Personal Explanation

HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE PROGRAM

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (15:16): I rise to make a personal explanation.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: Yesterday, the Minister for Families and Communities made a statement in respect of Home and Community Care programs in response to a question. During that answer she said:

Do you want me to read your letter to the house so they know the tone of your correspondence?

I have the letter, Madam Speaker, and I seek to—I do not need your permission, I am making a personal explanation. The date of the letter is 17 February 2011. It reads:

The Honourable Jennifer Rankine MP

Minister for Families and Communities

GPO Box 1563

Adelaide SA 5001

Dear Minister

Re: HACC program—Uraidla Seniors Group.

As the local member and shadow minister for ageing, I write to you about the withdrawal—

Mr PENGILLY: I rise on a point of order. I cannot hear the member, even sitting alongside her.

The SPEAKER: Order! We need to get some clarification. Is this a grievance or a personal explanation? It is a grievance, was my understanding.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is a personal explanation.

The SPEAKER: Personal explanation.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is correct.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I rise on a point of order. A personal explanation is about correcting facts. She is not correcting facts.

Ms Chapman: That's your facts.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No, not my facts. I didn't read your letter.

The SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the member to seek leave. Leave is sought. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yesterday, the Minister for Families and Communities, during her answer to a question in respect to Home and Community Care programs, said:

Do you want me to read your letter to the house so they know the tone of your correspondence?

The letter reads:

17 February—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I rise on a point of order. I posed a rhetorical question. I did not put anything that was incorrect. I did not make a statement to this house that was incorrect and I would like to know what the member opposite is correcting.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Finniss, you just complained that you could not hear anything and now you are making the noise. I do not have the Hansard in front of me. I am not completely conversant with what occurred yesterday. I understand that there was a—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not finished yet. I understand that there was a discussion about a personal letter that was exchanged with the minister and the member for Bragg and that the minister had said at some point—please correct me if I am wrong—that you were happy for the member for Bragg to read that letter out. Is that correct?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to hear the minister's answer, so members on my left can be quiet. It is very easy.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I actually said, 'If you think she's bad in here, have you had letters from her, you should read her correspondence,' and then I said, 'Would you like me to?'

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: You mightn't like it but it is—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order at this point, member for MacKillop, because I have not heard this point of order. So, when the minister has finished her point of order—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: When she has finished making her point of order you may speak, and now you can sit down.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I made the comments I have just alluded to. I did not read the member's letter to the house, although—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: No.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to hear the answer.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I posed a rhetorical question about whether I should read the letter to the house, which I didn't do. She is now standing up here wanting me to read the letter to the house.

Mr WILLIAMS: Because you made an insinuation, you clown!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, you will withdraw those words and you will apologise or—

Mr WILLIAMS: I withdraw and apologise for calling the minister a clown.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Frankly, I do not find that apology particularly gracious, but it can be accepted, because you really repeated the insult, which is kind of embarrassing for you.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: How do you draw a salary and not get embarrassed?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. Minister for mining, let's all just calm down slightly. I am going to consult with the Clerk.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have a point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, excuse me one moment, member for Croydon.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have consulted with the clerks and I would ask one question of the member for Bragg, and it is a yes or no answer: do you feel that you have been misrepresented?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, I do.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may discuss, according to the standing orders, how you feel you have been misrepresented. However, I do urge you to move away from any emotional language and perhaps to just point out precisely how you feel you have been misrepresented.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have a point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: My point of order is that the statement yesterday in question time—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Excuse me, member for Croydon. I would like to point out that not one member on my left during this particular debate has pointed at any number at all, so I don't think there is any point in demanding numbers, members on my left.

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order No. 141, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well done, member for Finniss!

Mr PENGILLY: It relates to quarrels in the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down, please, member for Finniss. I think we will listen to the member for Croydon's point of order and then we can come back to your point of order.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: My point of order is that the minister, in question time yesterday, as I heard it, did not make reference to any particular item of correspondence, and it appears to me that the member for Bragg is now going to choose one of her polite letters from her broad corpus of correspondence to try to contradict the minister. What is necessary, of course, is for the member for Bragg in her personal explanation to read out all her correspondence to the Minister for Families and Communities.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your point of order, member for Croydon. In relation to that point of order, I would like to say again that I have consulted with the clerks. From what I understand, because the member feels she has been misrepresented—and I understand that the Minister for Families and Communities did pose a rhetorical question—she does have the right under this particular standing order to make these points. We will see how that occurs.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, you can have a point of order, Minister for Families and Communities, but, first—

Mr PENGILLY: No, I had one.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am well aware of that, and well done for putting your hand up. We just have the point of order of the member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In respect to your position as the current chair of the house, I seek your guidance on this matter of 141 through your officers in front of you. The member for Bragg has a personal explanation and she chose to deliver some of the Hansard from yesterday and to read a letter into the record. It seems to me that the minister is quarrelling across the chamber when the member for Bragg simply wants to read that letter in as a response.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Finniss. I do not uphold the point of order, and let me explain to you why. The point of order with respect to standing order 141, I believe you referred to, member for Finniss—is that correct?

Mr PENGILLY: That's correct.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That standing order states that 'the house does not permit quarrels'. During this brief moment, shall we say, I have heard a number of inflammatory comments from both sides of the house. My suggestion is that, at this point, we move beyond that and we allow the member for Bragg to make the personal explanation she wishes to make, although I personally have some doubts about this, but I am assured by the Clerk that this is absolutely within the standing orders. Let us just carry on with that. The member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a point of order. Member for Bragg, could you sit down. The minister.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The purpose of a personal explanation is to correct the record. I did not—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I have not finished speaking.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am speaking.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ladies!

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order. The member must—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am speaking. She hasn't ruled at all yet.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! When I, or indeed anyone else in the chair, is on their feet you will be quiet. All members will cease speaking at that point in time. There has been so much quarrelling in this chamber that I am now confused as to who is quarrelling with whom. It has become very difficult to distinguish. I am going to ask you a question: who was the last person who made a point of order? It was the Minister for Families and Communities, excellent. Thank you.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The purpose, as I understand it, of a personal explanation is to correct something that is wrong.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Or?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: What I said yesterday, as the member for Bragg said, is—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will just let the minister finish her point of order.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: —'Do you want me to read your letter to the house so that they know the tone of your correspondence?'

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I have not finished making my point.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that the Minister for Families and Communities is making a point of order in relation to the validity of the member for Bragg making a personal explanation. The Minister for Families and Communities, if I may so presume, is pointing out, or saying, or claiming, or alleging that a personal statement has to correct something which indeed is perceived to be incorrect. That is true.

However, a personal explanation may be made if that person feels they have been misrepresented. It is under that particular umbrella that I am allowing the member for Bragg to give this personal explanation, thus, I am afraid there is no point of order at this point in relation to the minister's point.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Sorry, ma'am, but I made reference to the fact that I had a letter from the member for Bragg. That is the only thing that I have said.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: If she is arguing that she did not send me a letter, well, then—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is actually no point of order there. Thank you. There is no point of order. I do not accept that point of order. It would be—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is astonishing. If I was not in the chair I would be really enjoying this, but I am not. It is appalling. This is appalling. All right, let's get back on the road of the personal explanation. I am sure that the member for Bragg will stick to it. The minister for mining will enjoy quiet times. It is the time of the member for Bragg.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That includes everybody being silent. The members on my left and the members on my right. That includes you, member for MacKillop.

Ms CHAPMAN: As I said, in the course of the Minister for Families and Communities yesterday answering a question on the Home and Community Care program, she said, and I quote: 'Do you want me to read your letter to the house so they know the tone of your correspondence?' My claim is that I have been misrepresented in that assertion.

I can say to the house that I have written to the Minister for Families and Communities on many occasions, and only on one occasion, to my recollection, writing to her on the Home and Community Care program, and that is this letter, dated 17 February 2011:

The Hon. Jennifer Rankine MP

Minister for Families and Communities

GPO Box 1563 ADELAIDE SA 5001

Dear Minister,

RE: HACC Program—Uraidla Seniors Group

As the local Member and Shadow Minister for Ageing I write to you about the withdrawal of HACC funding—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Uraidla?

Ms CHAPMAN: It is in my electorate. Wakey wakey, your boundaries are behind.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: You're so slow.

Members interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, Madam.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order. Which one would you like to be? Sorry, there are three people on their feet. Member for MacKillop, can you sit down because the member for Finniss is making a point of order.

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order 131 against the Member for Croydon, ma'am—interruption.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I uphold that point of order, does that mean that you, member for Finniss, commit to not interjecting any more?

Mr PENGILLY: Ma'am, I have been sitting here very quietly, listening to the member for Bragg, and the member for Croydon was interrupting most loudly. No-one else was saying a word apart from the member for Bragg and the member for Croydon, and I have been very good.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I am sure the member for Croydon will desist from here on in. Let's not interrupt the member for Bragg anymore.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will resume the letter:

Essentially I am advised by my local constituent the history of the group is as follows:

(a) The group of 24 older people who are living independently and often alone, meet monthly.

(b) Over the last four years they have been funded by HACC via Adelaide Hills Council (AHC). The group was originally set up on their recommendation.

(c) They meet at the Uraidla Football Club at the rental cost of $50.00 and more recently at $100.00 since the upgrade of the clubrooms. Additionally they have the use of the bus once a month for a day excursion.

(d) The members usually walk to the Club. This provides an important social interaction for the members.

On the 12^th January 2011, an AHC representative advised the group that the funding would be withdrawn allegedly because:

(a) They no longer qualify for funding (unless they were a day program for the frail), under new HACC guidelines.

(b) The football club rooms are no longer viable, plus there were Occupational Health and Safety issues.

(c) Further, that the twenty seater bus would be sold are not replaced.

As a former Chair of the HACC Advisory Council I would be very concerned if there has been a change in the "Charter" for HACC funding, that in any way diminished support for keeping people independent, active and healthy as they aged. If there has been a change in the guidelines, and of course the State Government is a near equal funder of this program, I would be appalled if your Government have signed off on this. If programs are only going to be available for those affected by a health or care issue, then this is in direct contradiction of its original purpose. Furthermore, given all the published material of your Government and the Federal Government in supporting preventative measures in the areas of health and care, this would make a laughing stock of those statements.

As the local Member I confirm that I have visited Uraidla Football Clubrooms, both before and since substantial upgrade. The new kitchen, toilet and amenities are superb and provide a venue for all the community supporting fantastic events. This club has been established and maintained by the local community. Not surprisingly the rent has increased, but has remained modest, given the amenities. As to the concern that the Club members were carrying in food boxes (which they had taken to their meetings as the fridge and cupboards are locked) this excuse is utterly ridiculous. Logically people could carry smaller containers, use a trolley, or simply keep a cupboard in that facility.

I will bring this to the attention of the Mayor of the AHC as I consider it an insult to our mutual constituents. These members of our community may be senior—

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I will just repeat that:

These members of our community may be senior but they are competent, intelligent people and deserve some respect.

Ms CHAPMAN: It continues:

Offers by [Adelaide Hills Council] to transport members to another town to use the cheaper hall is equally absurd.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Croydon, you are your own worst enemy.

Ms CHAPMAN: The letter continues:

As the Shadow Minister for Ageing, I advise you Minister that there are no other senior services in Uraidla. There is a private nursing home, but of course their services are not readily available to local independent-living seniors.

In my experience the Uraidla and Summertown community have provided for themselves in many areas without welfare support. They are a proud and independent community and have always shown compassion to others. Right at this moment, a number of children from the Inverbrackie settlement are attending the Uraidla Primary School. The local community have welcomed these children and are keen for them to participate in events outside of the education services, i.e. local sport. Regrettably that is not available under the current security arrangements.

I simply raise this as an example of the support they are willing to give others.

It is surely reasonable that they have a little support from your Government.

I await the advice on any change of guidelines and will keep you informed on any revision of approach in the AHC on the safety issue.

Yours sincerely

Vickie A. Chapman

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the house—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left! I believe that you, like the members on my right, have grievance debates that you would like to engage in; so let us do that.