House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Adjournment Debate Patient Assistance Transport Scheme PATIENT ASSISTANCE TRANSPORT SCHEME Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly MacKillop Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (17:20): I very rarely contribute to an adjournment debate, but I unfortunately missed out on the opportunity to grieve in the supply debate earlier, so there are a couple of issues I just wanted to put on the record that have been exercising some of my time in my local electorate over the last little period. I was delighted, the other day, when the government announced that it was going to do a review into the PAT Scheme. The reality is that my office fields a lot of constituent inquiries regarding PATS, and I just want to put on the record an experience that one of my constituents had quite recently. They were in hospital in Mount Gambier and needed an operation. The decision was taken that the operation would occur at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. The patient was flown to Adelaide for the operation, had the operation, had a ticket to fly back to Mount Gambier and then had probably an hour's drive from Mount Gambier back to their farming property, which is isolated from any of the local towns. As luck would have it, the day that the gentleman was released from the Royal Adelaide Hospital and was due to fly home was the same day that his father's funeral was held here in Adelaide. My constituent, I think quite rightly, attended his father's funeral and then delayed his trip back to Mount Gambier until the following day. As it turned out, those wonderful bureaucrats who manage our PAT Scheme acted to the letter of the law and refused to reimburse him for the flight back to Mount Gambier. So, here is a constituent who, for medical reasons, had an operation here in Adelaide and qualified for reimbursement for the cost of the flights. I just think it is crazy that the government of the day would expect that that man should have flown back to Mount Gambier on his subsidised flight under the PAT Scheme and then, if he wanted to attend his father's funeral, immediately hopped on another aeroplane and come back to Adelaide, attended the funeral and then turned around and flown back again to Mount Gambier. It seems nonsensical to me that that is the way the scheme is being administered by the current government, and I will be having further discussions with the minister about that particular issue. Another issue has been exercising some of my time. I have a mother who believes her 10-year-old child is suffering from autism. At the moment, there is no official diagnosis but, because there is no service available in the South-East, the mother, at her own cost, is required to make appointments and bring the child to Adelaide for mental assessment. In the meantime, the child is receiving some limited support at the local school, which is an isolated area school. I have approached the department heads in Mount Gambier, seeking some further support for this particular child, who does have a considerable behavioural problem, which is not only impacting on that child and that child's future and will, if not addressed, most likely be a burden on the taxpayer for the rest of that person's life, but it is also impacting on the rest of the school community, particularly those in the same year level as this particular 10-year-old child. Notwithstanding that I got great sympathy from the regional directorate—I spoke to a number of staff members there—notwithstanding that they recognised the problems and issues that I highlighted, and notwithstanding that they were quite sympathetic, the reality is that their resourcing was such that they were unable to assist in any way. Again, sir, it is just a matter of a government which has wrong priorities and is unable to provide proper resourcing, particularly in a regional area, to meet what I believe is an absolute need. Another issue that was brought to my attention late last year involves another school in my electorate, where a constituent whose property bounds the school pointed out that the fence between her property and the school was literally falling down. I visited the school, Newbury Park School in Millicent, which was opened in 1962 and, from my assessment, the fence right around the school yard has gone beyond its useful life and is literally falling down. Parts of the fence have been propped up to stop it from falling over. A lot of the fence has that orange bunting we see around the street when there is a dangerous situation through roadworks or whatever, so along large parts of the fence there is an attempt to isolate the children from the fence with this orange bunting. Parts of the fence have notices placed there—I presume by the principal of the school—warning of the danger and advising the student population not to play in the vicinity of the fence because it could literally fall down at any time. I have been informed that the department has been aware of this situation for an extensive time, and it seems that there is a combination of factors: the bureaucracy is moving incredibly slowly, and that is probably exacerbated by the fact that there are very limited, if any, resources available within the department to carry out this basic capital program to replace the fence around the school. That is what it needs. I wrote to the minister some time ago. I am yet to receive a response. I am not arguing that that is a failing on the minister's part. It probably has not been six weeks since I wrote, but I wanted to bring this matter to the attention of the parliament because I do not think members should have to badger ministers to have this sort of work done. It is something which should be done out of hand. I will conclude my remarks there. They were three of the issues which have been over my desk in recent weeks, and I wanted to highlight some of the problems that local members are having. At 17:27 the house adjourned until Tuesday 14 May 2013 at 11:00.