HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DISABILITY SERVICES

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:22): I move:

That this council notes the failure of the government's reorganisation of disability services and policy to improve services for South Australians with a disability.

I move this motion because I want to give voice to people with a disability and those who support them. As I have moved around the state, I have been encountering increasing frustration with the delivery of disability services. People with a disability are not aware of the intricacies of the policy and the bureaucratic changes introduced by this government, but they know when they are going backwards.

Feedback from South Australians with a disability and those who support them has convinced me that government reforms have failed to improve the support available for people with disabilities. Today I will try to calmly state the facts. At the risk of understating, I am determined that what I have to say will not be dismissed as rhetoric.

First, I refer to the case of Edward Carson. Mr Carson is the gentleman who spent 428 days in the Royal Adelaide Hospital. The fact that he was stuck in hospital for such a long time is stark testament to the failure of the state government to deliver effective services to people with a disability. I would like to highlight three aspects of Mr Carson's case.

First, the case highlights the government's failure to provide supported accommodation for people with a disability. I am constantly being contacted by people with a disability in need of accommodation. As Lynn Arnold of Anglicare said:

The inadequate supply of supported accommodation facilities generally forces people to stay in inappropriate and more expensive institutional care options like hospitals, which have poor social and economic outcomes for the people involved, and the community more broadly.

The government needs to realise that it is not paying for appropriate housing, and the lack of appropriate housing is costing a lot more than it would to provide appropriate housing. In Mr Carson's case, given that the average cost of a Royal Adelaide Hospital bed is $1,350 a day, Mr Carson's stay in hospital is likely to have cost more than half a million dollars over that period. On the other hand, disability accommodation for Mr Carson is likely to have cost up to $200 a day. If the government had disability accommodation places available, Mr Carson could have been accommodated for eight years for the amount of money that was spent inappropriately housing him at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Not only were South Australians needing a hospital bed deprived of a bed but, also, Mr Carson was not receiving the most appropriate services that he needed.

Secondly, the case highlights that government departments are not talking to one another. The disability minister claims that Disability SA has been aware of Mr Carson's case only since July. Whilst she may think it is good enough that Disability SA can find an accommodation place within two months, I do not. There is a clear breakdown in communication when Disability SA was not aware of a case until a year after Mr Carson was admitted. The health department and Disability SA need to work together so that, even before acute care is completed, planning for support on discharge is under way.

Thirdly, Mr Carson's situation shows the lack of respect within this government for people with a disability. Not only should Mr Carson be getting the support he needs but, also, he should be involved in the planning of that support. Yet, last week, Mr Carson told the Sunday Mail that the hospital had told him nothing about his future, in spite of the fact that the government was able to tell the Sunday Mail that modifications were under way on a building to accommodate him. So much for consulting people with disabilities about the options available to them! As Mr Carson put it, 'I try to be happy, but they don't tell me what's happening with me.' Mr Carson was discharged from the Royal Adelaide Hospital last Tuesday, after 428 days in hospital. It is a disgrace.

Unfortunately, Mr Carson is not an isolated case. He is merely one of thousands of South Australians with a disability in need of support and/or accommodation—thousands of South Australians who are not getting appropriate support from this government.

The challenge of supporting South Australians with a disability pre-dates this government, but this government has to take responsibility for what has occurred on its watch. This motion focuses on the failure of the government's disability reforms.

On the first day of sitting of this term of this parliament after the 2006 election, the state government initiated a major reform of the disability sector. In a ministerial statement the Hon. J.W. Weatherill (then minister for families and communities) described the reforms as a 'generational change in the way services are administered, governed and delivered'. He said that the 'government cannot continue to invest in a fragmented system'. He referred to overlaps, gaps and confusion.

He said that the reforms would lead to cuts in overheads and bureaucracy, and the department will have more money for better services. People with disability, and their carers, will spend less time fighting their way through the system and more time enjoying their lives. Unfortunately, that has not been the experience of people with a disability. The government stated unequivocally that the reforms were designed to improve services. The reforms and the government deserve to be judged on that basis. My assessment is that they have not succeeded.

The package of reforms since 2006 has four elements that I would like to highlight today:

the establishment of Disability SA;

moving from options coordination to service coordination;

the transfer of information and advocacy to the government sector; and,

the merger of the Independent Living Equipment Program with Dom Care.

First, I will consider the impact of the abolition of IDSC, Julia Farr and the Independent Living Centre to establish Disability SA. The council is well aware of the Liberal opposition's concern about the way the government managed the asset transfers. This Labor government executed a multimillion dollar asset grab against the non-government sector in the way it handled those asset transfers. The creation of Disability SA was not collaborative: it was pursued in an extremely aggressive and inappropriate manner. Now, 2½ years after the reforms were announced, there continues to be so much change in Disability SA, so much turnover in Disability SA staff and so much ongoing concern amongst the staff that the functioning of the agency is severely inhibited. Only recently, Disability SA encountered another wave of change. They have a new minister, a new CEO, a new deputy chief executive for disability, and a new head of the Office for Disability and Client Services.

So, let us look at the three waves of leadership that Disability SA staff have needed to endure. First, we had Mr Caudrey, Mr Bruggemann, Mr Williams and Ms Caust in leadership positions—highly respected disability leaders, with what I suspect is more than a century of experience providing services in the disability sector. Then, under this government, we saw Ms Sue Vardon and Mr Smith appointed. Both of them were experienced human service delivery specialists, but they had limited exposure to disability. But earlier this year, only a month or so ago, we had Ms Joslene Mazel, Ms Gale, Ms Young and Ms Carman now heading the leadership of the agency. So, now we find that disability services in South Australia are being led by, basically, a central agency team with no experience in disability. Mr David Holst, in a recent article, states:

Disability SA sits today on the edge of a dangerous management abyss, with the restructuring leaving no-one in the senior ranks with a high level of experience. It's like having a hospital system run by plumbers.

The new minister, minister Rankine, was appointed on 23 July, two months ago—yet, two months later, she is yet to issue a press release about disability services. I am not aware of any speeches she has made in relation to disability services and, in fact, I am not even aware of anyone having been able to meet with her in relation to disability services.

In terms of staffing, I am told that Disability SA staff are haemorrhaging.

There is a huge loss of disability awareness and values, and now there are few people in the department able to train those who remain. I am advised that there is a retention plan in place, but it is focusing on management and not on operational staff. One DSA officer told me that in operational terms DSA is basically an agent for the Department of Treasury and Finance. If Disability SA wants a new program, Treasury and Finance will do the cost benefit analysis and tell DSA whether or not it saves money and, if it does not save money, it does not get funding.

The department has failed to establish a consistent service model and philosophy across government and non-government elements of disability administration, across Disability SA and the Office of Disability and Client Services. There is no development of a common vision, and some of what has been coming out is quite contrary to longstanding values in disability. Commenting on the government's supported accommodation strategy, Mr Richard Bruggeman wrote:

This document, far from supporting people with disabilities to be included within the fabric of the South Australian society, develops guidelines whereby those few people whose circumstances are critical enough will be provided an accommodation service. In effect, it envisages people with disabilities continuing to live with ageing parents until circumstances deteriorate to such a stage that something has to be done. Far from focusing on the citizenship of people with disabilities, the strategy seemingly casts them in the role of 'problem to be solved'.

This report is endorsed by the minister. Mr Bruggeman continues:

Parents were placing a lot of hope in this process. They are now generally saddened and disillusioned by what has been produced. They will not write and complain for fear of losing what they have. They are tired of being flim-flammed and they now just get on with the task which they have no legal obligation to perform: caring for their son or daughter, driven by a complex set of emotions and fulfilling what they see as a moral responsibility.

They feel they have been treated with disdain and that the government works on the principle that whatever huffing and puffing families make, whatever threats they might make about dumping their sons or daughters in the minister's office, when the chips are down parents will continue to care for their loved ones. Against that backdrop the strategy can only be described as shameful. Far from being a plan, the strategy deals with some administrative issues, which will have little effect on the growing waiting list of people seeking accommodation. What is the real view of the South Australian government? Are people with disabilities citizens or are they merely costly problems to be solved?

Under this government and this disability regime longstanding values for disability are being undermined.

Under Disability Services SA there is an increasing lack of focus on distinctive disability groups. For example, in relation to groups of clients there is a significant concern that the Disability SA reforms have meant that the sector is losing sensitivity to the distinctive needs of particular groups.

This concern is strongest amongst people with an intellectual disability and those who support them. In IDSC they knew they had a friend and an advocate. As one advocate put to me, intellectual disabilities are demonstrably different for the following reasons: first, their issues are complex and diagnosis is often confused, and they now have no specialist service with specially trained staff and the ability to readily access the necessary advice gathered in one discipline recognised by professionals, parents, carers and the community alike; secondly, most are unable to comprehend or debate the issues important to their welfare and future; thirdly, many are non-verbal; and, fourthly, very few are able to vote.

In terms of a lack of focus on disability sectors, there is also a lack of focus within the staff. Within the staff there are reports that there has been an exodus of experienced and skilled professionals from within Disability SA. I am advised that the lack of therapists is leading to assessments being outsourced at up to five times the cost. On the other hand, in terms of recruitment, I am receiving advice that Disability SA is not valuing the role that people with specialist expertise can add. I understand that the Flinders University in South Australia is having difficulty having the government recognise the distinctive expertise of developmental educators. Disability SA is failing to maintain a balance between the contribution of specialist expertise and general staff who can provide support on more generic issues of disability support.

I turn now to the issue of the coordination of services. Supporting material released by the government at the time of the reform said:

At the centre of the changes new connected service centres will be created so people needing more than one DFC service can get all the help they need in one place.

A new one-stop shop for people needing more than one disability service was to be established. Some other material referred to Mount Gambier as follows:

At Mount Gambier we are establishing a Department of Families and Communities service centre containing all of these agencies, which will become the model for how we provide services for our customers all over the state.

It continues:

The strategic intention of DFC is to develop a connected service centre incorporating business areas, Families SA, Housing SA and Disability SA as single points of service throughout the state.

In early August this year the ABC reported that the new centre in Mount Gambier is expected to open in July 2009. That is, three years after the announcement of the reforms, the government will open the pilot of what it says is a centrepiece of its reforms. In May 2006, Mr Peter Smith, the then deputy chief executive of the Department for Families and Communities, told the Community Housing Council of South Australia that the Mount Gambier centre was merely the first of many.

In fact, he said that there were over 400 services throughout the state at that time and perhaps there will be 40 in four to six years. After three years the government will be trying to get up one centre, and that leaves another 39 in the next three years. As one person with a disability put to me, we were told that Disability SA would be Utopia—a one-stop shop for disability services. In reality there is less connection than there ever was.

The establishment of Disability SA has also raised concerns that the bureaucracy is growing out of control, particularly at executive levels. Independent research suggests that the department has more than twice the number of executives per capita than in Western Australia and Victoria. On the basis of the 2006 census, which would be the most recent we can refer to and based on our population and the number of executives in the Department of Health and the DFC on $130,000 or more, that equates to one executive officer for every 17,000 people. Victoria, based on the same census, would have one executive officer for every 46,000 people, so there are almost three times as many executives per capita here as in Victoria. Western Australia, based on the same census, has a total of 46 executive officers on $130,000 or more, equating to one executive officer for every 41,682 people. In my view, the abolition of the IDSC, Julia Farr and the Independent Living Centre to establish Disability SA is yet to produce a demonstrable benefit for people with a disability.

I turn now to the second of the four elements of the package of reforms introduced by this government: the discontinuation of options coordination and the introduction of service coordination. One person put it to me that this so-called reform was just a rebadging and that at least the government should be given credit for being honest. It was dishonest to call case management options coordination when there were no options being offered—no options to coordinate.

It has also been put to me that Disability SA is severely over engineered. You do not need 200 full-time case managers to ration services that do not exist. You do not need 200 people to say no. The feedback that I am getting is that the only changes to case management that clients have been discerning are negative ones. First, they have observed the introduction of what has been called team coordination. People who previously had a dedicated case manager are now being dealt with by a team. One of the objectives of options coordination was to give a person a dedicated officer so that they would not need to give their story time and time again. With team coordination that outcome is being undermined.

Also, clients are complaining to me about what they call managerialism, where they feel that it is the business needs of the agency that are being given the priority in the case management and not their needs. One woman with a disability conveyed this observation to me in the following terms:

...the reforms have created confusion throughout the sector which has caused people not to know how to solve problems on a day-to-day basis...I'm unsure as to whether they have all given up asking as usually they are so often told 'no' to funding to meet their unmet needs or they have slipped through the cracks.

Another person paraphrased the conclusion of Doctor Zhivago that people with a disability have 'vanished without a trace...forgotten as a nameless number on a list that afterwards got mislaid'. As one writer to The Advertiser put it recently:

The access to services provided to us by Disability SA has not improved from what it was before restructuring. I refer to customer service, training and equipment services. We have been waiting for occupational therapy services for five years. An urgent referral to repair or remake a now unusable hand splint, lodged in February, has yet to be implemented. This has disadvantaged the recipient in that this hand is used as her only means of communication and the hand is deteriorating in function.

Upgrading of workplace skills (and our home is the workplace) has been slow and at times non-existent. We have gaps in service provision and shifts are often not filled with trained care workers or even not filled at all. Good communication is paramount to a good service. Often there is no communication in a timely manner about changes to service provision, often leaving the family with full responsibility of care unexpectedly.

One constituent told me that he thought the whole bureaucracy of Disability SA should be dismantled. He was told by his case manager that she had no say and that she was at the bottom rung of a ladder where people above her did not know him, his situation or his disability.

I know that if the government deigns to speak on this motion it will say that service coordination has not been fully developed. I understand that consultations have been occurring this year, but that is an indictment in itself. Why was the service coordination concept not consulted on and developed before the reforms were announced? We will have to wait at least three years to get service connected centres up and running. We have already waited more than two years for the government to try to work out what it means when it talks about service coordination.

The focus of today's motion is on the state government's disability reforms, rather than the level of funding to support the delivery of disability services; however, of course, these two aspects are interlinked. Options do not come cheap. The former minister, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, acknowledged that insufficient funds are being invested in disability care. In The Advertiser of 22 February 2008, he admitted that South Australian funding for disability services is 'inadequate'. Perhaps his honesty led him to fall foul of both the Premier and the Treasurer. He is also quoted in that article as saying:

There is no area of disability services where there isn't unmet need. This includes early intervention, equipment, respite and supported accommodation.

He went on to say:

We're barely keeping up with demand. We're not eating into the backlog of unmet need.

As we come to the implementation of the new CSTDA agreement, the government needs to be mindful that it is one thing to put enough money into disability services, but it will stand doubly condemned if it allows commonwealth funding to go unmatched. I am very disturbed that I have been receiving reports that people with disabilities are having their services delayed because the state is failing to match commonwealth contributions. This is totally unacceptable.

On 30 May, ministers for disability throughout the nation—and at that stage they were all Labor ministers—agreed to a $2 billion roll-out of support and accommodation. We were assured that these places would commence immediately. South Australians with a disability are keen to know what South Australia's share of that money is and how it is to be delivered against needs. Which disability groups and sectors will be receiving services?

The government claims that it has matched new recurrent commonwealth funding, but that has been done only by counting the funding that it announced in previous years' budgets. This is tricky accounting by the government, and it means that people with a disability are missing out on services that they desperately need. Also, the CSTDA agreement includes a commitment to full disclosure of waiting list data, but we have been waiting for 2½ years now for Labor to deliver on that commitment here in South Australia without success.

In March 2006, the then ALP state president, Mr Nick Champion, made a number of commitments to the Dignity for the Disabled group. A key commitment at that time was the ALP promise to provide annual updates of the numbers on disability waiting lists, similar to the data that is made available for hospital beds and aged care. That commitment was made 30 months ago, and we are still waiting.

I understand that the government did a full audit of the accommodation lists and does have data as at June 2007. People on the list were classified by a scheme which was based on a category 1 to 5 classification. I understand that there are over 200 people on category 1, and that category is for people who desperately need a bed today. The total list is somewhere between 500 and 1,000 for supported accommodation alone. In my view, neither case management nor the funding of service options has improved under this government's disability reform package.

I turn now to the third element of the reform package: the withdrawal of information and advocacy services from community organisations and the transfer of these services to government. In the 2007-2008 budget, the government withdrew funding for a number of agencies providing disability advocacy and information services. State government funding was to be cut, and the information services that were to be provided through the department, we were told, would enable money to be put into front-line services. This decision was made without consultation and was delivered by letter on the very day of the budget.

One of the organisations affected, for example, was the Arthritis Foundation of South Australia, which provided a program to combat juvenile arthritis, a condition which may cause a child permanent disability and deformity in the absence of appropriate information and treatment. The information provided by the foundation was developed by its long-term work in the field and was informed by good practice and networking with similar organisations around the world.

It is a well established pattern in the disability sector that information informs practice and vice versa. But, now that the government has taken unto itself the role of advocacy and information, how will it ensure that the government department, which has little or nothing to do with juvenile arthritis, will be able to maintain that dynamic of information informing practice and vice versa? Public servants are valued professionals, but they are by nature generalists. They do not have the expertise to develop and maintain this information. They are not known and respected within specialised fields with networks of researchers and providers.

A senior disability leader also indicated his concern about the defunding of information and advocacy on the basis that it is leading to an unhealthy shift in the relationship between the government and the non-government sectors. He said:

One of the key principles of disability services is the valuing of diversity, but unfortunately this decision is only a part of a trend towards uniformity and centralisation that will eventually compromise disability service delivery in South Australia. A vibrant non-government sector is one of the checks and balances needed to provide the dynamic tension that nurtures growth and development.

Placing information services within a...department rather than valuing diversity and the capacity of non-government organisations to provide this important front-line service is a retrograde step.

A number of people have approached me in the weeks since I gave notice of this motion raising the case of Our Voice. Our Voice is a group of South Australians with an intellectual disability who are supported to provide self-advocacy. It is now serviced by Disability SA, and there is concern that being serviced by a government agency undermines the independence and capacity of already vulnerable people to effectively be supported to provide their own self-advocacy.

Also, with the defunding of the Disability Information and Resource Centre, Disability SA was undertaking to provide an information website. But now, 18 months after the decision to defund, Disability SA's website continues to be a pale imitation of the DIRC resources. In fact, the department is still not sure whether the information is disability accessible. The website advises users that the website is currently being reviewed against the World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines to identify and resolve related accessibility issues when necessary.

If we cannot rely on the government agency which delivers disability services to actually ensure that its website is disability accessible, what hope do we have of ensuring accessibility throughout the community? But, in the end, a website is not enough. A website does not provide the interface with a person, which is so important for many families as they seek to navigate Disability Services.

I understand that the government is looking at developing a book entitled the Look Book. My understanding is that it currently focuses on post-school options, but the government proposes to expand it to look at a whole range of disability services. That is an exact service already being delivered by the Disability Information and Resource Centre. If the government is truly sincere about respecting the non-government sector, truly sincere about reducing overlap and duplication, it should have a good hard look at why the Disability Information and Resource Centre book cannot be supported rather than undermined.

In spite of the fact that the minister justified the withdrawal of funding to these community organisations on the basis of wanting to put services into the front line, the government has nonetheless recruited information professionals in the period since. The South Australian community deserves to know how much funding has actually gone into direct services. Having said that, information needs to be appreciated as a front-line service. It is one of the key motivators for people to approach disability organisations, and good information enables individuals and families to maintain control of their situation. The withdrawal of advocacy and information funding has, in my view, disadvantaged people with a disability.

I turn now to the fourth of the four elements of the reform package: transferring the independent living equipment program to domiciliary care. From July 2008, the government abolished the independent living equipment program, and domiciliary care will manage the procurement, repairs, maintenance and replacement of Disability SA-owned equipment under a new statewide equipment service. This element of the reform package is having the most direct and tangible impact on people with disabilities. It was the area which stimulated most representations to me in the context of this resolution. In spite of the government's assurances that clients would have the choice of service provider, people with a disability have been forced to demand that they receive the service provider of their choice; some have succeeded, some have not.

In estimates, the minister said that the government provider of equipment would be just one possible means by which equipment could be supplied and that 'if it is, presumably, not a competitive supplier or providing quality service, people will not choose it'. In reality, people are not being given a choice and the government service is of poor quality. My understanding is that clients who are used to a response to an emergency call-out within two to three hours now need to wait two or three days. For the benefit of the council, I will summarise some of the representations I have received in relation to poor equipment service:

One gentleman said that he had been waiting since December for a hoist.

A mother has been trying to get DomCare to fill a nappy order since April.

A man was told that he could not have a mobile version of a piece of equipment (so much for supporting community inclusion).

A man had to wait two weeks to get a simple wheel puncture repaired.

A man was promised a new wheelchair. He was measured, and all his needs were noted, even the colour. Three months later, when he followed up the query, he was told that it had merely been placed on order. At the four-month mark, he made contact with the department and was told that they had found another chair in a shed and would measure him to see whether it would fit him.

All these people have had the same experience—that is, the service under the new equipment scheme is getting worse. I am advised that the equipment program persistently tells clients that the paperwork relating to their case has been lost, to the point where it has been suggested to me that the lost paperwork is a new rationing tool: lost paperwork keeps down the waiting list.

A number of people expressed doubt that DomCare had the organisational culture to be a disability service provider. It has evolved and served the South Australian community well in relation to ageing South Australians. It is not focused on building independence. It focuses on keeping older people in their home, not helping younger people get out of their home and into the community. For example, a focus on the home environment can limit a focus on the work environment. By way of an aside, I suspect those may well have been the values at play when the gentleman was told that he could not have a mobile version of the piece of equipment he wanted. A man with a disability wrote to me about a traumatic experience, as follows:

Since the service was taken over by DomCare, I have been feeling vulnerable with the thought of requiring repairs. I do not believe that the people entrusted to repair wheelchairs have much knowledge of the special equipment they are handling and the importance of the repair to the user's needs.

He explained in detail how he had been waiting two weeks for a flat tyre to be repaired. He continued:

When I next need to make a call, should something go wrong, the lack of communication between the workers, the office and the client is something that really needs to be looked at…The previous system where specialist wheelchair mechanics could be employed to carry out work was much better. We do not have old hospital-type 'one size fits all' chairs, and it is very important they're repaired with some empathy by people who know the physics of the machine and how they operate.

I am very upset because, as a quadriplegic, with this flat tyre I am unable to effectively carry out my normal daily living. I can't exercise, I can't go to the shop, I cannot push effectively, and I am ruining my wheel rim, which costs Disability SA more than $800 a pair to replace. Having allowed the private contractor to repair my tube in the first place would have saved so much time, money and anguish.

People with a disability are being deprived of the opportunity to choose their service provider and, as a result, many experience a significantly lessened service. I ask members to reflect on this: for many of us, it may not matter who services our car or provides a repair to our property. However, for South Australians who need disability equipment, such as wheelchairs, callipers or walking frames, these are often quite intimate and integral pieces of equipment to their daily life. They need to be able to trust the person they deal with, as often home visits are involved.

I think that it is unreasonable to take away the right of South Australians with a disability to choose their own service provider, particularly when that change is implemented without any consultation. I believe that the government needs to think again about these changes.

As with the provision of accommodation and support, I urge the government to look at realistic and sustainable funding for disability equipment. This government has got into a pattern of recurring announcements in relation to disability equipment that are often branded with some claim that we will have the waiting lists cleared, only to find that, a year later, we need to clear them again. This year's announcement was the third time since 2004 that the government had allocated money to clear the waiting lists.

Clearly, this funding needs to be built into the budget. After all, equipment is not a luxury: it is a necessity, and funding needs to be regular and sustained. The abolition of a dedicated disability equipment service has been to the detriment of the quality of life of South Australians with a disability. In each of the four elements of the reform package, the government is not improving the outcomes for people with a disability.

To sum up, one respected disability leader told me that we had gone back 40 years over the last 10 years. I urge the new minister to pause, take stock and take whatever action is necessary to get the funds needed and make whatever changes are necessary in the service delivery mechanisms to ensure that outcomes for people with a disability are improved.

In terms of the future, I was overwhelmed by a raft of very positive and constructive suggestions made to me by people with a disability and those who provide them with support. I assure them that the opposition will consider these proposals as part of our policy development process. A lot of the input suggested ideas to give people with disability more control over the resources available to meet their needs, whether that be in the area of support, accommodation or equipment.

These mechanisms are often referred to as individualised funding, otherwise known as self-managed care or person-centred planning. It has been a great concern to a number of people in the sector that it is months since we have heard this government even mention the phrase. I am sure that an early statement from the minister of the government's intention in relation to individualised funding would be welcome.

In conclusion, I would like to thank everyone who took the time to provide input to this speech today. I know that my contribution will not satisfy everyone who provided me with advice. I have not mentioned everything that they would have hoped for and may not have expressed it the way that they would have, but that highlights how important it is to let people with a disability speak with their own voice.

Those people should feel free to get in touch with me, and I undertake to consider including further comments in my summing up on the motion. I hope that I have done them justice at least to the extent that I have highlighted what I see as an overwhelming conclusion from the disability sector that the reforms of this government in relation to disability services have failed to improve the outcomes for people with a disability in this state.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT