additionally, talking about the effect of parents being asked to come and collect their children from school, according to a 2011 Productivity Commission report, the workforce participation rate of primary carers of people with disabilities stands at just 54 per cent compared to 80 per cent of people with no family-caring responsibilities. The economic ramifications of family carers being pulled out of the workforce in this way to support their child when the education system cannot presents an unacceptable cost to families and the economy, as well as a human rights concern.

The National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, more commonly known as NAPLAN, is once again taking place. Under nationally agreed protocols, students with disabilities are entitled to sit the test, with some adjustments as required. It is the responsibility of schools to inform parents of their rights for these adjustments and it is imperative that schools are appropriately resourced to provide the necessary supports.

Currently SA continues to spend just one-third of the national average per student with disability or other special need, and it is time we lifted our game. This committee, if established, will inquire into and report on the experiences of children, students and families in our education system. It is necessary because there are clearly far too many instances that indicate to me a level of discrimination that the broader community would not accept.

I am especially interested in finding practical solutions, such as suggestions for broadening and improving teacher and support staff training, in order to ensure that all students are adequately supported to achieve their full academic potential, regardless of disability. As I have said earlier in this place, it is unacceptable to believe that many of the barriers that people with disabilities continue to face in South Australia in 2015 are intrinsic within us. They are the result of a society that has failed to keep up with the rapidly diversifying needs of the people whom this community comprises and whom we need to support.

Children with Disability Australia released an important paper entitled ‘Inclusion in education: towards equality for students with disability’. It is important because it makes recommendations based on research about ways to empower educators to look at an education for students with disabilities as a rights-based issue. Certainly, while the resourcing of teachers, schools and classrooms is an issue, I hasten to add that we should all recognise that it does not cost money to recognise a student’s humanity. From that 2013 issue paper I would like to place on the record some of the elements of teacher education, which research shows will result in more positive attitudes towards inclusive education:

teacher education that enables teachers to develop an understanding of ableism, to recognise ableist values and practices and to seek to disestablish ableist attitudes, including consideration of representation of people who experience disability;

support to move beyond deficit thinking, entrenched within the special education paradigm, towards an approach to education which welcomes and celebrates diversity; and

learning about and developing an understanding of inclusive education.

Other points include:

engaging in critical reflection about beliefs and practices;

building confidence for inclusive education through reflective practice on developing knowledge of flexible pedagogy and universal design for learning;

engaging with critical disability studies in order to develop understanding of the social construction of disability and the role of the teacher in reducing ableism;

developing an understanding of diversity as a resource rather than a problem, and learning to presume competence and hold positive expectations of all children;

learning about available supports for facilitating inclusive education;

developing an understanding of the importance of building relationships with children in order to meet their individual needs;

developing an understanding of the importance of listening to people who experience disability, including children, and drawing on the disability rights movement in striving toward inclusive education. Within this, providing opportunities for respectful engagement with people who experience disability and their families; and

establishing strategies for ongoing collaboration with other teachers, including the provision of a theoretical toolbox to assist with engaging in ongoing critical thinking and critical reflection. I understand that that is a lengthy list, but I think it is important to get those points on the record because they make some salient points and they also talk to many of the measures that this committee I am seeking to establish will look into as well.

I think the need to challenge critical thinking and reflection about disability, and recognising people with disabilities and their families where appropriate in the case of children, are critical. As one of the recommendations of the report said, we need to move away from the automatic presumption of incompetence of people with disabilities and, rather, focus as we would with any other student on their capabilities, their capacity and their abilities to learn.

They might not always learn in the same way that students without disabilities do but, as somebody put to me in a conversation last week, we would not give up on a child because they had not learned all the necessary skills that we would expect of an adult in six to eight months, a year or perhaps even 10 years. We keep striving and find the right way for that individual to learn, and the same principle needs to apply for people who may learn differently due to disability, regardless of their age.

There is clearly a request for more awareness and knowledge on the implementation and use of inclusive and assistive technologies in classrooms as well as other measures to facilitate inclusive education. It is clear that community members are also keen for students with disabilities to have the opportunity to develop physical skills while being in the classroom, something that is reported to me as not currently occurring on a broad scale.

Just as in developing our Disability Justice Plan for South Australia, I think the parliament truly benefitted from consulting with people who were directly affected by policies and practices in the justice system area as well as using their knowledge as people living with disabilities every day. That is why I established that select committee, to get those real life stories that prove there are problems and to use that everyday personal experience and expertise to identify practical ways forward. I am certainly of the belief that a committee will be of benefit for the same reasons in this area.

As well as the other supports that we need to look at promoting for students with disabilities which I have outlined in this speech and which are also outlined in the proposed terms of reference, there is one other example that I would to make brief mention of—the Marrakesh Treaty. Australia signed the Marrakesh Treaty in June of last year, 2014. Its official title is the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled. It is estimated that, if properly acknowledged, this treaty could give an estimated 285 million people with vision impairment and other print disabilities around the world access to more books published in accessible formats, including large print, braille or audio formats, for example.

The treaty also allows for exemptions to copyright law to enable organisations to produce and distribute books and other materials in formats that are accessible to people with a range of disabilities. The aim of doing so is that, by allowing exemptions to copyright law, people with a vision impairment in particular will be able to access more literature than ever before.

I think it is particularly important that we acknowledge this, because it is one thing to recognise the rights of people with disabilities on a cognitive or philosophical level and to recognise their right to participate in education alongside their peers; however, if we do not provide students with disabilities with the practical supports needed such as a book or textbook in an accessible format and other measures that I have talked about, then we are not truly recognising the rights of people with disability in a practical sense and, therefore, not at all.

In summing up, I would like to leave members with what I hope is a troubling thought. It is not often you will hear me quoting George W. Bush, but I think that this is a particularly relevant and well-articulated quote. George W. Bush once described various forms of systemic bias as the ‘soft bigotry of low expectation’. It seems to me that this phrase captures many of the essences of the reality for far too many South Australian school students. It is also aptly describes some of the condescending attitudes and, as I said earlier, the presumption of incapacity (rather than capacity) that exists in the broader community in their dealings with people with disabilities.

I hope that members will support the establishment of this committee so we can hear these real-life stories and utilise that real-life everyday expertise to establish practical ways forward. I look forward to the contributions of others and commend the motion to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.

Second Reading

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT ( 16:58 ): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I introduce a bill to amend the Motor Vehicles Act of 1959, namely the Motor Vehicles (Demerit Points for Disability Parking Area Offence) Amendment Bill 2015 on behalf of Dignity for Disability. My contribution on this bill will probably be somewhat brief, and that is because the proposal that we are putting forward today is quite simple.

Since I was elected to this place in 2010, some five years ago now, one of the most frequent calls I receive to my office remains the issue of disability accessible car parking, in particular the lack of available disability car parking spaces, car parks that one can utilise with a valid disability parking permit. While the fine for parking in accessible spots currently attracts a $341 fine, this is not seen to be an adequate deterrent. People are still regularly flouting this rule and taking away the space from a person who legitimately needs access to it to go shopping, spend time with friends, go to work, attend appointments or go to the library, work or study locations.

Essentially, this is a very simple bill. It ensures that those found parking in a valid permit space without a permit will attract not only a fine but also a demerit point against their driver’s licence. All the usual appeal processes against a fine and against demerit points will still apply; that is, if you forget to display your valid permit you could apply for relief from the fine and the demerit point. I understand that there has been some concern in the community about this, so I want to put on the record that the same appeals mechanisms will apply.

My office is regularly told about people parking in disability access permit parks without a permit. While there is some policing of this by local councils and other authorities, there is still not enough policing occurring. I recently appeared in a Channel 9 television investigation that showed just how widespread parking in disability spots in and across the Adelaide area is.

While policing of accessible car parks is essential, I am hopeful that this bill will also bring about cultural change, which is much needed. It is far too common still in 2015 to hear excuses for parking in a disability access car park without a permit like, ‘I was only there for five minutes.’ Well, even if it is only for five minutes, to break the law for five minutes is still wrong. I find it quite amusing when people give this response and say things like, ‘I was there only there for five minutes and nobody else came along needing the park.’

The first question is: how could that driver possibly know that, since they were presumably in a shop or another venue and were not actually out there watching the park? Secondly, this excuse hinges on the false notion that respect is still being delivered adequately if the respect for one person comes after the respect of another; that is to say that you do not respect someone properly if you expect them to wait for their human rights and for that respect to be given to them.

As I said earlier, what if a car rolls up 30 seconds after you went into the shop, taking the accessible car park, waiting to use the only available parking spot that is suitable for unloading a wheelchair or other mobility aid or that is close to the entrance so that a person who cannot walk very far can get to the shop safely? The lack of available disability access car parks puts people in a place of great risk of injury. For example, if they are a wheelchair user, they could be lower to the ground and may be less visible to other drivers, particularly those in vans, four-wheel drives and trucks.

There is also the issue of where someone might mobilise slower than a person without a disability, which raises obvious safety concerns in a busy and sometimes not well-lit car park. While I acknowledge that I have received a small amount of opposition to this bill, with comments such as, ‘Demerit point offences should only apply where a clear safety concern applies to the offence,’ given the examples I have just given, I think that the safety element of disability access car parks is one that cannot be underestimated.

I would also like to talk about a recent campaign that came out of a Russian disability rights organisation called Dislife. This campaign was called ‘More than a sign’. This campaign involved people using secret cameras to validate whether or not a car pulling in to an accessible car park had the permit displayed. If there was no permit displayed, the organisation would activate a hologram which depicted a man in a wheelchair yelling, ‘Stop!’ The car would then pull over, of course, thinking that there was a person in front of the car. The hologram message would then go on to talk about the fact that we often forget that people with disabilities and those using disability access car parks are more than a sign. The hologram message ended with, ‘I face many challenges every day. Your only challenge is to respect my rights.’ Really, I think that says it all.

I also think the other cultural change needed pertains to the potential change of the symbol that is used to signify disability access car parks. It is quite well acknowledged now, particularly in the disability community, that not all disabilities are visible; in fact, most of them are invisible. So perhaps there is a need to change the sign to recognise that this is the case, particularly because even years after campaigns such as ‘Check the permit, not the person’ there still seems to be an ‘us and them’ attitude to the use of disability access car parks where if a person does not look disabled it is assumed they are not, and are therefore not entitled to use a permit space even if they have a disability access parking permit displayed in their car.

While the support of this bill from the community has been huge and overwhelmingly positive, I acknowledge that I have also received other comments, such as suggestions that this would be overregulation; that is, governments or parliaments stepping in to take away from the rights of people in that community. I do not consider this measure to be an example of overregulation. I consider that overregulation would be something that impinges on people’s civil liberties or on their ability to run a business in the way they would wish. This does neither of those things. This is already an offence, so already you should not have the liberty to park in an access park without a permit. This simply seeks to align the severity of that offence—that is, taking away someone’s ability to easily and safely access their community—with the effect that it is having on the community.

When I talk about this on radio, online or on TV I have been overwhelmed by stories flowing into my office by email, phone or online; stories of people with disabilities or chronic illnesses or age-related disabilities being trapped in parking spots, missing appointments, or being in unsafe situations. One such story I heard of was where a woman who was a wheelchair user was unable to get back into her car because she had had to park in a non-accessible car park, and she therefore had to ask a stranger to reverse her car out of that space so that she could get in with her wheelchair.

Essentially, what we are talking about here is community members and taxpayers being deprived of the opportunity to access the community safely and easily. This certainly demonstrates that we need to change social attitudes in relation to this issue, and I hope this bill will be one part of a conversation that will lead to a raft of reforms needed in this realm. I hope the support of members of parliament will reflect the broad community support that exists for this bill, and I thank those members who have already indicated their support. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.