FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES DEPARTMENT

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:52): I move:

That this house calls upon the Minister for Families and Communities to publish regular waiting list data concerning services within all of her portfolios on the Department for Families and Communities website, including disability support and equipment lists and Housing Trust waiting lists.

The situation at present is that, once a year, the department publishes a number of these lists. They also appear in the annual reports of various entities under the minister's control, including the annual report of the South Australian Housing Trust. There are other reports for which she is responsible, again, which canvass this on an annual basis. Often when we receive this information it is a year out of date and sometimes much more. However, the state government has commissioned Monsignor Cappo to undertake a report within his social inclusion responsibilities, to report back by 1 July next year on the questions of unmet need (both assessment of the problems and, hopefully, finding some solutions) for the funding and provision of services and accommodation for the disability area.

He has done one on mental health. We have numerous reports that have undertaken assessments in respect of our public housing. There is absolutely no reason why we, as part of the community, should not have readily available, via websites, a monthly update of each of these lists, because they provide to the community a regular assessment for people to understand the extent of the requirement and for advocate groups to be able to present their case, and for the government to know where on earth it is going in these areas is also critically important.

I point out to the house that, after some considerable lobbying by the opposition and other groups in the health area and sector (both the government and non-government sector), they were able to announce that they would provide their health waiting lists, which include access to elective surgery, on a monthly basis on the website. I have subsequently been concerned at the delay of how quickly the monthly website published material appears. Usually it is about three months in arrears. However, at least they accepted responsibility to do that; and, whilst they might be tardy in attention to it they have at least committed to do it. I simply say that it is able to be done, it should be done and it must be done if we are to assess properly the situation and be able to plan accurately for the future.

The specific areas I have highlighted in this proposal are for disability support and equipment lists. Members would be aware, I am sure, because they would receive as many letters as I do, of people who are suffering from or have a family member who has a disability and who is not able to access adequate services. For a number of years prior to coming into this place, I served as chair of the Home and Community Care Board, and the allocation of funding and resources, limited as some would argue they were—and I think that is fair comment—were to be distributed to the high level of need in this area. It became clear to me that there was a massive unmet need, and I think that is universally accepted now.

At the federal level the productivity commissioner is looking into the assessment of the problems that we have in the provision of services, including the provision of equipment for people who have either intellectual or physical disabilities. That is also to report on 1 July next year. In particular, consideration will be given to what has been described nationally as a disability insurance scheme. I think what is being proposed is something different to that but, basically, instead of a Medicare levy on income taxpayers, the proposal is for a DISACARE levy, payable by income tax payers.

Consideration needs to be given to distribution to people with a disability, and the extent, and who is going to be in and who is going to be out; and whether we are going to include all people with a disability or exclude those who have a disability through the workplace or who have had a motor vehicle accident and can recover through the motor accident commission, or whether we have only those who are unable to access other private or independent funds. Then the question will be what services will be provided—whether housing is in or out. I have seen one very detailed submission that suggests that housing should not be in and it should just be for services and people waiting for physical aids for disability.

They are all the challenges we have as to future requirements. But, at the very least, let's have the data. The minister, on behalf of the department, is the only one who otherwise has access to this information and, if we truly work towards resolution, we must do this properly. In respect of the disability and access to services and lists, there is clearly an overlap in the concerns about the people who are waiting to get on the waiting lists. There should be also a full and frank disclosure of those who are waiting to be assessed for the purposes of getting on those lists, whether they are for aids or services.

One example came from a woman who wrote to me whose daughter at age 14 years of age had a significant disability. She wrote to me a couple of months ago to tell me that her daughter was in the intensive care unit at the Women's and Children's Hospital after sustaining very severe burns. She now has more disabilities, very significant disabilities, as well as the ongoing and very expensive healthcare costs. This woman recounted to me what few direct services she had had in the past and how, when she moved interstate and came back and put in a request for equipment and other services, she went to the bottom of the list. We have absurd situations like this, so we need to know who is on the list and all of the people who are waiting to get on the list, and the categories they are in.

This woman has highlighted the absurdity of a government having to pick up, through another minister's responsibility, namely health, the significant economic cost to the state if this is not properly attended to. It is a very tragic case, and this woman is now on another waiting list for a lifter. If she had had the bathroom modifications to her home in the first place, perhaps her daughter would not have been tragically burnt in the first place. This woman just needs basic things, like a headrest so that she does not have to try to prop up her daughter's head with pillows. The absurdity of this situation and the cruelty of denial of access should make the minister appreciate the importance of having regular lists.

Another case I have referred to in this house is of a 21 year old woman who has been in the psychiatric ward at Flinders Medical Centre. This motion gives me an opportunity to update members about this young woman with a disability. It is important that people with disabilities have access to health services when they need them, just like able persons. However, this young woman has clearly had her medical treatment and she has been waiting all these months to get disabled housing—and I have told the parliament about this before.. We do not know, of course, how many people are waiting for disability housing because the government's policy now is to amalgamate the housing lists, so everyone is lumped in together, which is another clever way of trying to keep us ignorant of the real situation.

This poor girl has at least had the Public Advocate on her case for a number of months but, on my understanding, it is still a problem. Knowing the history of this girl, particularly that she had been a victim of sexual abuse for an extended period when she was only 15—which is shameful in itself—both Disability SA and the Flinders Medical Centre placed this young girl in an unlockable room on a locked ward with demented men.

Most recently, one of the other patients had come into her room naked on a number of occasions and, only in the last couple of weeks, had come next to her bed and urinated. The matter was brought to the attention of the nursing staff and, obviously, they promptly attended to the matter. But here is the incredible thing: when the young woman's relative—who, as her co-guardian, is also desperately trying to get this child into proper care—complained, she was told, 'Everything is okay. There is nothing to worry about; he didn't rape her.'

That is the level of concern there must be out in the community that we, as members of parliament, get the tragic and very distraught requests from people in the community who are waiting for equipment and told that they are going to be put onto another list and that they are going to be attended to. Years later, they are ringing, writing and asking for assistance for the most basic amenities, yet the government will not even regularly tell us what the position is in the community. We on this side of the house accept—as I am sure others in the community do—that there is no endless bucket of money and that there are not endless resources of skilled people to be able to assist people with disabilities, as in health and other things.

We understand that there will always be limitations. Whether we come up with a national insurance scheme or other things, there will always be limitations on the very large cost in providing for people in the community with a disability. I personally believe that we have an obligation to fellow South Australians to ensure that we here in this parliament make provisions and make them to the best of our ability. So when I hear that there is a disgraceful waste of resource in another portfolio, or that we are taking up, as I have explained to this house before, a bed facility in a hospital at thousands of dollars a week cost when we can provide that same service for hundreds of dollars a week at cost, then it just makes me weep to think that these people cannot get services.

I refer to the housing position. This is not just the accommodation for high needs people. We have an obligation, and, for example, we keep housing trust lists of the people who are waiting for facilities. Whether they are disabled, leaving prison, a domestic violence victim, have a mental health issue, have a physical disability, these are people who are very high need, and sometimes we allocate for our refugee and immigrant community extra high levels of need. If you get into category one, you have a chance of getting into government-provided housing, or community housing through charitable and benevolent organisations. That is terrific, but if you are on the rest of the list you might as well not even be on it, to be honest. Let us have some transparency from the government with this list as to what is happening.

I just want to bring to the attention of members the very latest letter that I have written to the minister. I know that we all write letters to the minister saying, for example, 'Why is this happening? What can we do for this particular case? There is an urgency about this because of a child protection issue'. A very simple case came to my attention the other day, where a woman's husband was killed, I think actually under some mischievous circumstances, but I do not understand her to be a suspect. In any event, he died. They were the occupants of a housing trust property. Possibly this had something to do with the young children witnessing what happened, but it is in the interests of this family, the mother and her children, to leave the property and to get another facility. She has been told by the housing trust that she has to go back on the waiting list and actually reapply at the bottom of the list. It is just absurd. We have these ridiculous situations. We must have that information and we must have it regularly, so that we can ensure that the provision is there.

The other thing is, we need to do it to make the government accountable. We had the minister just this week come into the parliament and refer to the Tanya Plibersek money, from the national housing funds that the federal government has allocated under its nation building stimulus plan, of which the federal government had provided the money to build public housing, and of which, for this year, as of to 30 June yesterday, they had received $51.9 million to build nearly 250 dwellings to be finished by yesterday. The minister came into the parliament the other day, just before 30 June, to proudly say, and I quote: 'We have been given a tough target of 173 homes by today, and I am thrilled to report we have accepted the 204th house this afternoon.' She has not even reached that target! So, let's be honest about this in relation to the government: let's have the full, accountable, on time information.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (12:08): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Delete the existing paragraph and replace with:

That this house congratulates the Rann government on its transparency and notes the ongoing commitment of the Minister for Families and Communities to publish regular waiting list data concerning services within all of her portfolios.

I provide some information to indicate to the house why I consider it necessary to move that amendment. The Department for Families and Communities has a commitment to transparency and accountability, and there are already a number of reporting mechanisms on services that DFC provides, which are published in the public arena. Some of these reporting mechanisms are managed by DFC itself, but also external agencies review DFC's service delivery and activities. This means there is both internal review and external review. The Australian government's Report on Government Services is a good example of this.

For instance, disability unmet need figures are published on the DFC website and updated every six months. This provides information about the number of people with a disability who are eligible and waiting for Disability SA services. This includes supported accommodation, which includes: personal in-home support, community access, community support and respite services. It should be noted that some of the individuals on the list may be registered for more than one of these services. The list was first published by DFC in response to a commitment made in 2008 to provide open and transparent information about the extent to which people are waiting for disability services. Only a few other jurisdictions publish disability waiting list information, and then only for certain programs and services. This government's commitment to transparency and accountability is steadfast and beyond the norm.

The unmet need data that is published on the website is part of a report entitled, The Provision of Disability Services in South Australia. The most recent data relates to the December 2009 quarter. This was published on the website on 6 May 2010. It is important that people recognise that the concept of a waiting list is not merely a sequential order of service for individuals. DFC waiting lists, by their nature, servicing those with the greatest need, are most fluid. Positions change according to the changing needs and changing priorities of needs of clients. This fluidity can, and often does, occur on a daily basis.

Similarly, the waiting list for Housing SA accommodation is segmented by basing service delivery on need. The number of applicants within each category adjusts as households move through the segments. Applicants approved for highest need categories are reviewed regularly and new households are assessed daily. As a result, the waiting list for each category is similarly fluid—frequently changing as existing applicants' circumstances change and new household needs are assessed. Housing SA waiting list information is published annually in the South Australian Housing Trust Annual Report, the Housing in Focus report and the Australian government's Report on Government Services. Total waiting list figures, as at 30 June, are published in the annual report and comparison is drawn against the previous financial year. The number of new applications received throughout the year is also published and, in addition to this, allocations data is reported.

This whole picture provides the reader with some sense of supply and demand across the financial year. Publishing annually and contrasting with the previous year's data allows for an informed analysis of the demands in the housing sector. Analysis of waiting list data more frequently than on an annual basis may lead to a distorted interpretation due to the ebbs and flows of vacancies and allocations that occur from day to day. Other reporting mechanisms include the Housing in Focus report and the federal government's Report on Government Services. Briefly, the Housing in Focus report presents social housing trends, providing the reader with a range and depth of information on Housing SA activities. It enables comparison across time and shows trends related to sociodemographic shifts as well as changes resulting from policy and program developments.

The Housing in Focus report also includes a breakdown of the waiting list by application category: category 1, category 2, category 3, low demand, and pending. Commentary contained in the report provides the reader with sociodemographics of the waiting list, such as household composition and age. Allocations information is also reported in detail in the Housing in Focus report, along with information on the length of time applicants wait prior to being allocated a property. Coupled with the federal government's Report on Government Services, these measures—all within the public arena—provide an accurate picture of the waiting lists for disability and housing services in South Australia.

In regard to the equipment service of DFC and its waiting list, in July 2008 the Department for Families and Communities created a single equipment program (known as the DFC equipment program) for clients of Disability SA and Domiciliary Care SA. Domiciliary Equipment Service (DES) is the business unit of Domiciliary Care SA and manages all provision of equipment and home modifications on behalf of DFC.

The major outcomes of an integrated equipment service include: consistent, equitable and simple access to equipment regardless of age, need or location; consistent assessment and priority systems; the development of demand management systems and accurate waiting lists; a service that supports retention of equipment and portability of transitioning between systems or age groups; stronger governance and enhanced risk management; savings due to appropriate refurbishment of equipment and bulk purchasing of equipment; and more stringent project management of home modifications.

Over the past 12 months DFC has been working on this, and it is envisaged that some aspect of this data will be published in the next annual report. Of course, as time goes on data will be refined and become more accurate. The end result will be an accurate picture of the demand for service. No one service provided by DFC is the same, and not every service has a wait list. There is no wait list, for example, for Seniors Cards. Customers can be issued with one on the spot and be eligible for support.

The Hon. S.W. Key: You have to be 60.

Ms THOMPSON: As the member for Ashford points out, the only waiting is—

The Hon. S.W. Key: The age.

Ms THOMPSON: the age—and I don't know how many of us are in a hurry to get to those ages. DFC provides many other services without any delay. DFC's commitment to speedy and responsive customer service is resolute.

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms THOMPSON: Some of us here aspire to getting to the age to be eligible, and some of us are not interested. Comparing the wait of a family for public housing with an individual's wait for a piece of equipment provides no real insight into the pressure of demand and need that DFC faces. Similarly, looking at waiting lists from week to week will offer little. The Department for Families and Communities and this government are committed to openness and transparency. The department liaises regularly with members of parliament, journalists and researchers in the efforts of transparency and accountability.

When questioned on this matter by the member for Bragg during last year's estimates hearings the minister provided an answer in detail for the house. This included the equipment service waiting list data, as the member requested, as at June 2008 and June 2009, to help assist the member understand the trends and pressures over a yearly period. The Department for Families and Communities' commitment to openness in government will continue into the future under this government's watch, but one must focus on the fact that what we are trying to do is provide services, not keep stats. This government is committed to the provision of appropriate and early services, using taxpayer money wisely, and at the same time providing regular information sufficient to allow the community to monitor the progress of the government in its objectives.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (12:22): I rise to support the amendment that is being proposed by the member for Reynell and to endorse her comments about the importance of making sure that the Department for Families and Communities can get on with its work. Certainly, the Public Service Association, in particular, has talked about the workload levels and the case load levels that workers in that area have. I think we all understand and agree that some of the work that is done by employees for the Department for Families and Communities is extremely difficult and complex and also very stressful. To add the requirements that I know for good reason the member for Bragg has raised seems to me to be something that is not a priority.

While there are records in those departments—and certainly in the housing area—of the need, and also of the people who are supported and are provided services in that area, the government does not feel that the provision that the member for Bragg has moved is necessary. On that basis, I support the amendment being put forward by the member for Reynell and, as I understand, seconded by the member for Bright.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:24): I will address this motion on the basis that the amendment has been put in the first instance and then cover a few matters in response. First, I thank other speakers for contributing to the debate on this matter. The member for Reynell has moved an amendment, and I simply indicate that the opposition opposes it. In particular, as the mover of the motion, I do not accept the amendment nor will I be supporting it. This is not an amendment. This is the complete opposite of what has been proposed.

The motion clearly identifies a request for a minister of the Crown to do certain things in the publication of information regarding waiting lists in her portfolios. This amendment, as presented, is a congratulatory motion concerning issues of transparency and the commitment of the minister in respect of what information she currently provides. It is not amendment at all. It is a complete rewriting and, in fact, a direct contradiction of the motion.

In addition, it raises other issues, including some alleged basis upon which congratulations should be given to the government on its apparent transparency. That is an entirely different matter, but even if you were to accept that it is consistent in subject matter, it is a direct contradiction of the motion. Therefore, I ask the house to reject the amendment and to vote on the original motion. In relation to my original motion, other speakers have highlighted the need to publish waiting lists and other data regularly. The member for Reynell suggests that, the number of publications provided to this house by the minister from her department should be adequate and, indeed, the honourable member suggests that that needs to be rewarded with some congratulations.

Quite frankly, I am stunned at that, because she must receive, as we all do, complaints from constituents who say, 'I have no idea where I am on the list. I have no access to who else I am competing against. I do not even know whether I am on the list or whether I am on a waiting list to go on a waiting list.' She knows full well, as do other members, that we are a year in arrears in receiving this information, if we are lucky. Sometimes the reports come even later. Yesterday, I read a report of the Aboriginal Lands Trust which was the annual report for the year ending 2008. I received it on its two-year anniversary, as other members did, meaning it was two years out of date, and further, it reports data collected the previous year.

Clearly, the member for Reynell must acknowledge that this is not a timely provision of information. We cannot possibly advise and support our constituents, or come to this house to debate legislation or support policy that is going to show the direction for the provision of resources for people who need help, without this information. I am talking about the hurt, hungry and homeless in our community who need serious help. We must have this information. It is critical to our deliberations and the debates in which our constituents expect us to participate.

The South Australian community who either need the services at any one time or have carers, friends and relatives who are desperately trying to support them in the meantime need to have this information from time to time. We owe it to them to make sure that we have that information. I find it extraordinary that anyone on the government's side would not support this motion as it currently stands. It is not a motion condemning the minister for not doing it: it is a motion calling on her to do this, and I would have welcomed a chorus of support.

Time expired.

The house divided on the amendment:

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The house divided on the motion as amended:

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Motion as amended thus carried.