SUPPORTED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (14:47): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Social Housing questions about supported residential facilities.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Recently, my office was contacted by a constituent, who identifies as having a cognitive disability, with a seemingly simple request: could we help him identify to what authority he could complain about a residential facility that he had recently stayed in. However, upon doing some research it was soon discovered that the residence—in which he managed to stay for only a few days before leaving because of the very low level of cleanliness, the food on offer and, disturbingly, the cannabis being consumed by other tenants—is not registered in accordance with the Supported Residential Facilities Act 1992 as it purports to being a boarding house, which is specifically exempted by that act.

This is despite the facility targeting and exclusively catering to tenants with a mental illness or disability, with fees paid directly from their commonwealth pensions. So, despite the vulnerable clientele and the services offered, or lack thereof, including assistance with shopping and, on occasion, meals cooked by the operator, because the operator purports not to meet the criteria of a supported residential facility the standards and compliance requirements of the act seemingly do not apply. My office has spoken with the Public Advocate, who also has some serious concerns about this facility and its lack of regulation.

In researching this further, I learnt that this issue had been pursued with some importance by the department and then minister in 2006. However, this was seemingly abandoned without explanation to those concerned stakeholders consulted. My questions to the minister are (and I will be happy to provide the name of the facility and the owner-operator to the minister):

1. To whom can this constituent complain about the standards of the residential facility in which he stayed?

2. If there is no complaint mechanism, does the minister consider the protections and standards for the care of vulnerable tenants in the Supported Residential Facilities Act 1992 are being usurped by such operators who chose to exempt themselves from the act?

3. Was there a particular incident or some other event that motivated the policy activity in 2006?

4. Why was the attempt to reform the Supported Residential Facilities Act 1992 abandoned without a bill ever being introduced in this parliament?

5. Will the minister agree to revisit this issue?

6. What investigation can be conducted into this facility, given that it is not registered under the Supported Residential Facilities Act 1992?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (14:50): I thank the honourable member for her most important question. The responsibility for supported residential facilities (SRF), to my understanding at least, lies with local councils. The client in question (or your constituent) could complain to the manager of the SRF about the facility, but I understand that sometimes that puts them in a difficult position. They feel vulnerable, they might not feel that they would have their issues addressed or that there may be some form of reprisal, in which case the local council is the appropriate mechanism to complain to. However, as the honourable member also noted, the Public Advocate is another avenue that your constituent may like to approach in this regard.

This is an issue that the government has been talking to the sector about for some time. The Supported Residential Facilities Advisory Committee, which works with me and my office, continues to address sector reform, focusing on training of authorised officers, investigating the benefits of a single licensing agency and improved case management of residents with mental health issues in particular.

The past reforms that established the single entry point and mental health services training for proprietors of SRFs continue to assist with this work, but it is ongoing. I am working with the sector very closely to encourage them to lift their standards, but it is a disparate sector. Not all SRF providers are members of the residential advisory committee, and that would be something that I would think would be desirable. Not all of them work together as part of a united sector. I invite the honourable member, if she wishes, to contact my office about her constituent, and we will take that matter up for her.