As the disability community continues to be excluded by both State and Federal governments, Abigail challenged the NSW Minister for Disability Inclusion in Budget Estimates, questioning whether they will step up to provide real leadership and actual inclusivity.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: Minister, can you explain why only 9 of the 131 recommendations directed at States from the disability royal commission were accepted or supported by your Government?
Ms KATE WASHINGTON (Minister for Disability Inclusion): I appreciate your ongoing and enduring engagement and interest in not only people with disabilities but ensuring that their rights are fully realised in our State. As you know well, the disability royal commission was a seminal piece of work: 4 1⁄2 years; 222 recommendations were made; 131 of those recommendations were relevant to us as a State.... 95 of the 131 recommendations that are relevant to us as a State were either supported in principle, in part or in full.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: Sorry. On those ones that were supported in principle, though, this seems to be a thing that we see in a lot of responses to recommendations. "Supported in principle" means "Yes, sure, we like the vibe, but we're not going to do the thing," or "Maybe we'll do this one day in the future." It's not the same as supporting it outright and saying very clearly, "We are going to do this thing." Why were so many only supported in principle?
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: I accept that appearance, but it's certainly not the intent. As I said, our response is only an initial response, and we're going to be working closely with disability stakeholders on the way forward, on implementation... In fact, in our implementation plan that was issued with our response, one of those items is to hold another stakeholder forum to work through those items that were still under consideration... Our disability taskforce that has been responsible for responding has engaged across 16 different agencies across government, as well as all States and Territories.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: From the disability sector's perspective or from people with disability's perspective, what I'm hearing in the community is there is a lot of pain because they saw the disability royal commission as doing that work. They turned up. They gave their stories. They spent hours on submissions. We had a royal commission with commissioners who came together and deliberated for a long period of time. They've done the work of saying what needs to happen. That's already happened. Then they've delivered these recommendations and then both Federal and State governments have said, "Yeah, okay, we'll think about that, and maybe we'll consult with people with disability." And they're saying, "But we were consulted. That's what the disability royal commission was." They're really frustrated that they're being told, "Oh, no, you can't have that yet." What is your response to that? Because people are really disappointed and I think we've moved through anger to being just really sad about it.
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: I acknowledge that there is a lot of anxiety and concern in the community at the moment, particularly with the complexities involved with not only the disability royal commission recommendations landing but also the NDIS Review.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: I'm glad you mentioned that.
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: Those two can't be unpicked.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: No, but people with disability are feeling under attack by the Labor Government at a Federal level. They're looking to the State to actually help out and, with the recently passed NDIS legislation, there is more focus than before on the States providing support. They're looking to the States for leadership and they're not getting it.
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: I don't accept the categorisation, and I haven't heard from people with disability saying that they feel under attack by the Federal Government.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: You just have to read the releases from People with Disability Australia. They are very clear. All of the organisations, all of the disability orgs, all of those peaks, all of the advocates have been opposed to the NDIS reform. They are very upset by the response from the Federal and the State governments to the disability royal commission. They're feeling under attack and unsupported by a Labor government. Now is the chance to stand up and show some leadership.
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: We are working very closely with the Commonwealth and the NDIS Review is important work to ensure that the NDIS is sustainable into the future not only for participants now—
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: Yes, which means cutting money for people with disability.
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: To suggest that all disability stakeholders are opposed to the reform that the Commonwealth is undertaking, I think, is a mischaracterisation—
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: You just need to read the press releases.
This topic was then discussed again, later in the hearing:
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: Whilst I have the opportunity, I want to say that the work that has been done by both the DCJ team and the Cabinet Office team when it comes to responding to the disability royal commission recommendations, and the enormously complex and difficult work involved in the NDIS Review— it has been a really impressive group that are leading really important work. Ms Campbell and her team, with her leadership, but also everyone in there—New South Wales have been playing a significant leadership role when it comes to coordinating the States and Territories and our responses, so much so that we are now also going to be the State that's coordinating the six-monthly updates on reporting on our implementation of the disability royal commission recommendations. So we are coordinating all of the States and Territories' work on that.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: I'm glad you mentioned that because when I was talking about the criticisms from some of the stakeholders in relation to your response to the royal commission recommendations—I'm sure you will have seen the Physical Disability Council of NSW's response to your response to the disability royal commission. Of the majority of the ones that were noted or said to be supported in principle, the PDCN said, "Obviously New South Wales has a real opportunity for leadership here. Given your position, why aren't you advocating more strongly?" Instead of saying "noted", you could have said, "New South Wales will be pushing
for this at a national level," or something along those lines, but you didn't. What was the decision-making behind that?
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: ... This is going to be an iterative process whereby we continue to understand what the priorities are of the disability community in order to know how best to implement the recommendations. For example, there are some that just have to be in principle because there are other processes already in place, like the referral of the Anti-Discrimination Act to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. We can't pre-empt the outcome of that.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: Sure, but it was your decision.
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: We can't accept a recommendation when we have got other process in train in our State.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: But yet we do see a lot of examples where we're still making changes to things even though they have been referred off. It is within your power to say, for example, "Actually, no, we will introduce a positive obligation on people to not be discriminatory against people with disability." It is within your power, for example, to not exclude private schools from anti-discrimination legislation when it comes to people with disability. You don't need to have referred that off; you have chosen to refer that off. But in the face of a very clear recommendation from the disability royal commission, do you think it's a good enough response to just say, "We support this in principle, subject to some process we've initiated"?
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: Because it's a really complex piece of work that needs to be done in terms of the review of that Act.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: But yet we've been making ad hoc changes to it in all sorts of places.
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: Yes, exactly.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: Your Government has been, but it's picking and choosing which ones it wants.
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: Obviously I'm now stepping well into the territory of the Attorney General, but it is an Act that we know needs review, and it has been referred for review. It's an important piece of work. It's really complex. It's in the right place to get a better outcome for people with disability.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: But what about something like the anti-vilification provisions that appear for every other protected characteristic in the Crimes Act but not for people with disability? That's something within your power; that's not something that has been referred across.
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: It has been, as part of the Law Reform Commission referral.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: That's not to do with the Anti-Discrimination Act; that's to do with the Crimes Act—another piece of legislation we keep changing, ad hoc, whenever the right-wing media tells us to. These changes are being made to both the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Crimes Act despite the referral, so it is within your power. Will you change that one?
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: This is now well and truly into the remit of the Attorney General.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: But you have to advocate for people with disability.
Ms KATE WASHINGTON: And I'm doing so on a daily basis, amongst all of my colleagues, on many fronts.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: Maybe they're just not listening.
3 September 2024