House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Welfare Rights Centre Welfare Rights Centre Ms BEDFORD House of Assembly Florey Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (15:39): Today, I would like to speak about the South Australian Welfare Rights Centre. In its 31-year history, it has provided community legal service, and its main work has been to provide free legal advice and assistance in the areas of tenancy and social security law. Much of their work has therefore centred around Centrelink matters and homelessness issues. The Welfare Rights Centre has provided a well-utilised and much-needed duty solicitor program for people appearing in the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Anyone appearing before these tribunals needs to be well versed in the criteria applicable to their matter and it can be an intimidating atmosphere at the best of times, The Welfare Rights Centre has also trained a number of volunteers and law students to be able to assist in the many cases and calls for help in these jurisdictions. Some lawyers have also volunteered their time, and this has always been much appreciated by the Welfare Rights Centre and the clients involved. Perhaps most importantly, the centre's work has also been conducted in South Australia's regional and remote areas, not only in Adelaide's metropolitan suburbs. For example, there has been a regular service in the APY lands in the past, and this is in stark contrast to the availability of many services in those far-flung parts of this vast state. Sadly, in a climate when financial counselling and legal aid have also suffered major cuts, the funding for the important work of the Welfare Rights Centre on both a state and commonwealth level has been cut back, and not for the first time. As is now all too often the case for community services of this kind, the governmental funding models and guidelines at both levels of government have been subject to change and often become inconsistent, making it difficult for many community legal services to continue their work. Despite all this uncertainty, up until recently the Welfare Rights Centre and volunteers have managed to assist over 500 clients each year. Like the Florey EO, I have no doubt that many of you in this chamber, through your offices, would have sought advice and assistance from the Welfare Rights Centre for your constituents, or perhaps even referred them directly to the centre for specific help. Centrelink, while not a state responsibility, is responsible for many inquiries from our constituents and, while not directly our responsibility, I do feel responsible for making sure my constituents have the best possible advice on what has become a very complex area. As the screws are applied on an ever-reducing welfare budget, criteria see eligibility reduced and the opportunity to report changes face to face almost obliterated in the march to self-reporting on the myGov website, which for even the most competent user may produce two outcomes. Keeping an itemised diary or account of each and every interaction with Centrelink is often not enough evidence or proof of effort to keep the department informed. Recently, I personally accompanied a constituent to a Centrelink office, and after more than an hour and several staff members looking at the issues in question it was still not possible to receive a definitive adjudication or finding. Areas like the carer's allowance, income tests for various pensions and social pensions, disability support pension eligibility and robo-debt, just to name a few, are complex areas not helped by changes to legislation and regulation. The Florey EO has always received quick and efficient responses and advice from the Welfare Rights Centre, and constituents referred have always reported effective assistance and advice. The bad news today is that the centre is about to shut shop. I understand that at the Welfare Rights Centre's 31^st AGM on 20 November there will be a motion to wind up the centre. How can it be that this service, with such a long and proven track record of cost-effective assistance, often to the most vulnerable in our communities, faces such a bleak future, which in turn delivers a dire outcome for its clients? It comes down to cost. I believe that any clinical review of the value for money of each of those 500 services per year would show this funding cut is worse than penny pinching. It will condemn already vulnerable people to a helpless situation, as I am told these services are not replicated anywhere else in any state or federal system. I commend the Welfare Rights Centre for its invaluable work over the past 31 years, and its staff and volunteers for their commitment and dedication. I urge the Attorney-General to ask her department to review immediately this terrible decision, and I hope that even at this late hour something can be done prior to the 20 November AGM.