Senator WEST (5:38 PM) —I do not intend to take a great deal of time today on this disability discrimination motion, but I do want to voice my concern and sadness that this disallowance motion has had to be brought on. It has had to be brought on because the Attorney-General thinks that consultation is not necessary. That is a real worry. This is a national government. We are trying to bring about national standards, and we are trying to have some commonality apply between all of the states. It is nearly a century since we became a federation. We had hoped—and we would have expected—that gone were the days where disability legislation regulations went back to the days of the old rail system where each state had its own gauge. This government obviously does not care about doing anything, and it is not taking any action, to enable some commonality so that people can move between states knowing that they are going to be subjected to the same regulations and the same laws.

The minister has indicated in discussions with the Labor Party that his office does not regard it as the Commonwealth's responsibility to consult on these matters. When the government are bringing in or amending Commonwealth legislation and regulations they have a responsibility to consult with the states and with the groups which are involved and affected by their actions. They have chosen not to do that. That is a gross abrogation of the government's responsibility to people in this country.

I note that several pieces of legislation within these regulations come from my own state. They appear to be minor. The groups that are involved with the provision of disability services regard them as probably unintended consequences. If the minister and the government were being responsible, as they should be, they would know that unintended consequences can easily occur. When you are busily involved with some project you can look at the main game and think that it looks good, but it is like proofreading and editing scripts: you look at it and you think it is fine, but a fresh set of eyes can pick up some small problem that can change the whole thing dramatically. It would appear that this government has not even bothered to do that and, as I said, that is an abrogation of its responsibilities and its duty of care to people with disabilities and their families.

The Disability Discrimination Act has been in force for a number of years. It is part of a whole raft of legislation that has been introduced in the last 10 years to reform the area of disability services. When I came back to this place in 1990, one of the first inquiries I was on, as a member of the Standing Committee on Community Affairs, was a review into employment services and options for people with disabilities. Before the federal government and the South Australian government look at this any further—and it is in the area of employment that this regulation is causing the most concern—they should go back and read that community affairs committee report and understand the importance of employment to people with disabilities and the importance of receiving adequate recompense for the work that they are doing.

It would appear from these regulations that the South Australian government will allow sheltered workshops to continue with the same old practices that have been going on for 20 or 30 years and will not look to doing anything to renew, to revitalise and to improve the employment prospects and opportunities for people with disabilities. This is an absolute shame. I have very a clear recollection of evidence and submissions from that inquiry of how important people with disabilities felt it was to be able to go to work and for their work to be integrated into the work of the mainstream workplace. I shall never forget a young man in Sydney who was working with assistance as the only person with a disability in an able-bodied workplace and his delight at being able to earn a wage that was not the pension and being able to live independently, albeit with assistance. He said that the best thing about all of this was that he actually paid tax. The rest of us raised our eyebrows, but to this person with a disability the fact that he paid tax indicated to him that he was the same as everybody else.

It is very important that we recognise that the desires and aspirations of people with disabilities are very similar to ours. They want to live independently. They want to do many of the things that most of us here do. They want to work, and they do not want to be placed in work situations where they do not feel their contribution is valued. This is a vitally important point for people to understand. If you are making laws and amendments or having anything to do with changes to the laws that relate to people with disabilities, it is important to recognise that, as far as possible, people with disabilities want to be treated the same as everybody else.

Over the years we have seen the changes that have taken place in accommodation—the move away from institutionalised accommodation into group homes and supported accommodation. That was initially greeted with cries of horror and, particularly on the part of parents of people with disabilities, concern as to how they would cope with being removed from the gentle cocoon that the family wanted to put them into, where they could nurture them and not treat them like everybody else. We also heard the cries of horror when it was suggested that people with disabilities should actually be encouraged to try to participate in the workplace, albeit with assistance. We do not want to see any reversal of those improvements that have been made.

People with disabilities, and their peak bodies, have to be consulted. Not to do so is to treat them like second-class citizens and to dismiss the fact that they have the same rights as everybody else. Just because somebody does not look or sound like you or me does not mean that they do not have the same rights that you or I have to access to accommodation, access to employment and to undertake lots of activities, including marriage and, if it is possible, having children, if that is their wish. These are all very confronting issues for some people to have to address, but we must not discriminate against people with disabilities.

Sometimes it is very hard to define what is a disability. A number of us here require glasses to see. I probably could not see you, Madam Acting Deputy President, if I did not have my glasses on. Is that a disability? Where in the spectrum of disability does one disability become acceptable and another not acceptable? We really do have to look very carefully at how we treat people with disabilities, how we care for them and how we respond to their needs. For the most part, their needs are the same as ours, but in some areas their needs will be greater than ours.

We cannot afford to discriminate against some people with disabilities. Discrimination occurs when only a small number of people with a problem are affected. If everybody has to abide by those regulations and laws, whether they have a disability or not, then it is not discriminatory. If the whole of the community has to abide by something, then it will probably not be discriminatory. But where you are lining somebody up because they are different in some way, then you really do have a problem.

I am concerned that this government has failed to see that it has a responsibility to consult, discuss and negotiate, and I would suggest that this has led to a lot of the problems that we are seeing today. I know from other speakers that the Disability Discrimination Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1) may be disallowed not because people are happy to do so but because they have concerns about some aspects and they have concerns about the government's failure to consult. If the government wants to bring these regulations in, I would urge it to, first of all, undertake a very serious and genuine round of consultations. The peak bodies and the people themselves are out there ready, willing and able to consult and negotiate. But the Attorney-General and his department have, by all accounts, chosen not to, and for that I think they stand condemned.

As I say, people with disabilities are no different from you or me and therefore they should not be discriminated against. Just as you or I would expect to be consulted and involved in things that affect our future—and we would certainly be demanding a say—so too do people with disabilities have that right. I certainly support this disallowance motion.