DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT
BILL 2002: Second Reading
Date: 14 February 2002
Ms WORTH (Adelaide--Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) (10.12 a.m.) --I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is the same in substance as the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002, which the Attorney-General introduced on 27 September 2001 and which subsequently lapsed when the parliament was prorogued.
This bill is an important precursor to the formulation of disability standards for accessible public transportation services and facilities.
It is an essential element in ensuring that the standards, when implemented, operate in a fair, balanced and effective manner, both for people with disabilities and for public transport operators and providers of such services.
Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Attorney-General may formulate disability standards in a range of areas.
Last September, the Attorney-General released for public information a final draft of the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport, together with accompanying draft guidelines.
When implemented, these disability standards will greatly assist in breaking down social and economic barriers faced by people with a disability or mobility problem, and their carers and friends.
The standards will also benefit many older Australians and parents with infants in pushers or prams, who need or want to use public transport services and facilities.
A lack of accessible transport services and facilities is a significant barrier for people with disabilities.
People with disabilities are much less likely to be able to drive and are often faced with unreliable or expensive modes of transport.
The disability standards for accessible public transport will be the first of their kind and, as such, they represent this government's strong commitment to improving the lives of people with disabilities.
The development of the standards has been a major initiative, involving extensive consultation over a long period to ensure that a broad range of views were canvassed across the public transport industry, the disability community, government agencies at all levels and other interest groups.
The Attorney-General proposes to formulate and table these disability standards, in accordance with the act, when this bill is passed.
Section 55 of the Disability Discrimination Act currently empowers the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to grant temporary exemptions from the operation of provisions of the act.
This power does not currently extend to exemptions from disability standards.
The government is keen to ensure that the disability standards are implemented in a practical and balanced way.
This aim would not be realised if the standards were to give rise to unnecessary uncertainty on the part of transport operators and providers about their compliance obligations.
This is particularly the case where an operator believes that they may not be required to comply with a particular requirement because to do so would cause unjustifiable hardship to the operator.
A mechanism to allow for temporary exemptions from part or all of the standards, where appropriate, will provide the means by which up-front certainty about compliance obligations can be assured.
This bill will therefore amend the act to allow the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to grant exemptions from disability standards dealing with public transportation services and facilities.
Extending the commission's power to enable it to grant exemptions from these standards is consistent with the commission's current power to grant exemptions from provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.
The bill also provides that, before granting an exemption from the disability standards, the commission must consult a body prescribed in the regulations.
The body prescribed for that purpose will be the National Transport Secretariat.
The secretariat is jointly funded by all jurisdictions and reports to the Australian Transport Council.
The secretariat will be able to provide the commission with invaluable technical advice in respect of an application for a temporary exemption from a requirement of the disability standards.
The Australian Transport Council has agreed to the secretariat taking on this role.
The commission will also be able to consult with any other body or person it considers appropriate to consult, as is its current practice.
If the commission decides to grant an exemption to an operator or provider where, for example, unjustifiable hardship would be imposed in complying with a requirement of the standards, the exemption will provide protection from a complaint about a breach of that requirement.
Like an exemption from the provisions of the act, an exemption from the disability standards in relation to public transport services can be for a period of up to five years, and an application can be made to the commission for this to be extended.
An exemption may be granted from particular requirements of the disability standards under terms and conditions specified in the exemption instrument.
An exemption might be granted, for example, on condition that an operator meet the targets it has set for itself in an action plan.
The disability standards for accessible public transport will spell out in greater detail rights and obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act.
They will provide transport operators with information to assist them in complying with their obligations under the act.
They will also provide a practical means of working towards meeting a key objective of the act--to eliminate, to the extent possible, discrimination from public transport services, on the ground of a person's disability.
Already, as we go about our daily business, we are becoming more familiar with signage, facilities and infrastructure which remind us about the requirements of people with disabilities.
They also remind us of how important it is to do what we can to facilitate the participation of people with disabilities in community life so that they may enjoy the many opportunities it has to offer.
We can assist by removing some of the barriers that may prevent them from doing this.
That persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community is an important principle enshrined within the Disability Discrimination Act.
The disability standards will help to promote increased recognition and acceptance within the community of that principle.
They will also further our standing within the international community as leaders in taking practical steps to reduce discrimination against people with disabilities.
The bill provides for amendments that will help to set in place effective arrangements which represent a sensible and balanced approach to eliminating, as far as possible, discrimination against people with disabilities, while ensuring that industry is not unduly burdened in the process.
I commend the bill to the House and present the signed explanatory memorandum.
Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.
16 May 2002
Debate resumed from 14 February, on motion by Ms Worth:
That this bill be now read a second time
Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (10.12 a.m.) --At the outset, I should indicate that the opposition strongly supports the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002. There are some concerns in respect of the length of time it will take to implement all aspects, but it is worthy legislation. It has been worked on over a number of years by several governments, including cooperation by the federal and state governments, which after all is the way to go in this country.
We recognise and endorse the statements by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the member for Adelaide, when introducing the bill, when she said that transport disability standards `will greatly assist in breaking down social and economic barriers faced by people with a disability or mobility problem', and that they `will also further our standing within the international community as leaders in taking practical steps to reduce discrimination against people with disabilities'. In that context, we are concerned that those who are disabled in the community seem to be taking the brunt, or at least a significant part of the brunt, of paying for the government's deficit, and that is of concern.
In terms of the bill itself, I want to go through some of the technical provisions. The bill amends the Disability Discrimination Act to allow the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, known as HREOC, to grant exemptions from the disability standards which govern access to public transport services and facilities. The Australian Transport Council first recognised that it had to address issues concerning access to public transport in November 1994, following a number of successful complaints of discrimination against transport operators.
A national task force was established, including representatives of people with disabilities, to develop performance-based draft standards. The draft standards were first approved by the ATC in June 1996 and then subjected to a regulatory impact statement to examine the potential cost of implementation, as well as the potential benefits to the whole community. Some three years later, in 1999, the regulatory impact statement and the transport standards were again discussed by the Australian Transport Council. It was agreed that the standards should generally be adopted but that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission be given the power to grant exemptions from the standards.
In October 2000, cabinet endorsed the standards subject to an extension of the compliance timetable for trams and trains and exclusions for dedicated school bus services, small aircraft and airports, limousines, hire cars and charter boats. The Attorney-General then began working on redrafting the standards. A technical workshop was held in December 2000 with representatives of the transport, manufacturing and construction industry, operators and disability sector representatives. A draft of the standards relating to public transport was published by the Attorney-General on 27 September 2001. He has indicated that he intends to table the final standards in parliament after this bill has been passed. That will put meat on the bone; they will be significant. After the standards have been tabled in parliament they will take effect as provided by section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act. Under section 32 of that act it is unlawful for a person to contravene a disability standard.
While Labor has criticised the length of time it has taken to develop the standards and has questioned whether it is necessary to allow 20 years to implement the standards and, indeed, 30 years for trains and trams, it is clear that the creation and adoption of the standards is a positive development and is one which Labor supports. In respect of that implementation time, if it can be shown that steps can be taken to hasten that, either by incentives or otherwise, that is certainly something that I believe this parliament should look at.
This bill implements part of the machinery for successful implementation of the standards. It was first introduced on 27 September 2001 and lapsed with the calling of the election. The bill essentially has two stated purposes. Firstly, the bill is said to provide up-front certainty by enabling a provider of public transport services or facilities to apply for an exemption from disability standards. The most obvious basis on which somebody would apply for an exemption is that compliance would cause unjustifiable hardship. This, it is said, would enable the provider to clarify their obligation up-front instead of waiting to be sued under the Disability Discrimination Act, and then raising a defence such as unjustifiable hardship.
Secondly, the bill will give the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission the same power to grant temporary exemptions from the disability standards for accessible public transport when they come into force, as it has regarding the existing provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. This will also provide consistency for the powers of HREOC. Before granting an exemption HREOC will be obliged to consult a body prescribed in regulations. The Attorney-General has indicated that the prescribed body will be the National Transport Secretariat. That secretariat is funded on a cooperative basis by the Commonwealth and the states and reports to the Australian Transport Council. The role of the secretariat will be to provide HREOC with technical advice. HREOC will also be able to consult with any other body or person it considers appropriate. An exemption from the disability standards relating to public transport can be for a period of up to five years. That period of time may appear to be of concern. However, for reasons I will discuss later, we are prepared to support attempts to resolve these matters without litigation. I should also note that an application can be made to HREOC for that exemption period to be extended. Labor agrees that the ability of HREOC to grant temporary exemptions from the standards is, however, important to the implementation process.
It is important that providers of public transport comply with disability standards. However, there is sense in enabling any uncertainty about compliance to be resolved by HREOC on a consultative basis rather than by litigation in the Federal Court. Clearly, that enables disability advocacy groups to be involved and it may also spare individuals the trauma and expense of litigation. Labor recognised this argument when we formulated the Disability Discrimination Act in 1992 and gave HREOC at that time the power to grant exemptions from the act.
The initial suggestion to extend the exemption power to the transport disability standards in this way came from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission itself. Provision for the exemption power was also an essential part of agreement by the Australian Transport Council ministers to the standards going ahead. The standards provide a blueprint of what accessible public transport means and how it should be achieved across Australia over the next 20 years--again, the sooner the better, but that is an outside time frame. Industry and consumers alike are anxious for the standards to enter into force and to give them certainty of rights and responsibilities. The exemption mechanism allows for a necessary element of regulatory flexibility and the provision for certainty. An example would be where an operator needs to trade off extra time for some elements for which they have difficulty meeting the timetable provided in the standards. That trade-off is against other elements where they can do better than the timetable. Again, that is commonsense.
Under the bill, the commission should only approve exemptions where it is convinced
that this is consistent with the objects of the legislation. Temporary exemptions
have had an important role in facilitating the progress that has been made in
accessible transport in several states. The commission has an established policy
of conducting public consultation before making a decision on exemption applications
under the Disability Discrimination Act and, of course, will continue to apply
that policy. This is in addition to the specific requirements in the amending
legislation to consult with the National Transport Secretariat. Transport operators
or consumers who disagree with or feel aggrieved by any such decision will be
able to seek a review of the exemption decisions in the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal. That process, we believe, brings an appropriate balance of consultation
with the right to review. In summary, Labor supports the bill.
Mr CADMAN (Mitchell) (10.22 a.m.) --The Disability Discrimination Amendment
Bill 2002 is a vote for commonsense. There is not a person in Australia who
would not want to see ready access for people with disabilities to all forms
of transport and access to every aspect of daily life. The proposal before the
House in this bill seeks to move one step closer to granting universal access
with a requirement for disabled people to gain access to public transport of
all types. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission--HREOC--currently
has the ability to grant exemptions for the general provisions of disability
discrimination but not for disability standards. This bill amends the Disability
Discrimination Act to allow HREOC to grant exemptions for disability standards
dealing with public transport, including, for example, on the grounds of unjustifiable
hardship.
I have been aware of the discussions that have been taking place between elements of the transport industry and the Australian government on the way in which the wish to provide access for those who are disabled has been dealt with. I have spoken to bus proprietors and to people with facilities where transport around the state is a problem. I think we have here a proposal which moves one step towards establishing standards by regulation but which provides a commonsense approach. It has been pointed out to me that there is a massive cost in providing wheelchair access for buses, for instance. It is very difficult to do. You have to consider the footpath and access being available at ground level to meet a same-height standard for a passing bus or other means of transport. If one considers all the possible sites within a city area, one would realise that it is almost impossible to guarantee that, on every site, access to public transport can be granted to somebody in a wheelchair or somebody who is disabled.
If I am any judge of this matter, the people who will be dragging the chain in this process will be the state governments. They will be the ones who will want to do it last. They will have all sorts of excuses and exemptions for not providing access for people with disabilities. Somebody pointed out to me that it is impossible for a person who is disabled to get onto the site of one of our railway stations--and I know the honourable member opposite would be familiar with this station. But state governments of all types have just scrubbed it. They have said, `Bad luck. Go to the next station. Somehow or other get yourself somewhere else and you will get on to public transport.'
It is not just a matter of wheelchair access between the platform and the carriage or between the footpath and the bus--there is a lot more to it than that. This bill gives the opportunity for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to grant exemptions based on a number of reasons. I think that is a practical approach. Private bus proprietors in Western Sydney have put to me the huge cost they would have in making all their coaches compliant and in putting in all the conditions at every bus stop throughout Western Sydney. In this area, you have partially developed subdivisions, older subdivisions and all sorts of circumstances. It is surely not up to bus proprietors to make sure that the footpath conditions at bus stops comply with a suitable physical condition to allow for wheelchair or other access. In these circumstances, I believe this is a commonsense piece of legislation.
Comments have been made by representatives of those with disabilities. I note that they are very disappointed about the extension of the compliance timetable to 30 years for trains and trams--in reality, especially for trains. This does not mean people with disabilities will not be able to use them during this time span. That is a reasonable statement. When one considers the possible capital cost, one has some sympathy for state governments. But it is a common practice, at both state and federal level, to dump the compliance costs onto the non-government sector and then the government sector drags the chain in meeting its own standards. I think that is completely unreasonable.
I hope that everybody moves forward together in this area. I call on state governments to recognise the needs of those who are disabled and to move ahead at the same pace as they impose regulations on the non-government sector. It is okay to dump regulations on the bus companies of Western Sydney, or any other part of Australia for that matter, but it is completely unreasonable to then fail to fulfil the conditions for railway stations, say at Seven Hills. This cannot be the way in which the standards are implemented. If exemptions are granted in certain circumstances for state instrumentalities, the same exemptions should be granted for non-government instrumentalities. These provisions provide for consultations with the bodies involved that may be affected by regulations. HREOC must do that before making a decision to grant an exemption.
A part of the current problems we have in the insurance industry is the real penchant people have to litigate. I will mention a disability case in my area. There is a school on a most difficult, steep site, and a case was brought that a disabled girl should have access to the school. The girl never even wanted to attend the school, but the case was brought against the school. It lost that case and went to the highest court possible. Multimillion dollars are required to make that site accessible for people with certain disabilities. The school, if forced to comply, would close its doors because one test case was brought against it.
I hope some commonsense starts to come back in the way in which we relate to
each other in our community. The fact that you can force somebody to comply
with the law or receive compensation does not mean to say that everybody has
a right to access everything. We are all imposed with limitations of one sort
or another. In relation to disability, I hope the lawyers do not go hunting
for test cases to prove that their fees are bigger or that their award for damages
is better than that of the last guy who went to court. I am just calling for
a commonsense approach in the application of these laws. I know the government
is pleased that at last, after many years, we have been able to move ahead in
this area.
Access to public transport is a critical issue for regional and urban communities. That is why I speak on this bill today as the shadow minister for transport. The bill itself is a necessary step before the introduction and formalisation of disability standards for accessible public transport. It is interesting to note that the Australian Transport Council first discussed the need for action on disability access standards at their meeting in November 1994.
But before this, I look back at the work of disability activists and representatives--the people who, I believe, should really be commended for achieving the change that is before the Main Committee this morning. In this regard, I cite the publication prepared by the Disability Advisory Council of Australia in late 1992, when that council formed the Disability Advisory Council of Australia Access to Public Transport Task Force. The product of that task force is the report, coordinated by Angus Downie, titled Target 2015: a vision for the future--access to transport in Australia for all Australians.
Mr Quick --A good Tasmanian.
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON --Yes, a good Tasmanian and a very determined individual with respect to the need to make a breakthrough on this difficult front. That diligent and comprehensive piece of research presented a blueprint for change. That kick-started and helped to drive the end result that is before the Main Committee this morning. The report was an audit of Australia's provision of public transport, identifying access problems for Australians and visitors with disability and mobility issues. The report was released in August 1994; it played a key role in ensuring the Australian Transport Council addressed the need for coordinated action.
The first performance based draft standards for accessible transport across all modes were agreed to by the Australian Transport Council in June 1996. The draft standards then went into a process of consultation and the completion of a regulatory impact statement. Unfortunately, it has taken six years to reach the next significant step in the process: to finalise agreed, clear standards that require access improvements. It is an important step being taken today, as this legislative change provides the up-front certainty needed for the standards to come into effect. That is the key thing--getting the standards into effect, the formal adoption into law of standards for accessible transport. There is no doubt that these standards have been the subject of extended debate--and so they should have been--and modification to reach the end point that we are at today. What goes with that is compromise and dissent from decisions that must be made along the way to deliver practical outcomes.
Speaking from my experience as a trade union official, I commend the activists involved in developing those standards because that also required them to make some hard decisions to actually compromise in order to achieve the outcome that is finally before the House this morning. They are to be commended because they stood up and fought for what they believed was right, but, in doing so, they brought a commonsense understanding and a willingness to compromise to try and achieve the breakthrough that is before the House for discussion. I appreciate that in some circles in the disability movement there were disappointments with respect to whether or not they achieved the most desirable outcome, as against what was a practical outcome in terms of the reality of the political processes. That is, I suppose, part and parcel of your normal activities when you have to front up to involvement, representation and making decisions: you will never achieve a 100 per cent outcome.
As the standards stand today, there remain exemptions based on financial grounds to school bus services, small aircraft and non-RPT airports. I appreciate that the disability sector will continue to campaign on these items with the hope that, one day, access for all will be an implicit consideration in all transport manufacturing and infrastructure decisions. In the meantime, compromises have been made to ensure standards come into effect.
I share the criticism of the disability sector with the time it took to deliver these standards. The characteristic lack of leadership from the minister for transport again, unfortunately, came into play. I can recall that, when I came into this portfolio at the end of 1999, the delay and the impasse with these standards were some of the first issues raised with me, not just by the disability sector but also by the private bus operators because they had reached the point at which they had had enough. All they wanted was for this issue to be progressed and finalised. For that reason, in my first speech to the bus and coach industry conference in March 2000 I called on the minister to show some leadership and help get these matters resolved, to get them sorted, to actually be willing to make a few decisions rather than continuing to run away from his responsibilities, which is unfortunately the hallmark of his performance as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services.
At that stage, in early 2000, a genuine willingness to resolve these issues had developed between the public transport industries and the representatives of disability groups. As with many issues in this portfolio, there was no federal leadership interested in the problem and in helping to get their hands dirty and broker solutions. That is what the political processes are about: not just making speeches about what would be an ideal outcome but actually being willing to sit down, get on top of a brief, meet and consult with interested groups and then try to broker a solution where an impasse exists. Unfortunately, we do not normally see that in the performance of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Leader of the National Party, Mr Anderson. All we saw, I remind the House, was a press release and a sign of action on this matter from the government when they wanted a headline for the Paralympics at the end of 2000--again, all the tinsel around town but no practical application of activities to resolving a longstanding problem.
In the Transport portfolio, change and reform happen in spite of the current transport minister, not because of him or by his initiative. The development of these accessible transport standards is another case in point. I am aware that the state and territory ministers for transport are keen to see this bill pass. The states have taken on many of these issues before the standards are finalised. I hope the previous speaker, the member for Mitchell, is actually listening to what is occurring in his own state of New South Wales at the moment in the light of his comments here before I rose to speak.
Firstly, dealing with Victoria, my home state at the moment despite the fact that I grew up in the western suburbs of Sydney--an area to which the member for Mitchell referred in passing this morning--I know that the state government has moved to change infrastructure for trams to improve accessibility for all Australians. You have only to move around Melbourne today to see the achievement on that front with the introduction of new trams and the tram stations that are being built in the CBD.
Turning to New South Wales, the New South Wales government has also been proactive. When the Carr government came to power, only five railway stations had been modernised to facilitate disability access. There are now 56 stations that have been modernised under the Easy Access Program, with about $4 million to be spent on each station. On a recent visit to my home suburb of Guildford in Western Sydney, I was advised by my elderly parents that it had just been announced that a lift was to be introduced to Guildford railway station to also facilitate disability access. So perhaps Mr Cadman, the member for Mitchell, ought to be a bit more honest in his presentations to this House about what is actually occurring on the ground in New South Wales after years of neglect, prior to the Carr government being elected, by his own coalition partners in New South Wales. Progress is being made, and so it ought to be made. These processes and achievements ought not to be politicised by representatives such as the member for Mitchell.
With respect to the bus and coach industry, especially the large bus operators and manufacturers, they desire to continue to move quickly to ensure that all buses are accessible. Access to exemptions from these standards will be subject to the guidelines currently applied by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission when it considers exemptions to the principal Disability Discrimination Act. The exemption process gets applicants for those exemptions into a process whereby they must engage in the access issues facing commuters or potential commuters that face access challenges. This engagement in the problems as part of applying for an exemption is an important step. The applicants must develop a plan and justify their case. These standards will be the norm. Any exemption must be scrutinised and disability and other affected groups consulted, and a right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal applies. Through the codification of this process I believe we put in place a mechanism to fix all these access problems.
The bill before us prescribes the National Transport Secretariat as the organisation that the human rights commission can consult when considering exemptions to the access transport standards. I believe this is a curious role for this organisation. I would remind the Main Committee that the National Transport Secretariat was established by the Australian Transport Council to tackle broad strategic issues and reform that must be achieved across jurisdictions. A narrow technical advisory role on accessible transport does not, I believe, fit comfortably with the scope of that organisation. It is my understanding that the transport ministers at the state level shared this concern. As I understand it, there was quite a barney at the Transport Council when the matter was discussed. As I understand it, the end result is that this was another matter where the transport minister could not carry a sensible transport policy position in the federal cabinet. He was rolled, and told the state ministers that they had to cop it.
From the federal perspective, I put a series of questions to the minister for transport to cover off this issue. I had concerns that the National Transport Council would be diverted from its important task in terms of resources and focus. In response to my query, the minister has advised that the NTS commissioned a consultant in December last year to undertake a strategic level scoping study to help the NTS define its role in the exemption process. The minister also advised in his correspondence to my office that:
The Commission and other stakeholders from the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments, industry, and the disability sector were consulted during the preparation of the report. The report identifies a proposed process to undertake the role, the key stakeholders and their expectations regarding the NTS role and potential workload for the NTS. The NTS has also commenced discussion with the Commission on establishing administrative arrangements for the role.
I call on the minister for transport to table that report and the associated arrangements so that the House has a clear idea of how the Transport Secretariat will perform that role and address the stakeholders' expectations. Further, in relation to the NTS, the minister for transport has clarified for me the funding arrangements for this new role. I will also place this advice from the minister for transport on the record today. In doing so, I quote from written advice from him to me:
The Commonwealth has agreed to fund the NTS role. The NTS has entered into a Deed of Agreement with the Department of Transport and Regional Services for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002. The current agreement provides for upper limit funding of $150,000. This agreement will be negotiated annually with the NTS to fund the anticipated workload for future years.
I say here today that the opposition is not totally comfortable with this new role for the National Transport Secretariat. Our reasons are twofold. Firstly, there are some serious questions about the skill and expertise of the NTS to provide advice on exemptions. While I am sure that the expertise can be recruited, the opposition will monitor the outcomes to ensure they are rigorous. What is important with the exemptions is that they are given only after rigorous analysis, consultation and scrutiny. Secondly, the opposition retains some concerns that this role will detract from the broader role--the true functions of the National Transport Secretariat.
I place these concerns on the record as a clear indication to the government that we do not regard this matter as settled. This is a new initiative; it requires accountability and a willingness to make sure that the initiatives put in place as part of this process actually achieve the desired outcomes. I am also aware that my state and territory colleagues have had these arguments with the federal government, but the government has dug in and has not moved on the issue.
The concerns are correctly placed on the record, and we will monitor the implementation of these issues from here--the exemption process, how the NTS performs the role and the levels of support and Commonwealth funding for the NTS in this role. I am sure that I can also rely on my colleagues in the disability movement and in the state and territory governments to ensure that the cross-jurisdictional, strategic work of the NTS is not undermined as part of that process.
The availability of public transport services is emerging as a key issue to be tackled, especially in regional and outer suburban communities. The challenge is one that the federal government has to front up to sooner rather than later. The problem is that the current minister for transport continues to say that there is no role for the federal government in public transport, but believes he has a role in setting standards with respect to disability access. To say this is to shirk responsibility for the consequences of Australia's economic growth. Congestion and pollution are consequences of the growth of our cities, and public transport has a key role in addressing that congestion.
The Howard government must play a role in addressing these problems. It must look at the federal barriers and opportunities and work in a cooperative way with local communities, local councils and state governments. The opposition looks forward to seeing if the Howard government takes any action to try to do something about this matter, including what it is going to do regarding the outcome of the fuel tax inquiry, which was tabled in the budget papers this week.
In looking at the broader transport taxation issues, it will also be interesting to see whether the Howard government takes any action to address the imbalance in the fringe benefits tax incentives for car use, with no akin incentives for the use of public transport. Similarly, it will be interesting to see whether this inquiry into transport taxation tackles the GST and its application to public transport fares.
In closing, I commend the transport industry, disability and other affected community groups and departmental officials who have persisted with the process and put a huge effort into getting to where we are today. The process could have come quicker if we had leadership at the government level in Canberra. That aside, today represents a major step forward along a long path. I commend all those involved in getting to the point we have achieved.
The bill and the standards help tackle the access issues where public transport
exists. A similarly large challenge for our community is to ensure that public
transport is there to access not just in our cities and outer suburban communities
but also in regional communities. That means the Howard government, side by
side with developing these standards, has to also accept its responsibility
to front up and actually do something on public transport generally in Australia,
especially in regional communities and our outer suburbs. It requires a mental
shift. It requires leadership and actually requires new ground at a federal
government level. These are the big issues to be debated in this parliament
because it is about equality of opportunity, it is about the greenhouse debate,
it is about doing something in a practical sense to relieve the congestion in
our cities. (Time expired)
The act formulates the transport disability standards under section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act. The standards in draft form were published by the Attorney-General in September last year. I understand that the final standards will be tabled in the parliament following the passage of this particular bill. They will then take effect under section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act. Under section 32, it is unlawful for a person to contravene a disability standard within that act. This bill is to provide consistency in the powers of HREOC, in other words. To allow the granting of such an exemption, HREOC will be required to consult a body prescribed in the regulations. The act states that body to be the National Transport Secretariat, funded by the Commonwealth and the states, which is to report to the Australian Transport Council.
The previous speaker, the member for Batman, outlined at great length our concerns in relation to that particular part of the act. It is not for me to add anything further at this point other than to fully endorse the comments that he made in relation to the NTS. As well as receiving that technical advice from the secretariat, HREOC will of course be able to consult with any person or body that it believes necessary when considering an application for exemption. I understand that a very large range of disability organisations have been involved in the consultation process to date. It has been made clear by those organisations that:
... HREOC to be the most appropriate body to undertake this assessment so long as HREOC has the appropriate resources to do the work. In addition a process involving consultation with interested groups similar to the current HREOC procedure for exemptions, must be applied.
I would endorse that totally. I want to refer to comments that have been made by representatives of the disabled community who have been involved in the process to date who, despite the compromises made, will be pleased to see the standards come into operation. I would like to quote a couple of their comments. They have said in part:
.. it is important to understand that Standards become regulatory laws which must be complied with. As such, State and Territory Transport Ministers have far less resistance from their respective `Cabinets' and Treasury in getting approval for upgrading to accessible transport. We are informed that if they are just guidelines, there will be far less compliance in a systemic way to making transport accessible. Their priority status would immediately drop.
They go on to say:
The Transport representatives and the Project agrees entirely with much of the concern expressed that we cannot afford for the Standards to be watered down any further as it becomes legal discrimination. We were very disappointed about the extension of the compliance timetable to 30 years for trains and trams but in reality, especially for trains, this does not mean people with disabilities won't be able to use them during this time-span.
It is very obvious that many people have had lots of input into these processes, and they should be fully recognised for their work and for their representation on behalf of many others within their organisations and within the disability sector generally. I personally would like to see the 30-year period reduced in a cooperative fashion, and I am confident that we could all work towards that, particularly given the work already under way in many areas, as outlined by the member for Batman in his earlier comments.
I would also like to put on record my thanks for the terrific lesson in history that the member for Batman has given us in relation to the whole process that has been undertaken over far too long a period. As members of parliament we often find ourselves saying to people, `Yes, we agree that there is a problem, but do you realise how slow sometimes legislative processes can be?' Whilst I and I know my colleagues always regret having to use those words, that is sometimes the harsh reality. This is, unfortunately, a very good example of that, given the interruptions due to elections and so on. The member for Batman very clearly outlined some of the work already under way within other states, in New South Wales and Victoria, and I know here in the ACT. There is no doubt that there are great moves afoot by governments at those levels to do what they can in a proactive way to bring forward the availability of accessible transport for people with disabilities. It is fair to say, and quite obvious, that people with physical disabilities particularly have enough to face up to without having their day-to-day lives, their chances of employment and their chances of participating in our community at an even level frustrated by access to transport. But the work that has been done in relation to this whole issue, whilst taking far too long, finally has come to this point.
It is also obvious that there is still much more to be done. I think that the passage of this bill is the end of one process but the beginning of the next--that is, to see what else can be done to ensure that the processes outlined here work; that the examination of the NTS as outlined by previous speakers is undertaken in a constructive fashion; that whatever work and change that are demonstrated to be required to allow better procedures should happen; and that the technical expert advice that is needed by HREOC when granting an exemption must be of the best possible standard. There is no doubt that if the NTS needs to be changed or resourced, or if another organisation needs to be put in its place--whatever is required--we should do it, and we should do it in such a way as will not extend any further the time frame that has taken us to the point we are at today.
In closing, I again make particular note--as did the member for Batman--of the activists in the sector who have brought the issue to the point we are at today. I also join with him in encouraging that sector to continue their agitation when they believe it is necessary to do so so that the whole question of public and other transport availability for the people they represent continues to be at the forefront of our minds. It is fair to say on reflection that the Paralympics held in Sydney really gave us--federal and all other governments--a focus, an opportunity, to put in a way a bit of tinsel around the issue. I would like to think that we could now move on from that. But sadly, and in reality, it takes the activists of the disability sector to keep all of us on our mettle, to make sure that we all understand and grasp entirely the needs that they have. None of those needs are impossible to meet--none of them.
With their help and their continued dedication, I believe we will get the sort of access to transport that they require. We are not silly here; we understand the difficulties that can present to some parts of that process, but so be it. I repeat: it is not an impossible task to meet their needs; it is a perfectly possible task. After this legislation is passed, we can get on and examine how to make it better, how to advance it quicker, with only one aim in mind--that is, to ensure that those people out there who need that access get it. We must no longer allow anybody, particularly within the political process, to tap dance around this issue and make grandiose statements at times when they think these might be good to be heard, and then not fully follow up with proper, determined work.
I join the previous speakers from this side in endorsing this legislation.
At the same time, I thoroughtly endorse the historical perspective of the member
for Batman. I recognise the people involved and the absolute requirement on
all of us in this place to do what we can to ensure the continuing advancement
of the issue and not just to think that the job has been done here.
As a person who worked in both a spinal injury and a head injury team prior to entering parliament, I know of the difficulties that people with disabilities experience in trying to access public transport, or any form of transport. I know about the mobility issues they experience. One of the issues that governments have to grapple with and have to come to terms with is the fact that people with disabilities do have rights and should be able to access transport like other people in the community. I see this as a positive step because it is taking us in that direction.
The transport disability standards were formulated by the Attorney-General under section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act. A draft of the standards relating to public transport were published by the Attorney-General on 27 September last year. These standards can now move from being draft standards to being standards that will have a real impact on public transport systems throughout the state.
The exemption that has been agreed to has been done in consultation with the working group on transport. This group included a national federation of disability consumer organisations: the Australian Deaf Association; Blind Citizens of Australia; Deaf Forum of Australia; Head Injury Council of Australia, a very important group with regard to accessing public transport; the National Council of Intellectual Disability; the National Ethnic Disability Alliance; Physical Disability Council of Australia; and Women with Disabilities.
I wonder if there was also any consultation with Paraquad because I know that people who suffer from paraplegia in particular are able to use public transport. I also wonder if any thought has been given to providing retractable ramps that can be placed on those buses or any form of transport that is given exemption as a temporary measure. I know that has worked in the past for people with disabilities. I thought that was worthwhile throwing in.
With the exemptions, the bill does provide up-front certainty by enabling a provider of public transport services or facilities to apply for an exemption from the disability standards. As I have already said, that is important because it allows these standards to come into effect. An exemption is only given where hardship will apply. My one little concern is that this is for a five-year period. I note that it can be extended, but it worries me that it will be extended and extended and extended. I think that some timeframes need to be put in place so that, if an exemption is given, there is a plan for meeting those requirements in the long term.
I am very pleased to say that, before the exemptions are granted, there is the need to talk to the bodies. It is terribly important to discuss these issues with people who have disabilities. For too long people with disabilities have been treated as second-class citizens. I have to take issue a little with the member for Mitchell. I remember the school case he was talking about. I think it is vitally important that people with disabilities be able to access schools. In my past life, we helped convert schools so people with disabilities could attend them. Maybe people with disabilities just have to accept that they cannot access all forms of public transport or that they may not have the same opportunities as other people. That is once again treating them as second-class citizens. I really strongly feel that they have the same rights as other people.
That brings me to the issue of disability pensioners and how they have been treated as second-class citizens in the budget. That links very closely into this issue because the one issue that the government says that it wants to progress is for people with disabilities to get into the work force. For people with disabilities to be able to enter the work force, one of the vital issues is the ability to use transport. Therefore, it is important that these standards come into play and that, further down the track, these exemptions are not continually given. I do not want to see the same sort of commitment to the implementation of standards as we have had for people on disability support pensions. This legislation puts into place issues that I think have the ability to achieve the desired outcome. They will, if fully implemented, allow people with disabilities to use public transport. That is what it is all about.
I would like to add to the words of the member for Canberra. She said it is
vitally important that we continue to consult with disability groups and that
their concerns be really taken into account when we are working in this area.
No-one knows better than they do the problems that they experience when accessing
public transport. Nobody understands the issues of disability better than a
person with a disability who has to confront the restrictions that that places
upon them every day. I do not know if any members here have been in a position
where they have had to use crutches. I think it is a very good exercise to try
to access public transport or to do everyday activities when you have a restriction
in mobility. I believe that we need these standards. I believe that it is vitally
important that they are fully implemented. I see this as a step in the right
direction.
Improvements to access for people with a disability also have spin-offs for other groups, including parents and grandparents who take children out in prams and strollers and carers and families of seniors. As a parent and user of public transport I experienced great difficulties when my children were young in accessing public transport, my main mode of transportation in those days. Again, I experienced difficulties in taking my frail, ageing, veteran dad and, later on, my frail, ageing mother and mother-in-law out shopping. I very much relate to my constituents when they tell me of their difficulties with physical access to public transport, as well as to railway and bus station precincts.
Disability access to public transport is an important issue. A lack of accessible transport services and facilities is a significant barrier to quality of life, particularly for people with disabilities. As the member for Shortland said, we would hate that soft and easy ways would be found around the exemptions and regulations. Labor is committed to promoting the worth and dignity and improving the quality of life of people with disabilities and to support their full participation in community life. An important aspect of this commitment is improving access standards for people with disabilities to public transport and providing certainty in the system that administers these standards. Federal Labor supports the passage of the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002, as do the Labor state ministers for transport.
Briefly stated, the bill amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to allow the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, in consultation with a prescribed body, to grant exemptions from disability standards dealing with public transport services and facilities. The act enables the Attorney-General to formulate disability standards in a range of areas. Last September the Attorney-General finally released a draft of disability standards for accessible public transport for public consultation, together with accompanying draft guidelines. Section 55 of the act currently enables the commission to grant temporary exemptions from the operations of provisions of the act. This power does not currently extend to exemptions from disability standards. The bill will therefore amend the act to allow the commissioner to grant exemptions from disability standards dealing with public transportation services and facilities.
Before granting an exemption, the commission will be obliged to consult with a body prescribed in regulations. The Attorney-General has indicated that the prescribed body will be the National Transport Secretariat. The role of the secretariat will be to provide the commission with technical advice. Importantly, the commission will be able to consult with any other body or person it considers appropriate. If the commission decides to grant an exemption to an operator, the exemption will provide protection from a complaint about a breach of that requirement.
Along with my constituents and groups in Stirling, I look to the Attorney-General to appoint people to the commission from a broad range of backgrounds and experiences. Our goal is to ensure that no transport service is allowed to find an easy way out of its obligations. The bill, by enabling public transport services to apply for an exemption from disability standards, will enable public transport providers to clarify their obligations up front instead of waiting to be sued under the Disability Discrimination Act, the DDA, and then raising a defence such as unjustifiable hardship.
The bill will also allow the commission to involve community stakeholders--groups such as People with Disabilities (WA) Inc., ACROD, Valued Independent People Inc., and the Development Disability Council of WA, along with a range of state and national peak bodies advocating for people with disabilities and their carers and families. It would be a wonderful thing to see these groups, who put so much energy into these issues, have input before the public transport provider acts in relation to disability access on its service--what is these days the so-called `honesty factor'. While it is important that providers of public transport comply with disability standards, there is sense in enabling any uncertainty about a provider's compliance with the standards to be resolved by the commission on a consultative basis rather than by litigation in the Federal Court. It enables disability advocacy groups to be involved and may spare individuals the trauma and expense of litigation.
I have recently dealt with a constituent of mine who faces trauma and considerable expense involved in litigation over a disability access issue in my electorate. Although not directly related to public transport, my constituent's issue serves to highlight some of the problems that can arise under the system of disability access regulation which this bill seeks to replace. In 1995 the Court Liberal government commissioned Main Roads to design a pedestrian overpass near Everingham Street across the planned Reid Highway extension in the suburb of Carine in my electorate of Stirling. Ignoring the 1992 Austroads Bridge Design Code and the 1993 Australian Standard 1428.1, Main Roads designed an overpass that did not meet the disability access requirements. Australian standard 1428.1 clearly states that the overpass should have been designed with a maximum gradient of one in 14 and that there should be rest landings at least every nine metres. Showing complete disregard for disability access, the Court Liberal government minister for transport signed off on the design of the overpass which Main Roads then constructed--an incredible scenario in the mid-1990s, especially as it was a good 10 years after the International Year for the Disabled and we had thought that these issues in society were no longer going to arise.
When construction of the overpass was completed, the overpass was as steep as one in 10 at the southern end, with no rest platforms at any point, making it grossly unsuitable for my constituents with disabilities who need to cross the overpass. I might add that this overpass was put at a point, after much controversy in the local community, at Everingham Street because there are four schools and children's services in Everingham Street that service a total of 3,000 children and the local high school there has five young people with disabilities, some of whom have to access this overpass.
One of my constituents has had to take Main Roads to court in order to get them to modify the overpass so far as is necessary to make it comply with the disability access requirements of the Australian standards. My constituents and Main Roads this year--not five years ago-- are now involved in a protracted battle to determine whether it is acceptable before the act for Main Roads to have built the overpass the way they did after it has been completed. This costly and traumatic experience could have been avoided if Main Roads was required to make an application for exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 before it built the overpass, instead of simply deciding to go ahead and build it, hoping that no-one challenged them in the courts for their actions. This is clearly an unsatisfactory way to regulate disability access issues and it is for this reason that I support the model proposed in this bill.
Another important aspect of this bill that I mentioned briefly earlier is that it allows the commission to consult, in addition to the prescribed body, with any body or person it considers appropriate. I consider this to be crucial to the future success of this bill. It is only through frank and open consultation with all the stakeholders that the commission can hope to obtain a just outcome for people with disabilities with the new powers this bill proposes to give. Organisations such as People with Disabilities (WA) Inc. have been very successful in communicating the access needs of people with disabilities and will now make very good use of the model proposed in this bill.
Recently, People with Disabilities (WA) Inc. was instrumental in negotiating
disability access for the circle bus route which passes through my electorate.
The collective knowledge and experience of groups such as People with Disabilities
(WA) Inc. across the country will provide the commission with additional expertise
in ensuring that our community plans for and provides public transport that
is responsive to the needs of all Australians and ensures consultation and certainty
instead of litigation. I commend the bill to the House.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 contains the following objectives: to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities as far as is possible; to promote community acceptance of the principle that people with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as all members of the community; and to ensure as far as practicable that people with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law as other people in the community.
In furtherance of those objectives, the act makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their disability in many areas of public life, including employment; education; provision of goods, services and facilities; access to premises, accommodation, clubs and incorporated associations; dealing with land; sport; and in the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground that they are an associate of a person with a disability, and it is unlawful to harass a person because of their disability.
In the last year in which the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission reported to the parliament, the commission had received 443 complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act. The majority of those complaints in the commission's report related to employment and the provision of goods, services and facilities. It is worth noting that transport, and access to transport, is a fundamental issue for disabled people. It is an issue on which the commission has been required to spend a considerable amount of time, covering a whole range of areas.
For example, in recent years the commission has dealt with complaints in relation to the accessibility of existing long-distance rail carriages, the question of scooters being permitted on buses, access to suburban railway stations, wheelchair access to local buses, wheelchair seating on coaches, air travel with oxygen, people requiring assistance animals on trains, railway station toilet facilities, taxi access for guide dog users, sleeping carriage access, accessibility of Perth buses, access to interurban trains and main terminal station, access to public transport buses, and access in country trains. So a very wide variety of areas of complaint about discrimination under this act have come before the commission.
This legislation is important in that context, because it enables a more systematic approach to be taken to complaints or issues of discrimination. It is a recognition in part that the complaint system in itself is not enough to address some of the systemic areas where disabled people face discrimination in relation to transport.
Very importantly, the legislation enables the processing and recognition of standards, which provide the benchmark against which disabled people can expect public transport providers to meet their needs. This is important not just for disabled people. It is important for the providers of public transport services because it enables them to have a considerably higher degree of certainty about what standards they are required to meet in terms of meeting the needs of disabled customers of their service.
In an excellent speech given by the Deputy Disability Discrimination Commissioner last year to the bus industry conference in Perth, a number of important points were made. The deputy commissioner referred to the importance of partnerships between industry and people in the disability field to minimise and eliminate discrimination. He referred to the introduction of open caption movies throughout Australia to benefit people who are deaf or hearing impaired and the announcement of a scheme by telecommunications companies to assist people with mobile phones that were causing interference with their hearing aids. These were two examples given of the benefits that can accrue both to providers of services and disabled people by a framework of cooperation, which this legislation provides.
In relation to public transport, the commissioner referred to public transport systems needing to establish uniform processes and to be clear about, way in advance, the type of infrastructure and rolling stock acceptable to meet the objectives of the act. For individuals to lodge complaints all over the country about different aspects of buses, for example--a situation that is now possible under the provisions of the act--is not necessarily the best way to make our transport system accessible; it is rather by creating partnerships and ensuring that standards are set and understood and, indeed, met. The commissioner also gave a picture of what the standards will be. He said:
They provide various `rules' for making public transport accessible. They do not just deal with physical access, although this is an important aspect of them. They deal with other issues such as access to signage, announcements, and timetables. Because the drafters of the Standards appreciated that infrastructure change cannot occur overnight, they include a timetable by which percentages of public transport must be wheelchair accessible--25% after 5 years, 55% after 10 etc going through to 20 years for buses and coaches. But the clock does not start to run until the Standards are tabled in parliament, which has not yet occurred.
Once the Standards are in place, complaints under the DDA about areas which are covered by the Standards will not need to demonstrate that discrimination has occurred--they will only have to show that the Standard has been breached.
This legislation we are debating today takes a giant step down that particular road which, as I indicated, is very much in the interests of providers of services as well as in the interests of disabled people. But vigilance is always required in ensuring justice for people in our community who are vulnerable, in this case disabled people.
In my home state of Victoria, towards the end of last year there were some particularly traumatic circumstances where several wheelchair-bound people were killed on level crossings. To his great credit, the Victorian minister for transport established a task force that included representation from the disabled community. That task force has produced some 23 recommendations, including recommendations to create a fund of $100,000 as a research grant to investigate engineering issues and to develop maintenance standards for level crossings. That is a very welcome initiative and I trust that the Victorian government--a very good government but not a perfect government--will now proceed very expeditiously to address the tragedies that occur periodically on level crossings in Victoria.
There are always further things to do. Just recently in one of my local newspapers a number of complaints have been emerging--not actually affecting a railway station in my electorate but a nearby railway station called Watergardens, which is a very new station; indeed, it has just been opened in recent months. The complaints are about the compliance of that station with reasonable standards for disabled people. For example, there have been complaints about the width of emergency exits, the height of ticket machines and so on, and so there is always a lot more work to do.
Even a very good government, a government--such as the Victorian Labor government-- that is committed to high standards of social justice, needs to be continually vigilant in ensuring that adequate standards are continually met and services are continually upgraded. This should be done not only, as I have said, in the interests of disabled people but also in the interests of providers of services so that they have some higher degree of certainty about what the community expects of them.
I notice that the member for Kennedy made a guest appearance a moment ago. Presumably he was so inspired by my speech that he decided to absent himself. But, since the member for Kennedy has left the control of Chief National Party Whip in the hands of the member for Mallee, the standards may well have fallen. So we will rely upon the good offices of the member for Mallee to go and chase the member for Kennedy and see where he is.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran)--I think we can take it that he is not coming.
Mr SERCOMBE --We can take it that he is not coming? I have obviously converted
him, and so I will sit down and allow the proceedings to go ahead.
On behalf of the government I want to thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Disability Discrimination Amendment Bill 2002 and for their support. As has been indicated, this is a very important item of legislation, it is very progressive legislation and I know the Attorney-General is very proud of this legislation which will achieve very positive outcomes for our community.
Changes announced in the budget this week will see significantly more support and greater opportunities for people with disabilities to help them participate in work and in the community. The government wants to provide every opportunity to people with disabilities to find and keep a job. To do this, the government will be providing help through the provision of extra rehabilitation, training, education and employment services. These reforms will be supported by the introduction of the disability standards for accessible public transport. This bill is an important precursor to the formulation of disability standards for accessible public transportation services and facilities. At present while the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has the power to grant temporary exemptions from the operation of provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act, it does not have the power to grant temporary exemptions from disability standards.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be interested to know that these amendments will allow the commission to grant temporary exemptions from disability standards dealing with public transport services and facilities. The ability to grant appropriate up-front exemptions from these disability standards is an essential element in providing greater certainty to persons who will be affected by them. Importantly, the commission will be required to consult the National Transport Secretariat before granting such exemptions and may consult any other body or person it considers appropriate.
Together with the amendments in this bill, the standards will provide certainty about compliance requirements for public transport service operators in a way that does not impose undue burdens upon them. The standards will greatly assist in breaking down social and economic barriers currently faced by people with a disability or mobility problem. The standards will also benefit other members of the community, particularly older Australians and parents with infants in pushers or prams, who need to or want to use public transport. The standards will help to promote increased recognition and acceptance that people with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community. They are a concrete demonstration of this government's strong commitment to eliminating discrimination against people with disabilities and to improving their lives in both a fundamental and a practical way. I know government members are very proud of this government's commitment and, what is more, the way that we are implementing this commitment through legislation.
My good friend the honourable member for Barton spoke in this debate. He criticised the time taken to prepare and introduce the disability standards for accessible public transport and the time frames for implementation of various parts of the standards. I want to place the facts on the public record and to reassure the honourable member for Barton. My colleague the Attorney-General acknowledges and understands the concerns expressed about the period of development of the disability standards for accessible public transport. At the same time it is important to recognise--and I think most reasonable people would appreciate this--that, in view of their groundbreaking nature, when the standards are formulated and tabled they will be the first disability standards to be implemented under the Disability Discrimination Act.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that the bill be considered forthwith.
Bill agreed to.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.