Page 2883 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 14 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In this case, of course, David and Jenni have been receiving this support to support their lives as a married couple, but single people have sexual needs too. I think it is absolutely tragic that the commonwealth’s current position on this matter could mean—
MADAM SPEAKER: Careful on making reference—
MS STEPHEN-SMITH: Sorry—on the rules for NDIS participants. This has nothing to do with the court case at all. The commonwealth has expressed a view on this matter, which I will get to. It could mean that David and Jenni lose a support that the NDIS has previously agreed that they should receive.
The views, approaches and rules that have shielded or even prevented people with disability from being sexual beings are out of date and they must change. According to the World Health Organisation, sexuality is an integral part of the personality of everyone. It is a basic need and an aspect of being human that cannot be separated from other aspects of life. There are numerous studies on the importance of intimacy and sexuality to people’s health. As Matthew Bowden, co-chief executive of People with Disability Australia, has said, sex is a very ordinary thing. The ACT government agrees.
We stand by the original aims of the NDIS to make available an ordinary life with real choice for people with disability. We reject the desire for proscriptions against people with disability having sex as out of date and, in some circumstances, downright dangerous. The position being taken by the commonwealth government on this matter reflects an outdated attitude that sees people with disability as asexual or sometimes, indeed, hypersexual, and either way undeserving of sexual intimacy or release.
It is our view that any move to change the rules for participant supports is not in line with the fundamental objective of the NDIS to enable people with disability to live an ordinary life with choice and control over the reasonable and necessary supports to achieve their goals. I believe that it would in fact be a gross violation of the convention on the rights of people with disability, which refers to the importance of freedom of persons with disability to make their own choices, not just in article 3 but also in article 23, which speaks of the elimination of “discrimination against persons with disabilities in all matters relating to marriage, family, parenthood and relationships, on an equal basis with others”.
The NDIS rules on participant supports are known as category A rules, so changing them requires the agreement of all states and territories. This is why it is a matter for the ACT government and this is why it is important that the ACT government take a clear and strong position. I urge the Assembly to do the same.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (11.59): I thank Ms Cody for her motion and I rise to speak in support of it today. It is disappointing that the commonwealth government does not support allowing NDIS participants access to sex therapists, even when it is considered necessary and reasonable support in accordance with a person’s
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video