Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> Good evening ladies and gentlemen,
and welcome to Curtin.
I also acknowledge the indigenous owners
of this land upon which Curtin is built.
And it's terrific to see so many people here this evening.
It's a very important topic.
And, certainly, Curtin has had a long-standing commitment
to students and staff, and visitors with disabilities.
We were the first Western Australian university
to develop a Disabilities Services Plan in 1997.
This plan has now been replaced
with a five-year Disability Access and Inclusion Plan,
which was agreed to in 2007.
After extensive consultation with staff and students,
visitors, disability service organisations, industry partners
in the Western Australian public.
In teaching of the plan is to enable people
with disabilities access to education and services in a way
that facilitates opportunities and inclusion at Curtin.
The Six Act comes with a plan have been prescribed
by the WA Disabilities Services Commission.
Curtin has added a seventh outcome to include employment
of people with disabilities at Curtin.
Curtin aims to shift the delivery of its services
from a reactive, various-focused approach
to a more proactive model of inclusive design.
An example of this occurred in April of this year
when we became the first Western Australian university
to upgrade our website with a new technology
that makes the information access easier for people
with difficulty in reading information
on a computer screen.
The assist of technology, Browsealoud,
will read aloud all accessible information on Curtin's website,
including HTML at PDF documents, Word documents,
forms and content on secure areas of the website
like the student web portal.
And it can also do so at high quality
and with an Australian accent [laughter],
which makes a change.
In addition to students, staff and visitors,
Curtin contributes considerably to the research.
A diverse range of research in the disability area.
Primarily in health services area, but also related
to public policy on disability.
We also have two centres of particular note.
The centre for research in a disability society which strives
to create positive impact on the lives with people
with disabilities, their families, and the community.
And, secondly, the Centre for Research on Ageing,
which has a focus on occupations affecting ageing, quality issues
in the delivery of age-care services, which, of course,
are closely linked to disability issues.
Having said all of that, we're always looking for way
to listen and to learn.
And we've certainly got a long way to go in making sure
that our services to provide full inclusion.
And that's why I was so interested
to hear Bill Shorten's address this evening.
The honourable Bill Shorten was elected as a member
from Maribyrnong in November, 2007.
And immediately appointed Parliamentary Secretary
for Disability and Children Services.
On the 25th of February, 2009,
the Prime Minister gave him the additional responsibility
of Parliamentary Secretary
for Victorian bushfire reconstruction.
Mr. Shorten has been a strong advocate for the rights
of people with disability and for improving services
and employment opportunities for them.
He's also involved with the development
of the federal government's National Disability Strategy.
And the National Mental Health
and Disability Employment Strategy.
Prior to the 2007 election, Mr. Shorten was National Secretary
of the Australian Worker's Union.
In that role and as Victorian president
of the Australian Labour Party, he's been a key figure
in standing up for the rights of workers
and for better safety in the work place.
Ladies and gentlemen, please join me
in welcoming Bill Shorten.
[ Applause ]
[ Silence ]
>> Thanks very much for that introduction.
And I too would like to acknowledge the traditional
items on the land upon which we meet.
I'd like to pay my respect to any
of their elders both past and present.
Listening to your vice chancellor speak,
I realise that other than the Collingwood Football Club,
I don't think there's any other institution left in Australia
which is not run by a woman [laughter].
Perhaps that would secure us the flag too [laughter].
Let me begin by asking you a question.
What is a person worth?
What is your value?
In fact, what is mine?
Are we all here of equal value,
or are some of us less equal than others?
Am I less equal if I can't live where I want or go where I want?
Am I less equal if I'm segregated?
Am I less equal if I cannot obtain a job interview?
Am I less equal if I can't complete an education?
Am I less equal if I cannot catch an airplane or a train?
What if I can't even cast a private ballot
in a state or federal election?
If you are one of one and a half million Australians who live
with a severe or profound disability,
or one of nearly 600,000 friends and family
and carers [cell phone music playing] who are unpaid,
you already understand the answer to that question.
The answer is, of course, yes,
I'm less equal [cell phone music].
It's probably Tony Abbot [laughter].
Looking for a policy [laughter].
About to rise above the day-to day partisanship [laughter].
But, of course, if you accept that it's possible
to be less equal in this society.
If you accept that some people are not valued according
to their potential, but, if fact,
according to their limitations.
If you accept that a person's voice is not heard
in political discourse sufficiently.
Then, of course, you realise that we have these people
who are living lives as second class citizens.
Not for their own lack of effort, and not for the lack
of effort of others who support them.
Wherever I travel in our very lucky and very special country,
I see that the achievable aspirations
of average Australians remain out of reach for a person
with a disability or their carers.
The modest aspirations of a good education, a steady job,
owning a home, a role as a valued and respected member
of a family and community,
followed by a comfortable retirement
in a safe and peaceful place.
All of these very modest,
very reasonable aspirations remain a distant goal
for many people with impairment.
Over the past 32 months as Parliamentary Secretary
for Disabilities, I've seen what they get instead.
And what it is by and large is a life unimagined.
The struggle to find a school that will accept you.
Difficulty travelling to a university and then, indeed,
receiving resources to support you in your studies.
The struggle to find an employer
who if they have no previous experience of employing people
with disabilities, you won't struggle
to obtain not only a second interview, but indeed, a first.
A struggle with a smaller pool of rented houses.
A life of extra expenses and isolation and frustration.
This is why I've come to see that a life
with disability is the last frontier, I believe,
of practical civil rights in our country.
It's an issue which doesn't just challenge the democratic
foundations and principles upon which our federation is based.
But it raises generational challenges
for the future prosperity of our nation.
Tonight I would like to make the case
that there is a practical civil rights agenda around disability
and the inclusion of people with disability as full members
of Australian society.
And that this case is not special plating on charity, but,
in fact, it is essential for our nation.
I don't believe disability is just a test
for our national morality.
I think it's a test of our national sustainability.
Because sooner or later Australia's governments,
industries, and communities have to address facts.
The fact of disability or risk the kind of social
and economic hardship that are now experienced by other nations
where they have significant proportions
of their populations excluded.
I don't think tonight, ladies and gentlemen, I'm exaggerating.
I think the stakes are that high.
And the human rights of people are that low.
People with disability in society lack power.
They lack organisation.
They lack money.
And they lack a voice.
There is no union for them.
There is no powerful disability lobby group.
We don't even yet have a national equivalent to the choir
of hard knocks that personalise the problem of homelessness.
As of yet, there is no acceptable face,
spokesperson, or packaging.
There's no single image of the over let survey echo
or the MCG full of the lame and the halt
and blind singing a song of demand and hope.
My favourite writer, George Orwell, once said,
"That the problem of being poor is
that it takes up all of your time."
This goes double for disability.
Disability can make you poor.
And on top of that, you have to expend your energy dealing
with systems that were not designed for you in mind.
People with disability and their carers spend
so much energy surviving
that they have little left to start thriving.
I believe families and carers
in the disability sector do a fine job
in patching the immediate holes in our creaky system.
Though, it has not been able to convince the rest of the nation
that this important issue is also an urgent issue.
In my view, they can, despite all of the efforts of all
of the people in this room
and the four other forums I've been to today.
There can be no real change
for disability unless it becomes an urgent,
political issue wielding the political clout
that the numbers deserve and demand.
We are now in the early stages of a federal election campaign.
I know that Julia Gillard and the Labour Party will have more
to say about disability during the next few weeks.
And I think that you can appreciate
that I can't speak entirely freely tonight about our plans
because they're timed for other days in the campaign.
But I can assure you that all of my colleagues in parliament know
that when they see me, they will expect a conversation
about disability in amongst anything else
that I talk to them about.
But tonight I do want to do three things.
One, I want to explain why disability matter to all of us.
Two, I want to explain why in this nation, be it a business,
be it an educational institution, be it a community
or government, we need to change the way we think
about disability.
And three, I'd like to explain why it's
in the national interest to bring disability
in from the cold and make it a mainstream matter
of political importance.
Before I go into my first point as to why disability matters,
let me give you one example of how it struggles
to gain mainstream attention.
Some weeks before the events in Canberra on June the 23rd
and 24th, I was invited to appear
on the ABC television program Q and A. On the night of the show,
which was after the change of leadership,
not one question was asked about disabilities because, of course,
four days before Julia Gillard had become Prime Minister.
Finally, in the dying moments of the show, I broached the issue
of a National Disability Insurance Scheme.
And stated that disability was at least as important as any
of the other important questions of national politics.
Barnaby Joyce, probably in a statement
that he would regret now,
attacked me of changing the subject.
Of spinning.
Of giving a line of adding disability in.
The point of that story isn't about Barnaby Joyce.
It is that disability is not a mainstream-media issue.
And one has to fight harder than one would expect merely
to get the debate covered.
Now, there are notable exceptions in the media.
And I was at Dreamfit today
with Darren seeing the remarkable engineering that's
been happening there.
And I know some of you have been involved
with remarkable accomplishments.
However, disability is still seen as an issue,
which is outside the mainstream of media interest.
It is either disaster coverage or sainthood coverage,
and very little in between.
It is something that is saying not to concern us,
the people in the T. V. viewer land.
As I've said, it's quarantined as a subject
for the one of specials.
Of sensationalism.
Tragedy or heroism.
But seldom for sustained investigation.
To use the media vernacular and the advice I sometimes hear
from very wise people in politics and pollsters,
disability just isn't sexy.
Tonight I want to tell you why disability is sexy
and why it should be treated as sexy.
According to the latest statistics
from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and that was
in 2003, there are about 1.5 million people with a severe
or profound impairment.
That is, that these people need assistance with one
of the core functions of living.
It could be speaking.
It could be moving around.
It could be washing.
Half of these Australians are under the age of 65.
This year, state and federal governments will have spent 6
billion dollars on care and support for the under 65's.
This system is further propped up by the unpaid work
of thousands of carers, the primary carers,
the bulk of whom are ageing parents.
It is a system in perpetual crisis.
I believe this crisis is set to become even worse
as our population ages.
Because the generation of parents who have been caring
for their children will simply reach a point,
where despite their best efforts,
they can no longer shoulder the effort.
I think as a consequence in 10 years the support of cost
of supporting people with a disability aged
under 65 is projected to jump by 66 percent
to 10 billion dollars a year in current dollar values.
And in 20 years it will jump to 17 billion dollars.
And I'm not including income support
and the pension payments in that.
The day-to-day costs will go from 6 to 10
to 17 billion dollars in the next 20 years.
And of that 6 billion dollars, 4 billion dollars is the states.
And that will go to 7 billion of that 10 billion.
And that will go to 11 billion of that 17 billion dollars.
This is just the beginning.
Every year 30, 000 children under the age
of 15 acquire a health condition potentially leading
to a disability.
It is now estimated that there are 180,000 children
under the age of 15 with a severe or profound disability.
Every year nearly 10,000 people, 10,000 Australians under the age
of 30, will enter the disability support pension or the DSP.
Most will stay on it for the rest of their lives.
There are now nearly 800,000 Australians receiving the DSP
at all ages.
Costing somewhere north of 11 billion dollars.
Not a figure to be included
in that earlier figure of 6 billion dollars.
Every person with a disability, age 20 who enters and stays
in the mainstream workforce rather than spends their life
on the DSP will save government nearly 600,000 dollars
in service outlays.
And they'll pay taxes.
They will have less need
for government-funded care and support.
And most importantly of all,
they'll have a much better quality of life.
I've suggested as a marvellous productivity dividend,
for each of those 10,000 full-time carers
who develop chronic illness and develop stresses and strains,
who certainly never save superannuation
for their retirement.
For every 10,000 out of 500,000 carers,
who by designing a system we can release for them
to pursue other careers and work in the paid workforce,
will deliver half a billion dollars.
That's if you assume the average wage remains at 50,000 dollars.
The inadequacies of our current disability system is impacting
on other areas of critical need.
Acute healthcare through to corrections.
The prisons of Australia have become the institutions
of last resort for too many people
with an intellectual disability.
In New South Whales it's recorded that 20 percent,
20 in every 100 occupants
of New South Whales Correctional Facilities, have an IQ below 70.
We, in fact, have 8,000 people
who are restrained either physically
or for a chemical restraint throughout Australia.
Some, perhaps, need to be.
I cannot believe 8,000 should be.
Too many young people with a disability remain
in an age-inappropriate nursing home rather
than with people their own age.
The federal government has been reducing this number.
But there are still nearly 7,000 people under 65 in age care
because there is nowhere else for them to go.
We know that people with disabilities are parked
in acute-care hospital beds
until more suitable service arrangements can be found.
This is surely a very expensive way to help people.
One project in the New South Whales lifetime care
and support authority reduced hospital stays by up to 83 days
by opening up community care options for people
with severe spinal cord injury saving nearly 100,000 dollars
per patient.
What does this fairly brief canvas of the landscape
of the economics of disability tell us?
More and more Australians will be forced to drop out of work
to care for their loved ones.
Our economy will be hamstrung by an acceleration in the fall
of labor force participation rates.
State governments will be driven to the verge of bankruptcy
by rising disability costs.
And Australians with disability will become increasingly
marginalised and segregated.
And I suspect at some point there will be the very real risk
that we'll return to the dark ages of institutionalisation
as desperate parents
and desperate governments simply give up.
And, indeed, what if all the carers went on strike?
What if they costed themselves
as employees and asked to be paid?
Now, I know they won't.
Not because I'm saying they shouldn't,
but because it's love that drives them.
Not any expectation of reward.
But I do believe we should support and value the love
of these parents and siblings and children rather than take it
for granted and then punish them
with an inadequate system of support.
As dire as things are,
I do believe real progress has been made
since our government was elected at the end of 2007.
I should acknowledge the contribution
of Jenny Macklin in achieving this.
We have doubled the money which we provide the states
through what we call the National Disability Agreement.
We provided 5.3 billion dollars over 5 years.
And we've introduced better bench markings.
This is from June of 2008.
That's double what happened in the previous five years.
So when someone says what's labor ever done?
I'm going to rush off and just [inaudible] green [laughter].
Because a colour solves everything [laughter].
That point needs to be put on the tick column.
We've increased carer allowance
in the disability support pension
by almost 100 dollars a fortnight.
And that would have been possible in 2008 to say, "Sorry,
we've got the Global Financial crises, we won't do it."
But, obviously, we did.
Because it was the right thing to do.
We've changed the disability employment net worth.
We've removed the cap on who want specialist service,
employment services seeking open employment.
We've created the Helping Children with Autism Package,
which has assisted 7,000 children with autism,
which provides 6,000 dollar rebates.
We've delivered after a decade of delay,
longer than the Trojan War, the first access
to premises standards with public buildings.
We're amongst the first developed nations of the world
to sign the United Nation Convention on Rights of People
with Disabilities and the option of protocol,
which allows unhappier citizens to hold us to account
in international forums.
We've changed the proposals around design
for residential houses so that all new houses in the future
by 2020 will have been built
to a universal-design standard we call liveable housing design.
Most importantly, we've established, and we've, indeed,
as recently as Saturday,
convinced the big four cinema chains
that they should make every cinema complex in Australia,
they should have a screen available every day for vision
and hearing impaired people, which they're doing now.
I think, though, the most important thing we've done is
establish the productivity commission inquiry
into the possibility of a lifetime care
and support scheme We've asked them to investigate is possible
to create and social insurance scheme
which will provide resources for people
with impairment when they need them.
Not on the allocation of crises or inadequate rations.
I don't pretend to, however,
that these changes are anywhere near enough.
Not by a long shot.
But I certainly believe that the current model cannot remain the
way it is.
I've spoken to our Prime Minister about this.
She has a great deal of empathy and understanding
about the real lives of people with disabilities
and their carers are living.
She has the vision to understand why more reforms
in the national interest and why doing nothing is simply not
an option.
Well, tonight I'd like to suggest
to you what this new approach should be.
We need a new model of disability funding in Australia
that is about driving better
and more coordinated service delivery outcomes.
Facilitating community and employment participation
by people with disability.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says
that by 2030 it's estimated there'll be 2.3 million
Australians living with severe and profound disability.
Greater than the entire population of Western Australia.
I don't believe there will be an increase the terms
of the voluntary unpaid carers.
In fact, I suspect there's likely to be a drop as some
of the older carers simply find it too hard to go on.
I think we have a giant wave of need on the horizon.
And I think unless we change our thinking, we run the risk
of being swept away and too many people simply dropping behind.
But to shift our thinking away from old ideas
and attitudes towards disability ask a very big task.
It will require the effort of the whole of society.
We need to admit that the way we live and the way we work
from maternal health and childcare centres in school
to shopping centres and public transport.
To housing and work places have been designed
without consideration of the needs of people
with disability and their families.
A little example in the upcoming federal election.
The Labour Party has two completely blind candidates,
Tony Clarke and Steven Hurd, standing for House
of Representative seats in my home State of Victoria.
They're strong candidates
and they'll make excellent MP's if elected.
But there is a problem.
They cannot cast a secret ballot.
Secret ballot's the cornerstone, I think,
of our democratic system.
It was first introduced in Victoria in 1855.
But 155 years on, voters with visual impairments still have
to trust someone else to fill their ballot paper in for them.
The secret ballot should be universal.
But why have one segment of the community have
to wait a sesquincentenary for a basic democratic protection?
I'll talk about what the broader community, including business,
can do about disability tonight.
But before I do, I think it's important
that I explain my personal thinking,
not the official government line.
But my personal thinking behind the proposed National Disability
Insurance Scheme.
Last year we announced there would be a study
and include the investigation of one option,
which is a National Disability Insurance Scheme.
This will not be just another inquiry to use seasoned veterans
of disability inquiries.
And there are some here who've earned their stripes.
This is an inquiry into a solution.
Not just the problem.
The productivity commission has already released its issued
paper in May, which made the case
for major change in disability.
The commission had this to say
about the disability system on, I think, page 4.
The key question, and I quote,
"Is not how bad the current system is.
Nearly everyone thinks it needs to be overhauled.
What we want to know is how to build a good system."
And they went on, on page 14.
"The commission is starting from the position
that the broad rational for some form of mandated contributions
to provide disability support is soundly based.
Whether through taxation, compulsory contributions
to insurance, or other means."
The key question at this stage is how best to design a system
that achieves this goal.
After all, demand for services is growing
at 7 percent per annum.
That's the best numbers we have
from Victoria and New South Whales.
Now, much of the discussion
about an insurance scheme will be how much it will cost
and how it will be funded.
That's the fun part.
But what I want to suggest is that before we try and work
out that answer - how much do we pay?
Let's work out what is it we actually want.
And how will it work.
And I think that will then support
and inform a better debate about how much we're willing to pay.
I can't preempt the productivity commission on these issues.
And I cannot predict either their findings or the response
of whichever government wins the election in several weeks time.
But I would like to make the point
that we're already spending a huge amount of money.
Something like 23 billion dollars per annum overall.
We're already spending that, and that is going to keep growing.
So this is not a case
of debating a new idea compared to a vacuum.
We have a system.
The question is what's required to make
that system operate better?
And then what is required to fill the gap if there is any
between the status quo and an improvement?
When I talk about that around 23 billion dollars a year is
payments in the pension.
Nearly 11 billion dollars plus.
There's payment to carers.
There's payments to the states.
We are pouring the water of our expenditure of disability
into a series of leaky buckets.
I personally believe that sticking
with the current system is a false economy and a waste
of too much human potential.
I'm interested in whether or not we can shift to a system
that intervenes early.
And early intervention doesn't just mean toddlers.
It means when trouble happens, having the support then.
Not too late.
I'm interested in a system that we should look
at which offers individualised support and care.
That follows and person throughout their life.
And I believe that must save money.
There are economists in the treasury in Canberra
that say every disabled person we help into a job
or perhaps a bonus or some work or if we were
to remove the means test on the Disabilities Support Pension,
there are some economists who say all we do is replace someone
who is already on work with someone else.
Stupid economics [laughter].
I got an MBA.
What I'm interested in is how do we relieve people
and make them feel part of society?
The premiums clear to me.
I'm also interested, and as I know some
of the families here already for their persistent
and consistent advocacy, I am interested
in how I can help alleviate the relentless anxiety that people
with disabilities and their carers feel about their future.
What will it involve in practice
and is there anything that's working?
And I'd like to use the example of the good system they have
in New South Whales or the transport accident commission
in Victoria where people have been seriously injured
in a motor vehicle accident.
This scheme pays for the rehabilitation treatment care
of people in car accidents.
It includes medical and dental treatment,
rehab, and risk by care.
It covers home and vehicle modification, age,
and equipment, as well
as vocational training and education.
Image if we could just offered that package of services
to every person with a disability.
Now, I'm sure these schemes are not perfect.
And they cannot pay for everything who's been paralysed
or suffered a severe acquired brain injury would want.
But there is a structure.
There is a pathway for the persons who enter and deal
with the shock and pain of their changed circumstances.
They are not told half way through financial year
to come back next year when we have more money
because we've expended all our packages for this year.
This scheme, for the admittedly limited poorly qualifiers
suggest, is an island of optimism in an ocean
of pessimism in disability.
Compare this to the situation of a person
who suffers an identical injury in an accident at home.
Whereas the victim of some thuggish, domestic violence
or a chance swimming incident.
Unless they're able to win for the Russian roulette
of a court case if, in fact, they have a compensable injury,
they will fall back on the patchwork system
that is already beyond capacity.
Compare the motor accident victim and the system
with a couple whose young child entering school
who was diagnosed with autism some years ago.
That family have walked out of the doctor's office
and discovered they are on their own.
They are left disoriented, grieving,
scrambling to access services of speech therapists,
psychologists, all the help that you need.
And, indeed, to access long-term, consistent,
well-informed medical advice for their child and their treatment.
Parents with children
with developmental delays have explained
to me how they get a degree from Google University
because it is the only place they can go for information.
We know that with autism, good,
early intervention does make a huge difference
in someone's life.
So the clock is ticking and the opportunities slip away
from the moment of diagnoses without adequate support.
Even if the parents manage to find some help initially,
they discover that the earth is flat.
Back in the 3rd end century they were told
that if you sailed too far to the edge
of the world you would fall off.
We now know that the world is round.
But for the parents of a child with a developmental delay,
the world is still flat.
We sail off the end of the world again and again when you try
and find early intervention services.
You sail off the world again when you look for a school
and the special or mainstream system in primary schools.
You sail off again the end of the world
when you find a secondary school.
And you're made to feel like a bully and a trouble maker
for fighting your corner for the child you love
to have adequate support and services.
You have these collisions.
You have these departures.
You have the need to start again at every point
in the lifecycle of your child.
Merely because government departments can't follow the
individual involved.
To me that the productivity question -
a question that they have
to answer is how do we move the level of care
and support offered to acquire injuries
which are not compensable or to congenital impairments?
How do we move it to something approaching
that of a person injured in a car accident
in Victoria and New South Whales?
How do we ensure that a child with autism or Down's syndrome
or Fragile X or blind or deaf or have cerebral palsy,
how do we ensure that they have best experience at school?
Because you have an impairment doesn't mean you can't learn.
Impairment's a fact of life you acquired at birth
through a shaft of DNA.
You can acquire it in a blink of an eye.
Any of us could acquire it in the next 24 hours.
How do we ensure that the impairment doesn't become the
defining feature of your character
and all the other attributes at that make and constitute you
as a marvellous, vulnerable,
unique human being I brought to the front?
How do we ensure that you can learn?
That you can get a job?
That you can own a home?
How do we ensure that you have a chance to live a life that is
as independent and as satisfying as possible?
How do we ensure that you are not defined by your in ability,
but all those complex interactions
which makes every person here the person that they are full
of emotions and capacities, and, indeed,
unrealised potential yet?
Why should in Australia the quality of care depend upon
where and how the impairment occurs;
not the needs of the impairments?
So I think that disability is a mainstream concern.
There's no doubt that government has a major role to play
in the creation of a new approach to disability.
Be it through an initiative
such as the National Disability Insurance System I propose will
somehow have a comparable strategy.
But, it is an issue that is too big for government alone.
Government generates 30 in every 100 dollars
of the Australian economy.
But the private sector generates 70 in every 100 dollars
of the Australian economy.
We need buy-in from the mighty Australian private sector.
It can drive enormous change.
Business should appreciate that focusing
on disability is good for business.
I believe that a Disability Insurance Scheme will create a
multi-billion dollar marketplace for goods and services and jobs
and rewarding jobs at that, to cater to the needs
of people with impairment.
You know, when we announced earlier this year
through the National Access to Premises Standard -
that's for public buildings, there was some interest.
It's taken ten years of complex negotiation
to get them in place.
Longer than, as I said, Achilles' Trojan War.
But it only covers public buildings, not private.
During late last year, however, I established a dialogue
on the issue of universal housing design.
I invited the master builders and the property counsel,
the housing industry association, the architects,
the real estate agents, the counsel of the ageing,
state and federal governments, disability activists.
People who traditionally have been adversaries
when it came to public buildings.
And I said to them the adversarial approach hasn't
worked and it takes too long.
I said to them on one hand to the property guys,
you can probably delay this ten years.
You can probably scare people at cost of housing.
But I said sooner or later you'll get fitted
up with some regulation which doesn't really suit you.
By the same token I said to the disability groups,
you can assert your legal rights.
And that process will take a long time.
What I instead put to them is I said let's think
about the consumers of housing.
Why wouldn't we want to have and build new houses in Australia,
which 4 million extra people can buy?
People told me the Australian dream is to buy a house.
I share it.
People tell me the other Australian dream,
which often doesn't get said, is the opportunity
to sell a house you built
on average eight years after you bought it.
We all like to sell house to people who buy.
You know, Moses did not come down from the mountain
and say there's the 11th commandment on the back
of the first 10 - the doorways shall be 700 millimetres
wide [laughter].
Moses did not say the entry port between the car and the gate
and the front door must have steps.
And he certainly didn't turn his mind, I'm sure,
to the idea that thou shalt not build reinforced walls
in bathrooms so at some future point if the need happens,
the next owner of the house can attach grab roles.
And I've looked at pictures of Noah's Ark.
And there were no lips on the showers [laughter].
Technically, also there were no showers,
but let's go with me [laughter].
The point is we managed to convince the housing industry
that all new houses should be built
to these standards and others.
And so we released that two weeks ago.
And we've credited a not
for profit institute to monitor progress.
We've convinced the disability groups,
trust the housing groups.
Let's not call it regulation.
But what we have convinced the housing group
to do is you must have accountable milestones
so in the event you don't deliver it,
you haven't got an argument against regulation
because your way didn't work.
Cinemas, more recently, last Saturday,
we convinced the big four chains with their 1,832 screens
and their 232 complexes around Australia having 12 screens
which are accessible are not enough.
But they're using new technology.
They're now going to outlay millions of dollars
with a little bit of help from us.
And now we'll have our milestones -
10 percent by Christmas this year,
32 percent by Christmas next year,
60 percent by Christmas the following year.
And all cinema complexes the following year will have 7 days
a week 24 hours a day accessible screens
with proper audio description for blind people.
Not just the voices, but what's happening.
Proper individualised caption machines
in the drink cup holders so that we get
over this debate, "Oh, gee.
People don't want to see captions."
So all of a sudden there's millions of people
who can buy houses now or will be able
to buy houses which suit them.
They're liveable houses.
And they'll be 2.3 million hard-of-hearing and blind people
for whom going to cinemas more importantly
with their family is now going to become a reality.
So there is business in disability
and it isn't all hard luck.
I have no doubt that with all of these, and, indeed,
someone pointed out about this housing design
that if your door is wider, then you use less bricks
and you save money anyway [laughter].
I did forget that argument.
I guess my point about this is that we can engage and change.
We know of the green dollar.
We hear of the pink dollar.
But, like I suggest, there is a disability dollar.
Or, indeed, a liveability dollar.
And I think that when you look at this we redefine people
with disabilities not as charity, but as consumers.
Not as costs, but as opportunities.
We need to turn around the thinking which says
that providing product and service to people
with disability is somehow a loss later.
There will always be areas where regulation is necessary.
But I think that as companies embrace new technology
and creative thinking, and they can understand they can make a
profit out of the delivery of services,
that must move the game forward.
And I don't say that to be interpreted
as government should do any less than it already is.
I think the workforce potential, any companies employ people
with disability once they do it, understand that people
with disability take less sick days.
Frankly, they solve more problems in a day
than most people ever do.
And modern Australian corporations in a diverse,
global environment need to be good at handling diversity.
And if you can be an employer who works with the diversity
of disabilities, your customers, your suppliers
and your customers, you will be more agile, flexible,
a modern 21st century company.
So in conclusion, there is a debate in disability to be had.
The disability sector's been too fragmented.
And to be fair, it's exhausted and tired
and been fighting out of the scraps.
But I would suggest to you that a host of people
of 2 million strong don't have to change more than 1
or 2 percent of what they do.
But if all of their voices were combined and asking
for the same thing at the same time, it's not the frail
and timed voices asking for something a little extra.
That's the voice of a mighty congregation
which can't be denied.
And if they ask for the same thing,
then something has to happen.
And even if the worst, worst happened
and we lost the election, I have a view
that this productivity committee commission,
whatever it recommends next year,
status quo no longer an option.
And I certainly have been attacked politically.
Perhaps from even, you know, from all points
of view saying I'm guilty of raising people's hopes.
Let me be clear tonight by my I talk, I am not seeking
to raising your hopes because your already know what goes on.
And I'm not seeking to make you angrier than your already are
because you already know what goes on.
What I'm suggesting to you is that disability matters.
That is it is possible to mount a [inaudible] economic case
for change.
That we can no longer afford to keep missing
out on this most important issue.
I would say that in the 14 years before I went into parliament,
I thought I'd seen disadvantage across this country
when I was an official in the Australian Work's Union
and I'd been up to the [inaudible]
and I've been up to The Kimberley.
And I'd seen the timber industry down in the south west.
And I've done meetings in Northam and Katanning and,
you know, various small places with very big wheat silos.
And I'd seen a fair bit about disadvantage.
But nothing prepared me for the disadvantage
that I see with disability.
And the last 32 months I've certainly opened my eyes.
I think that we have hidden in plain sight in this country
over 2 million people who are treated effectively
as internal exiles.
To the extent they don't get the same opportunities.
We wouldn't build a wall around the mighty sail
of Western Australia and say you'll just get sick
and write outcomes.
You'd secede [laughter].
You'd secede anyway [laughter].
Please don't [laughter].
But the point is, if we had 2 million Australians
in any other category not treated well,
people would say this is not good enough.
I don't think that it's good enough now.
I think that it's a loss of the Australian potential.
There's been plenty of progress.
And I know some of you, it doesn't matter from the work
of special disability trust to some of engineering work,
to some of individual battles
that you've made and accomplished.
You have made progress.
But I am sufficiently ambitious to recognise
that there comes a time in the affairs of people that a moment
for change becomes clear.
And the door opens.
It is not a foregone conclusion that these reforms
that I'm talking about will occur.
But if enough people take enough interest
and the appetite is there, then I do think that we can move on.
We've seen change for other things
which were considered impossible.
For Aboriginal Rights through to the equal treatment of women.
And those battles aren't concluded.
I think, though, that if we take that same energy we've seen
in other change and applied it in the field of disability,
it will be possible that people with disability do not have
to enter restaurants by the back door.
And that when they're booked to get on an airplane,
they won't we moved from their own wheelchair to something
which someone else has to push them around.
And it should be possible
that if your child has cerebral palsy,
they can get some good, conductive education.
And it should be possible if you're in your 80's
that your want to know what's going to happen
to your 56-year-old son or daughter that it's possible
that this nation can look you in the face and say,
it might be you caring for this person,
but this person will be all right.
Thanks very much for listening.
[ Applause ]
>> When I was out with the group, Mr. Shorten, we did -
we are aware of each other's presence
at the Community Cabinet Meeting on D day the 6th of June
at Canberra, I asked a very similar question along
similar lines.
And if you'll pardon me, I'll read the thing
so that I get all the words in their right order and so on.
Otherwise, I'll end up making a speech, which will, you know,
take us well into the night.
Just reading it will be much, much, shorter.
In keeping with the principles with fairness and equity
for disabled people, how will the government ensure a disabled
person's security of tenure in the family home?
After the parents are out of funds, if necessary,
to permanently take up residence in a nursing home.
But makes the family have available to the disabled son
or daughter rent free because there are good medical
and psycho and social reasons for doing so.
And the - the disabled, immediate relative -
can pay for the annual matter between housing costs.
That his rates, insurance, that sort of thing,
which together amount to about a third
of the Disability Support Pension.
Now, if the disabled person has to be evicted
because they can't pay that, one-third of their pension
for house costs as well as paying their parent or rent
for living in that home, which is equal to the house cost,
thereby doing away with two-thirds of the DSP.
Then will the government immediately provide a new,
affordable home for the disabled person in an environment
that guarantees the quality of life enjoyed
in the family home is not diminished?
And a third of the Disability Support Pension, which is left
for food and everything else,
amounts to about 100 dollars a week,
and not too many people can live on that.
Now, I did make a similar statement at that forum.
So far, I've received a letter from Jenny Macklin thanking me
for the question and for a solution that I've proposed.
But it hasn't gone any further than that.
Thank you.
>> All right.
What I wouldn't mind doing because I'm sure
that there will maybe a few people is
if I can get three questions at a time.
And if I don't come back to a specific question,
I'm sure you'll pull me up.
But rather than me - I want to hear as many
of you talk if that's all right.
But I will answer to the best of my ability each question.
Is that all right with people?
[Inaudible].
>> My name's Mark Gray.
I'm a parent of a young man with Down's syndrome.
We've entered my son in school systems in two countries.
We started in the United States
and moved here about five years ago.
I'm originally from Perth.
Having worked through the United States' system for people
with disabilities and now moving here,
and while I on one hand appreciate the value of trying
to partner with community groups and businesses to try
and improve the rights of people with disabilities,
I recognise that the United States system has a much more
rich body of law when it come to supporting the rights
of people with disabilities.
And I'm thinking really
of the Individual Disabilities Education Act - IDEA.
And apply with new provisions
under the Equal Opportunity Act of the United States.
And that those provisions provide long-term stability
for the rights of people with disabilities.
Whereas here, it seems that whatever rights we're apt
to acquire for our children
or our loved ones can be legislated away
with a change of government.
So I guess want I'm looking for is - the question is, you know,
should we be advocating for more fundamental change
to our legal system, or moving purely on the path of trying
to promote good behaviour on the parts of our community?
>> That's a good question [applause].
>> [Inaudible].
>> All right.
Just need.
>> So one more.
Meet Terri Harvey [assumed spelling].
Terri.
>> May be we'll have three questions.
And the answers of all three
and then we'll move to another group.
>> Thank you.
Thanks. I think I'd like to start by saying one
of the great - I've note what you said
about sometimes having been criticised
for saying politically for raising expectations.
But I think one of the things our sector greatly appreciates
is that you've given voice to many of the issues
that we've been discusses in the sector.
[Inaudible] from the Developmental Disability Council
at WA.
And really, you just interested the point about legislation
because it kind of gave another slant to what I was thing of.
And this is this issue of fragmentation.
I think the absence of that kind of strong legislative bases
from which we can base our advocacy doesn't help
with the fragmentation we experience.
But I've spent the day today at the public hearing
for the productivity commission inquiry, and I have to reflect
that my experience of our sector is not one of fragmentation.
I know that there are issues that we don't always agree on.
My experience in the sector has been one
of incredible diversity.
WI might be different from some of the other states
in that we have very strong collaborations between all
of the stakeholders at the level of systemic advocacy
and [inaudible], but also in the relationships
that we've developed in the sector over time.
I'm very proud of the work that my organisation has done
over nearly 20 years in bringing people out and bringing families
and people with disabilities that are directly affected
by these issues together to lobbying.
We've had numerous campaigns over the years.
I think what we haven't done is been as sophisticated
as possibly some areas are.
But I really feel what we have is a great breadth
of diversity in our experience.
And I think strong legislative base would give us some real
impetus to help us give some real weight
to find us systemic advocacy.
Because one of the barriers that we face is that, ultimately,
our systemic advocacies in many ways thwarted
by political decisions because we don't have a legislative base
that we can call strongly on.
And we're all looking forward
to the National Security Insurance Scheme Campaign
when it gets moving because we haven't been out to build
that political momentum.
What we need is some political leadership
to support those voices that we've managed to bring together.
I do agree that we need to get more sophisticated in building
that legislative support.
But we need to do that in partnership as well.
And so I think [inaudible] and the voice you've given
and being listed, as you know, in Politician Adoption Scheme
to help bring that awareness amongst decision makers.
But we really need that political leadership
to help give our voice confidence.
And I think a legislative base would actually give huge impetus
to systemic advocacy that is somewhat lacking
in Australia in that context.
So sorry. More of a comment than a question [laughter].
>> Yeah. After I'll listen
to the question you asked at Community Cabinet.
And I hoped it was going to get sent to me.
But as you know, it didn't.
There are some other people here as well.
They've worked on tax laws and the interface between.
You know, I think every person who heard your question had
to go answering it took a bit awkward.
Whereas, and people heard your question when you asked
at the Community Cabinet are housing question
or rental question.
To me your question was a disability question.
And you want to make a provision.
I think you're speaking about yourself, but you on behalf
of thousands of others.
I want to make sure you get the provision right
for how you can best secure your child's future.
And a house is pretty fundamental to that.
And I think our tax laws are designed by people
who have never had a disability or had to live with it.
It is always going to be cheaper.
Not that cheap is always criteria, but it is a criteria.
It's always going to be easier for the system
where families make provision
that we reward them for doing it.
So I think that your question - and we're not going
to really give you an answer before the election
on some of the issues.
But I think your question goes
to the assets test for age pension.
And if you want to have an asset and you want to transfer it
to your disabled child, then you're going
to pay capital gains and you're going to pay -
there's a transfer of costs.
If you keep the asset in your own name,
and you can't spend a house.
You can't take a brick down and buy a litre of milk with it so,
you know, there is a very clumsy interaction for older carers
and how they can provide without getting taxed
by the system on the way through.
It's an unfinished piece of work.
I'm sure tonight you don't expect me
to say well, do I have BC.
But it would be far better if you have a flat for your child
that they can stay in that flat.
Better for her health.
Better for her community.
She'll have friends in the area to look out for her.
They'll know where the transport is.
It could be close to where you are.
I think, I tell you now, if I ever get to be Treasurer,
I'm going to have a good, solid look at how we do the interface
for ageing carers so we're making a provision.
It is not a rought.
It is not a tax dodge.
You can prove you've got a child with an impairment [chuckles].
It will be like when some government agency send
out a letter to someone who's an amputee
and says has your condition changed [laughter]?
It's sort of funny, but it's tragic [laughter].
But, so in your question, it's unfinished work.
I don't intend to resign from politics tomorrow.
So, therefore, I can't promise you that it's going
to change after the election.
But I'm very committed to trying to find out an answer
so that you can have the most efficient transfer of resources,
which puts the person you're caring
for best interests forward.
It doesn't penalise you unduly for doing something,
which if you didn't do the state would have
to pay a lot more money to do anyway.
Anyway, so I get the principle of some of the parts
of the problem you're describing.
Don't have a simple answer.
We'll get through the election.
Fingers crossed.
You know, I'm happy we keep plugging away on that.
I have had tremendous arguments.
Not with the politicians who are the assistant treasurer
or treasurer, but there is a real short-term attitude
in some aspects of treasury and tax policy formation
where they know the price of everything and the value
of nothing [laughter].
So that probably doesn't give you a lot of comfort other
than if people and people who think like me advance, then -
you know, I'm a big believer that you can use the authority
of your position to change things.
To use an example unrelated to what you say, I'm not in charge
of cinema policy in Australia.
I'm in policy for disabilities, but we call the cinemas in.
Senator Stephen Conroy, you know.
Don't beat him up too much on internet censorship.
We backed off that.
He agreed to come to the meeting and sign the letter with me.
All the CEO's turned up.
You can use the authority of government.
Not in a coercive fashion, but in a leadership fashion,
to say this is what we want to do.
Anyway, I know that's not a full answer to your question,
but you should at least leave here thinking there's some of us
who are quite committed to pushing what you're saying.
In terms of the issue about legislation and legal rights,
we got some pretty strong laws in Australia.
But they're never carried through a lot of the time.
I'm not adverse to what you're saying.
But I also think - and part of the problem with disability is,
you know, the all-well problem that people are poor.
I wouldn't mind if there were more test cases.
You know, the big four cinema chain put in for an exemption
to the Disability Discrimination Act.
And some of the vision
and hearing impairment groups said, "No.
We're not going to support that."
It was only 600 postcards they got.
But Graeme Innes said, "No.
You just haven't done enough work in the last nine years
to justify an exemption."
So that was the legal system.
But people opposed it.
Then I was able to call the cinemas in
and say do you really want, you know, more litigation?
Why don't you look at bringing more customers in?
So you can do things.
So I think in answer to your observation, and I've taken -
when I was a union rep I did take plenty
of employers to court.
Court doesn't always fix things.
It can establish base positions.
Then you've got to have the follow through.
So I think that having good laws is important.
But I also think the other part is having good advocacy
and people willing to test the system.
What I would like to see, and again, it's not quite related
to the point you're making.
But I put it for you for your consideration is we train
leaders to, you know,
at the Defence Force Academy, to be good soldiers.
And business schools train people
in MBA's to be good leaders.
And I've even set up an Australian New Zealand School
of Government to try train better leaders
in the public sector.
You know, I'd like to see a leadership university
or institute with people with disabilities so we
that we get more disability activists trained
up in the skill of leadership.
And the deal with that would be not only - they don't have
to go back and win the fights on buses and trains
and school support for inclusion.
I just want to train a generation of people
with disabilities to become leaders.
And I think that would also help.
So that's an angle I'm not sure if you've all thought about.
But I certainly have, and you'll be hearing more about that.
I want to train people with disabilities
to lead disability issues.
In addition to what goes on already.
And the DDC going to Terri's point does a fair bit
of that I think.
And, you know, the Adoptive Politician Scheme is a
good idea.
So I see some point I think in the next term.
My minds open about new laws.
But I think there's some good laws there.
I'd just like to see us spend some more money enforcing them.
You know, I have a Whistle Blower Hotline.
If you ever think someone's done the wrong thing to a person
with a disability, just let us know.
You can out them, you know.
There is stigma.
I propose that if you park in a disability car park
and you're not meant to be there,
you lose demerit points off your driver's license, you know.
I'm not a real law and order guy.
But, I think, you know, you want make it uncool
to be discriminatory.
When Kurt Fearnley got mistreated by Jetstar, you know,
we jumped all over that like it was going out of fashion.
When "Good Newsweek" said something stupid about kids
with autism, we jumped all over that.
Made that an issue.
So I think it is having laws,
but in Australia I also think it's speaking up.
I know that there's law firms who are happy
to run pro bono cases.
Perhaps Curtin has a law school.
You know, perhaps they should do some pro bono work
with the disability action senders, if they're not already.
Run a few cases.
You know. It doesn't hurt occasionally
to have a few strikes.
Have a few fights.
If they're not scared of you, they're not listening
to you a little bit [laughter].
In terms of our fragmentation and, again,
not that you were really making this point,
but I don't want anything I say to be taken as disrespect
for anything that's happened in disability.
Because I only have respect.
It's difficult for a politician.
A member of Parliament, you know.
Like someone once said about members
of Parliament's conditions, "No one's going to be happy about us
until we're hitching to Canberra living in tents [laughter].
You know, and I can tell you the good things we're doing.
And you guys go, "Oh, my God.
It's a hole I'm in.
Just tell us everything, you know."
But I have an obligation to tell you that because it is good.
But it's the same outside of the disability sector.
I could get up and tell you everything we're doing well on.
But I'd probably rather leave you with the impression
that I'm willing to tell you what's not working even
when I'm in government.
I went through the Beaconsfield Mine Disaster where a man died
and two men were trapped for two weeks [inaudible] and all that.
And after that, I think having gone to the funeral,
having seen two remarkable survivors
with remarkable families sort of put their life back together.
Having seen 60 people lose their jobs all
because certain people couldn't run a mine properly.
You know, it's not enough to say the ground falls.
That happens.
There's more wrong with that mine than it was bad ground.
But what I realised
and I studied then 12 role commissions.
I didn't; I got an historian to do it.
But a couple of military disasters in peace time.
Couple of hydrocarbon disasters.
Oil rigs, and the rest were mining disasters were all
commissions from 1905 to Beaconsfield.
The same things come out time and time again.
But when there are lessons learned, first of all,
no one ever got blamed in management.
That was one thing that became clear.
I think their big idea out in the Gulf
of Mexico is it's just really dumb
to have gone sailing [laughter].
Because otherwise they'd normally get off [laughter].
But the real point I'm making in this sort of very wordy story,
tiring as it is, organisations are good
at promoting good news up the food chain.
And most organisations are really bad
at promoting bad news up the food chain.
It doesn't matter if it's the government of Australia,
Curtin University, BP.
Anyone. Disability organisations.
What I'm interested in is how do we find
out the news we're not hearing?
How do we find out bad news?
Part of that goes back to good leadership.
Part of that goes to encouraging whistle blowing.
Part of that goes towards the way politicians should speak
about issues in the future.
So that is why despite the respect I have
for disability I'd rather talk about bad news.
Because then we get to thinking what needs
to be done to prevent this.
So I think that we do need to change the politics
by 2 percent of what we do.
And I don't think it's a job just for the sector.
I think it's a job for members of Parliament.
I don't absolve myself of an inch of responsibility.
I have great anxiety that we'll go
through this election campaign,
and there won't be new announcements on disability.
The government's running
on a very physically tight approach, which is sensible.
You know, the other mob are just, I don't know they think.
But you know, they're out spending.
I am determined that we get stuff in disability.
I have anxiety about what we do every day that I'm
in this job what we're not doing.
So I'm not really answering your question specifically.
I guess what I'm saying to you, though, it won't take a lot
to change a great deal.
And it just means that all of you in this room,
and it just means all the other people I speak to,
we need to unite behind a common idea.
There is great diversity and there is welcome.
But my big tip is that where you have a lot of people
with a little bit of time, we have an imbalance
in the asymmetrical bounding relationship.
Basically, each individual here has a sling shot,
and the other guy's have got a tank.
The only way you can remedy that is
by uniting behind a common position.
And I don't pretend that an NDIS fixes it all.
But I do think that the ideal or the metaphor
that it represents is what people should be looking at.
This is my contribution to what you think.
>> Question down here.
>> Hello, Mr. Shorten.
Thank you for joining us this evening.
We really appreciate it.
My question to you is why are my attended support mates not
catered for at university when they're catered
for at private school, high school, and in tech?
Unfortunately, there was no miracle when I left tech.
>> Hm. That's right.
What's your name?
James?
>> Yes.
>> You got it.
The federal government provides 6 million dollars a year
to universities to assist people.
A lot of this assistance, though, is defined by university
to pay for the purposes of not taking your needs,
in terms of your learning, may be different in note taking.
I have a personal opinion
that the university should provide you
with the support you need to do your studies.
Then it might come back beyond that and other people will say,
"Well, federal government, you give us the money."
Well, you know what?
And I'm not saying that is the debate here,
but what my answer is to employers
and to educational institutions is you decide how much you want
to be inclusive.
If the values that you're speaking about are the values
which you practice, I am happy to go
and lobby the federal minister of education
about providing greater flexibility in the criteria.
But what I would also say is if I was Dean of your faculty,
I would want you in my class.
And I know I've got to compete with a whole lot of demands.
But you know once upon a time they didn't want
to build toilets for girls because, you know what?
There weren't any women at the university,
or if there were they were only too few of them.
And once upon a time they would not provide safety equipment
for people doing work.
Harnesses on building sites.
And I'm not saying that your issue is a safety issue,
and I'm not saying your issue is a gender issue.
But if you want to be a university
in a global environment dealing with diverse students,
you are the test of diversity.
If my university that is clever enough to include you
as a student and support you as a student,
what that tells me is my staff and my systems are clever enough
to cope with people from different cultures.
To cope with people with different experiences.
And to cope in a rapidly changing world.
So, you know, I'll certainly contact Curtin University.
I mean, I'm sort of contacting it right now [laughter].
But in a more - not from megaphone diplomacy.
This is not the oceanic Viking on a port off Indonesia
or the mining techs debate.
But [laughter], I think you've got a good point.
Another classic example, which I know I can't change
at this stage, is the provision of hearing aids.
We provide them - the federal government supports you
up to the age of 21.
If you're doing some study,
we'll take you beyond 21 for a few years.
Then your hearing clicks back in, and then at 65
when you go hard of hearing again [laughter],
we pay for you again.
So I'd be happy to take up your case with Curtin.
I'm happy to talk to the Federal Minister.
It's not an answer tonight.
But I can't disagree with you, James.
I agree.
>> We've got time for two more.
Yeah. There's two more because that's [inaudible].
>> Ray Volner.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme,
I'll be honest.
I haven't studied up on it.
I've been otherwise occupied on other disability matters.
Is it accommodation in visits to be covered in that scheme,
or will families, you know, in our situation still be required
to come up with the bricks and mortar for the accommodation
at the end of the day?
Or, you know, is state government provided?
>> All right.
The simple answer is I don't know.
When you say haven't studied up on it, Ray, that only scares me
because when you will you'll know more
about it than most people.
But having said that, if I used the Transport Acts
and Commission example in Victoria,
they won't necessarily pay for a full house,
but they will help you with the cost
of your housing and modification.
So the question is I don't know.
But I do know that foe someone who acquires - and I'll find
out how the TAC does it for you; unless, someone else
in the audience knows.
But I do know they'll modify your house.
Yeah, if you need ramps.
If you need to put in buttons, which are easier to push.
If you need help with controlling heating systems
because it costs, depending on your impairment, the temperature
of the place becomes pretty important.
They do their things.
I would have a view that an NDIC, which does not exist.
And this is just one person's interpretation of it.
I sort of feel we're at the beginning of the 20th century
when Jules Verne would draw what a rocket looks like.
Or Leonardo da Vinci would, you know.
Was it da Vinci?
Or no. Michael Angelo?
Anyway. You know, the Italian Renaissance guy
who used to [laughter].
He drew a submarine.
It could be the drawings I sketch are about as accurate
as Jules Verne or da Vinci.
But what I would say to you is
that there are some live, practical examples.
And I know that the TIC in Victoria will modify your house.
They'll bring in a physio.
They'll work it through.
They'll rehab you.
Not regard impairment as the end of the journey;
they'll regard it as a transition.
So whether or not it pays for the whole house,
I don't know the answer to that.
But I do know we'll assist to make houses habitable.
>> Thank you for realising that.
>>Andrew Mclean, Curtin University.
All right.
Thank you very much for tonight.
I have a son with autism.
Thanks also very much for the Helping Children
with Autism Package, which is great.
Our son is still accessing that packing; although,
we're now moving into the school-base therapy area.
So we look forward
to the election announcement [chuckles].
The Helping Children with Autism Package had the concept
of parents having a choice of treatment and providers.
You know, that funding's transparent.
The provider's not paid until the therapy's provided.
It's signed off by the parent and carer.
Could this model be introduced into a school-based therapy
for autism and other disabilities?
Because at the moment at the state funding level,
we really only have one choice of provider.
>> Yeah. First of all, we've - Joshua is your son; isn't he?
Yeah. He - I'm glad that the package is working.
One thing which concerns me
about the package is the other developmental delays
who can't access it.
Because my view is it's not just children with autism can benefit
from extra hours of early intervention.
So that's one issue.
Second point is, I can't guarantee you they'll be
an ounce.
I mean, you've guys have done well
at influencing government policies.
So there's no reason to believe you won't succeed.
But I'm [inaudible] will decide on what will happen
with the school stuff.
I just can't say that.
But so my second point after that is I have no doubt
that the education system is a - might cause too negative.
But it's a very underdeveloped area of disability policy.
Julia Gillard, when she was Education Minister,
did give an address to the Sydney Institute
where she said every four years they review federal funding
and how it works.
She knows that disability is an area which needs more attention.
She's also said to me that but for the Global Financial Crisis
and the need to do stimulus, in fact, I know she's been thinking
about doing work around disability then.
But then the stimulus package required expenditure
and capital works.
So it's a black hole area.
Then you get to the principal point that even
in the event there's nothing immediately planned,
what about the idea that people can almost have a rebate
and purchase services.
I think that's a good idea.
I can't be any clearer than that.
What did do when we were trying to work
out the autism package is
that had government had a similar idea to be fair to them,
but that proposed like 1,200 packages across Australia.
And some were going to be for the kids with severe
in aid was going to 20,000 over 2 years.
I think for kids with lesser aids it was going
to be 4,000 over 2 years.
I looked at that.
And I looked at the numbers I said [inaudible].
There's thousands of kids.
Can't tell the first 1,200 you're all right
and everyone else *** off.
So we took it from a 20,000 over 2 years to 12,000 over 2 years.
But we made it the same for all kids.
Because I'm not going try and play God or [inaudible]
and say this child only needs X hours
and someone else say it's more hours.
I said we've been able to extend that package and I took a lot
of money out of play groups and some of the other things
and put it just straight in the family-control rebates.
But what we do is we just don't give the money to the parents.
There's still a little bit of social democrat in me here.
We got a group of experts, world renown Australian experts,
to assess service providers.
So what happens is Andrew and Jack can take Joshua
to a approved service provider,
and then they rebate the government.
So we avoid the shonks coming into the industry.
As someone once said, "A good idea is its most vulnerable
at the implementation stage."
It's certainly been a learning in the first term
of this government [laughter].
So we get that balance right.
I do think that we need to do more funding of kids
with special needs in the school system.
And I do also think that we need
to give parents some greater control
over how some of that is utilised.
And that's not pro or anti to the teacher union.
That's not pro or anti the State Department of Education.
I just know that if a child's got special needs,
at some point we have to trust parents.
Anyway, so the answer is I don't think there's anything
happening yet.
But I think what you say is right.
And I think there' plenty of lessons out of this package,
which we're going to look
to advance elsewhere [applause] [music].