Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

Thank you very much. I and my team look forward to seeing those amendments in detail.

I'll move to one of the clearest pieces of feedback that we received as an inquiry in relation to concerns from the disability community. There are a number of concerns that have been flagged repeatedly with the government, and they have been flagged in the spirit of a genuine attempt to ensure that there is an understanding in government about the dangers of the legislation that they are putting forward. That is why I will turn to the new definition of permanence established in this legislation. The act, as currently written, requires a disabled person to demonstrate the permanence of their disability in a new way, and it gives the power to the minister and government of the day to define for disabled people—not for individual disabled people but entire cohorts of our community—what constitutes having sought or undertaken all appropriate treatments to, for want of a better word, cure yourself of your condition before then making an application to be on the NDIS.

Let me be really clear what this is: this is a government having the power to decide what, in their political view, are the appropriate treatments for a person to have undertaken to demonstrate that we have tried hard enough to cure ourselves of our disability before we then apply for the NDIS. Because the government, in other parts of this law, put in place a process through which all participants on the scheme will eventually be reassessed for their eligibility, this is something that will affect every single participant in the scheme.

There has been so much alarm raised by the disability community about these powers—again, ministerial powers—because of the very way in which this law has been written. This is not an ideological debate or abstract debate about the appropriate role of government. These are concerns that spring specifically from the way the act is written and what is written into the law. The law that Labor has written says that, in determining what an appropriate treatment to require a disabled person to undergo before they access the scheme is, questions of whether that treatment would constitute a financial burden, is geographically available or is appropriate in the broader circumstances of the individual, are things which the minister of the day is prevented from considering when defining what is appropriate.

This means whether or not the treatment is something that can be afforded is not considered, and whether or not it is something that is available is not considered. That means that, if you are a disabled person living in Kununurra, in Western Australia, you can be subjected by your government to a requirement that, before you get access to the vital disability supports that you need or in order to continue accessing the vital disability supports you already have, you undergo an 'appropriate' treatment as defined by your government. The fact that treatment is not available anywhere other than Perth is irrelevant. The fact that you can't afford the gap fee—irrelevant. There's the fact that you may be a single mum of three kids who would be happy to undertake the treatment—potentially, could even afford it—but you've got nobody to look after the kids while you recover. Those are factors which the minister is not required to consider under this law, as it is written, right now.

The governmental response to this concern—I am very sorry, but I'm going to use this language specifically and intentionally—has been gaslighting. They've gaslit the disabled community, again and again, because Labor have said: 'You're anxious over nothing. There's no power to require anything in this legislation. Show me the word "requirement". It's nowhere in the bill.' That's rubbish.

When it comes to if you live or die, based on the disability supports you've got right now, like the person that helps you get out of bed in the morning to have a shower, to get your food in, to go to the pharmacy, to keep your job or just live—does anyone really believe, when faced with the question of whether or not you can continue to receive those things, that just because there isn't the word 'requirement', there isn't coercion occurring?

When faced with the requirement to undertake a treatment, there's the box you've got to tick which says, 'Oh, yes, I've tried that treatment.' You can't get the NDIS if you haven't ticked that box. Does anyone really believe, in that moment, that they aren't being required by their government to undertake that treatment and that they aren't being coerced by their government to undertake that treatment? Come on, be serious. Does anybody really think that that's a fair thing to do to people? That's a fair response to that concern, particularly when you have written this part of your law in such a broad way.

We heard, as a committee, from experts and advocates, that these powers could enable a minister to require a participant with a psychosocial disability to undergo electroshock therapy before accessing the scheme. And, again, what was the response to that concern? I watched it happen live. There was horror in the faces of the Labor committee members; they were scrambling for some type of response. I watched it happen live. What was the response? 'Oh, we've been very clear that's not the government's intent. We're writing rules to make sure that won't happen.' Well, whoop-de-do. You're writing rules—rules that can be, using your legislation, rewritten by a subsequent minister or, indeed, a subsequent government.

Minister, what are people in rural WA meant to do if they are told they must undergo a treatment that is only available in Melbourne and that they won't be allowed to access the NDIS if they don't get the treatment?