DISABILITY SA CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. K.L. Vincent:

That this council calls on the Minister for Disability and the Treasurer to rescind the decision to abolish the Disability SA Client Trust Account.

(Continued from 23 February 2011.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (20:45): On 23 February, the Hon. Kelly Vincent moved this motion calling on the Minister for Disability and the Treasurer to rescind the decision to abolish the Disability SA Client Trust Account. It is appropriate that we should be finalising our consideration of this motion on the eve of the budget. The decision was, after all, a decision of the 2010-11 budget, and we are now on the eve of the 2011-12 budget—a budget that this motion hopes might see the reversal of the decision.

As part of the 2010-11 state budget, the government announced it would abolish the client trust fund management function of Disability SA. It is projected that shifting this function to the Public Trustee would result in a positive budget result of $2.2 million over three years. In moving this motion, the Hon. Kelly Vincent indicated that she was acting in response to the anger, frustration, and despondency of those affected by the abolition of the Disability SA Client Trust Account, and the transfer of the disability client trust management from Disability SA to the Public Trustee. The honourable member named it for what it is: a blatant cost-cutting measure.

The Sustainable Budget Commission estimated that the transfer of funds would see a windfall to the government of about $740,000 a year. That Monsignor Cappo, a servant of the church, and also a member of the Sustainable Budget Commission, could countenance a saving at the expense of people with a disability is galling. For those who have estates worth more than the modest figure of $440,000, they will pay capital commission fees of 4.4 per cent and income commission at 5.5 per cent. Clients will be required to pay annual fees of $134 and may be subject to tax fee of $45.

The Hon. Kelly Vincent sketched for the council the inequity of this proposal by reference to a case study where a person with an annual income of a mere $20,800 would be paying $1,630; that is, 8 per cent of their income in charges per year. This change takes money away from people who are more likely than other South Australians to have extremely limited financial resources, and are likely to have higher basic costs of living.

As the Hon. Kelly Vincent highlighted, the lack of consultation on this proposal is shameful. The disability sector has a saying: 'Nothing about us, without us.' The disability sector expects to be consulted about issues that affect them. As the Public Advocate, John Brayley, put it in the front page of The Advertiser:

It is unbelievable that the system could be changed without careful review and consultation with advocacy groups.

In a letter to a constituent, the Minister for Disability said that she had received numerous complaints about the inappropriateness of Disability SA, as a service provider, also managing funds. In contrast to that, in a letter to a concerned family member of the disability client, Dr Brayley, the Public Advocate, states:

Our office has heard little complaint about the management of the Disability SA Trust Fund, in contrast to the many calls we receive about the public trustee. It would seem that this budget decision will mean that people living with the disability will receive a lesser service, and may well have to pay from their own pocket.

I must admit, I believe the Public Advocate above the minister, especially following recent events. Liberal shadow minister for disability, Vicki Chapman, has labelled the budget measure a disgrace, and called for services to remain as they are. In a press release of January 2011, she said:

This is not about streamlining government services to be more efficient, or about providing better services to people who are disabled, it is a cash grab by the Rann government. Disability clients will be charged for services which they previously weren't, it is as simple as that. People are already forced to wait years for equipment from the state government to help them live better lives and now they are going to be charged an extra fee while they wait. The Sustainable Budget Commission identified the introduction of fees would create a public backlash and the government chose to proceed. This Labor government simply does not care about people with a disability.

I agree with the honourable shadow minister's assessment. I commend the Hon. Kelly Vincent for bringing this motion before the council, and I commend the motion to the house.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (20:49): I also rise to support the motion of the Hon. Kelly Vincent that this council calls on the Minister for Disability and the Treasurer to rescind the decision to abolish the Disability SA Client Trust Account. I commend the honourable member for this motion. Given that she has been elected to this place to specifically represent the disability sector, I would say that she is more than qualified to bring these issues to this place and that all of us must consider carefully the information that the honourable member puts before us for consideration. It is quite obvious that the sick, the vulnerable and the disabled are of little concern to this government and that decisions made purely based on economics will not ensure the re-election of this government in 2014. People have had enough.

I know that the minister and the Treasurer will both use the recommendations of the Sustainable Budget Commission as their backdoor excuse for implementing the changes to the Disability SA Client Trust Account. Of course, that goes to the third rule of politics: never have an inquiry unless you know what the outcome is going to be. It seems, though, that this government has forgotten the first two rules of politics—that is, to get elected and then to get re-elected.

I am disappointed that this government would see the office of the Public Trustee as a viable alternative to managing the money of those in the disability sector, given the reputation that this particular statutory authority has and the fees and charges that those on the most limited income will now have to pay—around $1,630 a year in charges for commission fees, income fees, etc. It seems that even those who live on the poverty line are not immune from this cash-grabbing government and that even those sick and vulnerable still have some life left in them as cash cows for this government. It means nothing that they are left with just $28 a week for clothing, personal interests, entertainment, outings and transport. Who can manage on that kind of money?

Apparently, this government believes it is possible and that the disability sector has not been punished enough yet. I cannot imagine how those with severe disabilities will be expected to deal with the office of the Public Trustee, given the dysfunction of that statutory authority that is well documented in the SARC report from 2009. The government response of, 'Well, that that was then and this is now,' simply will not wash because we all know that changing the dysfunctional culture of government agencies does not happen in two, three, four, or even 20 years. No, change of culture is a long and arduous process that takes many, many inquiries, and often a lot of bad media, for even the slightest change to occur.

So, we can expect that people within the disability sector will have to face that dysfunction, manage it and basically work their lives in a way to get what they deserve and what they need, on top of having to pay fees for that dysfunction. Quite frankly, if this state is in such financial disarray, and we are scraping for spare cash by targeting the disability sector, then I question the need for a new hospital or sports stadium until these issues are dealt with. This state is so out of balance, and it seems that every new challenge this government throws at the people of this state can be justified with the pathetic one-liner statements about the global financial crisis and not being ashamed of having to make those tough, tough decisions.

Well, I might remind members of the government that everyone suffered from the global financial crisis, with price hikes at almost every level of existence. They are not alone in their pain. This government was not the only victim, and it seems that the people of this state are now expected to live their lives in poverty and deprivation as this government scrounges for every spare cent that may be in the pockets of the people to build their monuments. The abolition of the Disability SA Client Trust Account will find a measly—and I say 'measly' in the general scheme of things—$740,000 a year over three years, but the other side of that coin is the impact it will have on those who will simply not cope with the reduction in their already meagre weekly income.

I recall living in New Zealand in hard times for that country, and I recall the prime minister at the time putting a freeze on pay rises for MPs and also cutting back on government expenditure. If, indeed, things are so desperate in SA, perhaps instead of hitting hard the sick and vulnerable and disabled, this government might consider showing some leadership of times gone by. I feel sick to my stomach when I think that this government is so desperate for cash that there is no stone that will be left unturned to find that money. As the Hon. Kelly Vincent said, we all understand that the government must run an effective budget, but my question is: is this really effective financial management? I personally think not.

As I said, I support this motion. I also remind members in this council that, just in the couple of months that have gone by, we have dealt with the closure of Ward 4G, which is going to see more sick and vulnerable people thrown on the scrap heap. We have seen financial advisers from Families SA—44 of them—who will lose their jobs because this government wants to hand that responsibility over to the non-government sector, and it will probably provide no extra funding to cope with that. That means that 7,000 vulnerable South Australians will also be deprived of essential services that could have a significant impact on their life—and now this.

This government needs to put its monuments on hold until we can hold our heads up proudly, knowing that our sick and vulnerable are well cared for. Two quotes come to mind: 'Societies are judged on how they treat their most vulnerable' and 'Societies get the government they deserve.' I suggest that no amount of reconnection or re-engagement is going to save this government's bacon in 2014.

Let us also not forget that people in the disability sector, or their families, will not just incur the cost of that $1,630 they will have to pay in admin fees to the Office of the Public Trustee but also have to deal with the increase in water and electricity costs and petrol and food prices—and this is before our federal Labor government dumps on us a carbon tax and a flood levy for the Queensland victims. How much can people of this state take?

So, I support this motion with genuine concern in my heart for all those with a disability who will be forced to live a life of further deprivation because we have a government that would have difficulty even balancing a household budget, let alone being able to meet the basic needs of the people of this state.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:58): The Greens also support the motion put before us by the Hon. Kelly Vincent. We believe that the Rann government should take urgent action, led by the Minister for Disability and also the Treasurer, to rescind the decision to abolish the Disability SA Client Trust Account.

People with funds in this account are looking at losing approximately $45 a week if their savings are to be transferred to a public trust, according to John Brayley, the Public Advocate. He also says that these are people who are living in Disability SA accommodation—small group homes in the community of, say, four or five people, such as at the Strathmont Centre or Highgate Park.

Most of the funds they pay to Disability SA go to the absolute essentials: accommodation, food and services. The remaining money is kept in this account by Disability SA as a service, so that it can be managed so that the person who needs it can be given additional spending money as they need it. It is a way of managing their money, which has been a valuable part of the services this state provides. However, if this money is transferred into a public trust, the account holders are looking at significant reductions in money that is available to them.

If 85 per cent of your income is going to pay for your services, then already any other imposition on that—any other account fees and so on—is a significant barrier. Let's face it, they will be throwing people into poverty. These people are living at or below the poverty line already; this pushes them further under. Then again, given that we have abolished financial counsellors at the Anti-Poverty Unit, clearly, we do not expect them to have any money to manage, perhaps.

The Auditor-General has apparently raised concerns about how this account was being managed, according to the Minister for Disability, and she has also had some letters of complaint from some people who are not happy with the way their moneys were being managed. So, what she and this government have decided to do is give nobody the choice to have their money managed by the Disability SA Client Trust Account and everyone has to be transferred out of it.

The minister has, of course, said that they could go to a private account if they did not like this solution. Why she did not suggest that to those few families and members of the public who had written to her with their complaints, I am not sure. Why she did not fix the system that currently exists and has existed for some time, I am really not sure. Surely, that would have been a much more cost-effective way of dealing with this issue.

It will deeply impact on the lives of the most vulnerable in our community, and all for the sake of, as has been mentioned, $740,000 or so. By instituting a log book system for the chauffer-driven ministerial cars, we could be looking at a similar saving. I am not sure why that suggestion of the Sustainable Budget Commission was not taken up and this one has been. I suggest the government goes back and looks at it and starts to do the right thing by the people of South Australia. With those words, I commend this motion to the house.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (21:01): This is a motion introduced by the Hon. Kelly Vincent that calls on the Minister for Disability and the Treasurer to rescind the decision to abolish the Disability SA Client Trust Account. Family First strongly supports this motion and congratulates the member for highlighting such an important family issue.

I indicate that my office has fielded literally dozens of phone calls from constituents who are concerned about this move. Indeed, I was considering moving a very similar motion to the one the honourable member has moved but she is quick off the mark, and credit to her for that. In short, I think many of us in this chamber are happy that she has raised this issue.

I will paraphrase the facts one more time, although other members have done a good job of that so I will keep it brief, but, if they have received as many letters and phone calls as I have—and there are literally dozens of them—I am sure they are also well and truly aware of the problems that this move will cause.

The Sustainable Budget Commission estimated that the transfer of funds to the Public Trustee would see so-called cost savings of about $740,000 a year, as the Hon. Ms Franks indicated, so we are not talking about a lot of money in the scheme of things, given the misery it will cause for some. Family First will generally support measures that reduce waste and red tape. Indeed, I believe we can say that quite legitimately and our record will back that up, but I do not see this as a cost-saving or waste-cutting measure. Indeed, it is a way to raise revenue, but it is only a drop in the bucket in the general scheme of things and it will hurt the most vulnerable in our community.

As the honourable member has outlined, this will really slug most constituents with a disability. The commission fees are 4.4 per cent and income commission is at 5.5 per cent. On top of that, accounts transferred to the Public Trustee will be slugged annual fees of $134 and may be subject to further taxes of $45. These numbers may sound small to members of parliament on good salaries but they are considerable sums to people on disability pensions and the like.

I reiterate that these extra fees and charges will be levied on the most vulnerable in the community, and that is why this should not proceed. It is not a cost-saving measure, really, given that it is a small cost in the overall scheme of a $15 billion budget. It is not a waste-cutting measure, because I do not think anyone is arguing that there is waste involved here, but it is a very substantial tax hike and hike in charges for very vulnerable people who have absolutely minuscule incomes.

Coupled with the rises we are seeing in utility costs—electricity and water—at the moment, I genuinely fear for people in these circumstances. They are on a very fixed income, as we know, and I think we will see people taking almost absurd and unfortunate measures in order to preserve their daily existence. I think that is a tragedy. It really is a tragedy. We do not need to go down that path, and this decision in particular does not need to occur. In the scheme of the budget $740,000 is not a lot of money at all—it is a drop in the bucket, literally—but it will make a big difference to the people who will feel this at the end. With those brief words, I indicate strong support for the motion by Family First.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (21:04): I rise to give the government's response. As part of the 2010-11 budget process, the government announced its intention to transfer responsibility for the management of client trust funds for people with a disability to the Public Trustee. Shortly after this budget announcement in September 2010, the Department for Families and Communities and the Public Trustee established a steering committee and working parties to work through all of the issues around the transfer. As a result of the work that has been undertaken, there has been a growing awareness that each client is confronted with unique—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I didn't interrupt while you were speaking, so just shut up and let me finish mine, okay, you rude person. Just let me finish my speech.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: As a result of the work that has been undertaken, there has been a growing awareness that each client is confronted with unique circumstances and, whilst the government feels that it is inappropriate for DFC to manage client trust funds, it has not been the intention to force the transfer of these services to the Public Trustee against a client's or their family's wishes.

While the transfer to the Public Trustee is an option, other choices may be available. Some people, for example, may choose to take over the management of their own finances. In other cases, family members or guardians may opt to take control of the funding. It is also possible that a client or their family may choose to employ a person or organisation other than the Public Trustee to manage the client's finances. Depending upon the particular circumstances of the client, any of these options may be available.

Given the options that may be available and the need to establish clear pathways to achieve those options, the government has decided to defer bringing in this change by 12 months to 1 July 2012, and we have advised those affected by mail on 17 May. We hope this will give individuals and their families enough time to consider what suits them best from the options available to them.

A letter has just been sent out to all those affected and their families advising of these options. It also points out that the department will contact them individually to discuss their options. The government's clear preference is for the Guardianship Board to make the final decision about who takes over responsibility for managing the funds of clients who do not have the capacity to do so themselves. The Guardianship Board has expertise in these matters and, for each client, all interested parties will be invited to a meeting to put their views about possible future arrangements. Based on an assessment of the information provided at the meeting, the Guardianship Board may then grant an administration order setting out how a client's trust funds will be managed into the future.

The government understands that each client has particular issues and circumstances relevant to them only. Over the coming months, DFC will review the information it currently has for each affected person. Following this review, it is proposed that individual contact will be made with each client and/or their relatives to explore options available to them. Until this is completed, DFC will continue to provide trust fund management services to existing disability clients, as it has done in the past.

It is true that the decision to transfer the clients funds management function to the Public Trustee results in a saving to DFC. It should be pointed out that whilst this does intend to deliver annual savings of around $728,000 a year, in the same budget the government announced a $70.9 million increase over four years to disability services. The government remains of the view that as well as avoiding service duplication, client fund management is a function more appropriately managed by either clients themselves, their relatives, or by a separate entity with expertise in the management of funds and investments.

The government understands that concerns have been raised with the changes that have been proposed. To allow clients to fully explore all feasible options, the government has deferred the bringing in of this change for a further 12 months. Over this period, DFC and the Public Trustee will work through all of the issues in consultation with Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, clients and their families. The government opposes the motion.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Franks—The Hon. Ms Vincent to wrap up.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (21:09): Second time today. I'm the one in the wheelchair; it's pretty easy to remember. We will get there eventually, Tammy, it's okay. As long as we know, I think we are okay. Thank you, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: You're welcome.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I have already spoken at length about why I consider this decision to be both heartless and gutless, so in summing up I will be brief. I will, of course, begin by thanking my fellow members for their contributions, in particular the Hon. Mr Stephen Wade, the Hon. Ann Bressington, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Dennis Hood and the Hon. Russell Wortley. I would like to just reiterate one phrase that the Hon. Ms Bressington used in her contribution, and that was the phrase 'and now this'.

In truth, I do not think any phrase could quite sum up the fate of the disability community as it currently stands, if you like, as well as that 'and now this'. First we have to spend our lives fighting for basic essential services, then we have to spend years waiting for something as basic as orthopaedic shoes, for heaven's sake, then we lose, just for example, the availability of incontinence products at the Hampstead Centre so that people have to reuse or car-pool, if you like, their incontinence products—and now this.

It is obviously terrible that the government has decided to abolish the Disability SA Client Trust Fund, which has effectively managed funds for people with disabilities in this state for many years. It has made this decision without consultation, despite clients and families being extremely happy with the service already provided by the trust fund. I believe that it is a shame and indeed a disgrace that this government has chosen to take from some of its most at-risk citizens in order to achieve a mere $2 million saving over three years.

However, I would like to share some good news, which I will note the Hon. Russell Wortley has already touched on. Late this afternoon, my office received a call from a parent of an adult child with disabilities, who just today received a letter from the Department of Families and Communities explaining that the government has now, at the final hour, decided to defer the implementation of its decision to transfer responsibility for management of disability client trust funds to the Public Trustee until July of next year.

It seems that the government now realises that this was a rash decision, made on the run without due consideration of the true ramifications. This is good news, but not great news. It is good news because it will give clients and their loved ones more time to work out what has to be done to explore the various options available to them and to put the necessary arrangements in place. However, this will, of course, not undo the frustration, worry and panic that many of these people have already experienced due to the government making this policy on the run, nor will it, unfortunately, stop the move eventually going ahead come July 2012.

Basically, people are going to lose a service that currently costs nothing, a service that seems to be working perfectly well, as the Hon. Mr Wade pointed out. I have certainly not received any phone calls indicating that families or loved ones have any problem with the service and, as I indicated in my earlier contribution, parents and loved ones are indeed perplexed as to why this government has chosen to attempt to fix something that clearly 'ain't broken'.

I am told that the Department of Families and Communities is in fact doing a great job in managing these funds, while many have expressed concern as to the Public Trustee's ability to provide the same service. In fact, if I may quote the Hon. Mr Darley—and I note that he has not given me permission to do so—in his words, it is a bit like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.

The decision to defer will not change the fact that people who transfer to the Public Trustee come July 2012 may well face increased costs. Members will recall the example that I gave in my earlier contribution in moving this motion where a pensioner with a mere $8,000 in the bank will be required to pay $1,630 per year for a service that currently costs nothing. Although earlier this year the minister indicated that she was in discussion with the Public Trustee as to fees and charges, it seems that nothing eventuated out of these talks, or at least nothing that parents and loved ones have been told about any reduced fees that may be on offer.

That, of course, brings us again to the issue of consultation, or indeed the lack thereof. It is incredible that the government made this decision to abolish the Disability SA trust account without consulting those who will be affected. In fact, I again point out that it was not until today, with 43 days to go until the decision would have come into effect, that the government sent out a letter to those who will be affected which provides somewhat of an explanation. To put it plainly, I find it very sad that I have to remind this government that consultation should be a fundamental part of policy change and not an afterthought.

What of the minister's steering committee, which was established as a result of concerns and not before those concerns came into place, to identify and resolve issues related to the transfer? One can only imagine that this committee has found all number of issues involved with the government's decision, for the government has made a monumental backflip by deferring the implementation until 2012. Obviously, I personally always thought the decision to establish this committee was a bit like putting the cart before the horse. Let us hope this government has learned its lesson and will in future consult and address issues before making rash announcements.

The decision to abolish the Disability SA Trust Fund was a decision made on the run—as I have already said several times, but clearly it bears repeating—without consultation or consideration of the true effects it would have on people with disabilities and their families. I believe this decision is both gutless and heartless, at the risk of sounding like a broken record. I thank you all for your support and ask you to continue calling on the minister to rescind this decision. Thank you very much.

Motion carried.