Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

And Sue Boyce as well. Former senator Sue Boyce was also part of the committee and was very interested in both of these inquiries. In fact, she very strongly drove this inquiry. As we know, she had a very deep commitment to disabilities while she was in the Senate. I know damn well she still has that very deep interest.

As with many of the community affairs inquiries, this was a deeply emotional inquiry. I think that is very important to note. In fact, we heard the voices of, in particular, women with disabilities. We went to great lengths to organise hearings in a manner that enabled women to talk to us about their personal—deeply personal—and distressing experiences. I would like to place on record again our thanks to those women for sharing their accounts.

I am very disappointed in the government's response. In the introduction, they say some nice words such as: 'The government supports increased consistency across jurisdictions and will raise the committee's recommendations regarding the legal framework regulating sterilisation for people with disability with state and territory governments.' But if you skip through to one of the key recommendations of the committee, it states:

…that the Council of Australian Governments oversee the development of uniform model legislation to regulate the sterilisation of persons with disabilities. Based on this model, a new division of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be created.

The government has not accepted this recommendation.

We are talking about model legislation. The government talks about talking to the states and territories. One of the reasons we had this inquiry was that the states and territories were not doing the right thing. They are not doing the right thing in many cases. So it was very clear from the evidence that we needed this model legislation. When the government says it will talk to the states and territories, how about actually doing something? How about actually taking the leadership and working up this legislation?

We got some very powerful evidence about the need, in particular, for people's representation and people's relationship with the court and legal process to be supported. Where the government says on a number of recommendations, 'Yes, noted, and we will take it up with states and territories,' in particular they reject the issues around people being able to get better representation and to feel more comfortable with the legal system. In one of the recommendations the government has rejected in the first report, Involuntary or coerced sterilisation of people with disabilities in Australia, where the committee recommends that legal aid should be provided to cover the costs incurred by the parents or guardians in child sterilisation cases and the legal aid grant should not be subject to capping or to a means or merits tests, it is not supported. This is a big blow to those parents who are addressing, dealing with and coming to terms with the issues associated with helping young people and around sterilisation. It is deeply concerning that the government is saying it does not support that recommendation.

The government also does not support the establishment of a special medical procedures advisory committee to provide expert advice to the Family Court upon request in relation to specific cases. The recommendation goes on to say:

…other statutory decision-makers and government as appropriate on best practice in relation to sterilisation and related procedures for people with disability; and that the committee must include non-medical disability expertise as well as medical expertise.

These recommendations were very carefully thought out based on the evidence that we received. The evidence clearly said there needs to be more support in the Family Court. It is in the Family Court where people are struggling to deal with these issues and need better support. Also, better support is needed for children in this process. The committee recommended:

…that Commonwealth, state and territory legislation be amended to provide the right to public advocates, such as the Office of the Public Advocate, to be a party to child or adult sterilisation cases.

Again, the evidence was overwhelming that that sort of representation and advocacy was needed. Government has fallen down again in terms of supporting people with disability.

Then there is the recommendation that recommends that in the development of participant plans, particularly for participants approaching puberty and in their teens—this is for the NDIS—the participant work with any person assisting them with the plan development. The government has accepted this in principle but has pushed it through to the NDIA. Again, I would have hoped for a lot better support for that in terms of a commitment to making sure it happens. We want a commitment to make sure that particular recommendation happens.

I want to spend some time also on our second report, Involuntary or coerced sterilisation of intersex people in Australia. I will put on the record—and without unduly boasting of the community affairs committee's work—this report has been noted internationally. It is now seen to be a seminal report in terms of dealing with issues of involuntary or coerced sterilisation of intersex people around the world. I would like to put on record that our report is, I would hope, having not only broader Australian influence but also international influence. I am pleased that the government has accepted and supports in principle our first recommendation:

The committee recommends that governments and other organisations use the term 'intersex' and not use the term 'disorders of sexual development'.

I want the government to take this beyond supporting it in principle and actually doing something about it. We were given some very important and sensitive evidence, and again I thank the people that so generously shared with the committee their personal accounts of their experiences.

I am extremely disappointed again to see that, where the government could be showing essential leadership on some key legal and medical issues, they are balking and not supporting some of our key recommendations, such as recommendation 4:

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government provide funding to ensure that multidisciplinary teams are established for intersex medical care that have dedicated coordination, record-keeping and research support capacity, and comprehensive membership from the various medical and non-medical specialisms. All intersex people should have access to a multidisciplinary team.

The issues around multidisciplinary teams were considered absolutely essential by people giving evidence to the inquiry.

Other areas not supported related to special medical procedures. Our recommendation 9 states:

The committee recommends that the special medical procedures advisory committee draft guidelines for the treatment of common intersex conditions based on medical management, ethical, human rights and legal principles. These guidelines should be reviewed on an annual basis.

That is not supported by the government, and I am extremely disappointed about that. Nor will the government support recommendation 10:

The committee recommends that complex intersex medical interventions be referred to the special medical procedures advisory committee for consideration and report to whichever body is considering the case.

We will continue to work with organisations to pursue these recommendations, because they are based on the evidence that was given to the committee. We will also pursue the government to follow this up in a very purposeful manner with the states and territories. I do acknowledge, and we say in our committee report, that the states and territories need to be taking more action. The Commonwealth needs to show some leadership, in particular with the model legislation I was referring to earlier. I do appreciate and thank the government for their response. It has taken a little while but I am glad it is there now. We will continue to pursue these recommendations and we urge the government to show leadership on these issues.