Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On 10 June 1908 the newly formed Commonwealth parliament passed the Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Act. The legislation was groundbreaking. Prior to that the elderly or infirm received no financial support and their care fell to family, religious and charitable institutions, or government asylums. Life in such institutions was often far from easy. From 1910 the invalid pension was available to people aged 16 and over who were not receiving the age pension and who were permanently incapacitated for work.

Over the last century, Australia has seen a slow evolution of policy for people with a disability. That evolution took an important step in the 1980s. Ultimately, the informed consensus was that people with disability should be assisted to establish patterns of life that were close to, or the same as, those of society more generally. In 1983, Labor moved to adopt this principle with the result that public policy reflected a more inclusive approach to service provision, encompassing integration and access to mainstream services. The findings from the subsequent review in 1985 revealed that persons with disability wanted to more fully participate and be a part of the mainstream community.

Labor accepts that we all look to belong and contribute to our society. In my first speech in the parliament I spoke about social isolation. I said:

The long-term unemployed suffer in many ways which are difficult to comprehend … a person experiencing long-term unemployment is highly likely to lose their support networks, which are vital for their continued participation in community life.

The evidence is overwhelming that all people want to contribute to the best of their ability, and this has been made evident in the culmination of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But this divisive government seeks to demonise the most vulnerable Australians in our society. In the name of ensuring administrative efficiency of the expenditure of the Commonwealth, this government has proceeded in a manner which cannot in any way be described as 'efficient' to demonise and marginalise those vulnerable and disabled within our community.

As is stated in the executive summary of this report, the DSP is a complex program providing billions of dollars of support for hundreds of thousands of individuals each year, and has been operating for several decades. Effective risk management is therefore vital to ensure administrative efficiency, and that the budget pressures are balanced against the burdens placed on individual claimants and recipients. This report, however, raises new questions about the ability of this government to manage important portfolios with fairness and integrity.

The relevant ministers responsible for the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services bear responsibility for yet more bungling and insensitivity with respect to these portfolios. The final report of the JCPAA inquiry into the Auditor-General's report, Qualifying for the disability support pension, is a damning report. It is so significant that the committee has recommended that it is necessary for there to be an end-to-end review of the administration of the disability support pension program, involving consultation and engagement with stakeholders. The review system appears to have been so poorly undertaken that the committee has recommended that the departments of social services and human services undertake and publicly report the outcomes from an evaluation of the reviews of recipients under 35 years of age.

The committee was particularly critical of a failure to properly target those who were the subject of review. It is outrageous that it is even necessary for the committee to recommend the review of the list 1 conditions that provide eligibility for manifest grants of the disability support pension. The fact is that this committee found it necessary for particular attention to be given to the merits of including chromosomal disorders, such as Down syndrome, on list 1. It is necessary for me to elaborate as to the extent of the incompetence that has been uncovered and exposed as a part of the audit and the subsequent inquiry. The public inquiry highlighted that long-term recipients of the DSP, even, remarkably those who suffered—

See this speech in context