HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DISABILITY SERVICES

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.G. Wade:

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.

(Continued from 12 November 2008. Page 672.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (22:06): I rise to support the motion of the Hon. Stephen Wade, and I applaud him for moving this measure. I acknowledge the honourable member's history as a past board member of the then Julia Farr Services and his ongoing involvement with disability issues. I refer to the Hon. Mr Wade's description of the relationship between Disability SA and its approval process for new programs, and I am very alarmed if the description of Disability SA's approving only new programs if they save money is correct. This is just the sort of short-sighted thinking that will result in further increased costs later on. The time for reform, particularly in relation to the provision of financial support for carers, is now.

The plight facing people with a disability and their carers is similar to that experienced by grandparents who find themselves being the full-time carers of their grandchildren and are trying to secure an allowance to assist them in this regard. These grandparents provide a service which would otherwise fall to the government, thus saving thousands, if not millions, of dollars in reducing the burden on the foster care system, not to mention the associated costs to government departments to facilitate the care.

It just does not make sense that the government refuses to consider a small payment to assist those willing to care for family members, with savings that just cannot be quantified both financially and in terms of the quality of care and safety felt by a child being cared for by another family member. In most cases, people with a disability would rather be cared for at home by their family members; and, indeed, their condition may well be improved by having a supportive and stable environment instead of being on their own.

My staff have informed me that in 2006 staff and family members of residents of the Julia Farr Centre (or Highgate Park, as it is now called) contacted my predecessor, the Hon. Nick Xenophon, expressing their very grave concerns that if changes targeted at saving government resources were implemented they had the potential to—and in some cases did—put residents and staff at risk. The distinct needs of particular groups within the disability sector need to be addressed and considered. The government's move towards this blanket way of dealing with people and carers needs to be nipped in the bud, both at a policy level and at a funding level. I commend the Hon. Stephen Wade for raising such an important issue, and I support the motion.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (22:10): The Greens support this motion and I congratulate the Hon. Stephen Wade for bringing it to our attention. When this first appeared on the Notice Paper, I wrote to a number of individuals and groups who I knew would have a perspective on the way in which disability services were being provided in this state, and I just want to recount to members some of the responses I received. One response which I received was from the Physical Disability Council of South Australia, and I am indebted to Ray Scott, the president of that organisation, for the quite lengthy submission that he made. It is not my intention to read out every point that he makes, but I could probably summarise them into a number of themes.

The first theme he raises is that his organisation sees the personnel in the disability bureaucracy as being comprised of people who do not have sufficient experience working in and understanding disability and the impact of disability on individuals and their families. According to the Physical Disability Council of South Australia, that lack of experience and understanding does impact on their ability to serve this sector of the community. The Physical Disability Council complains about the adequacy of in-home services. They say that the waiting lists are too long and they can recount many stories of people who will tell about unmet needs for additional support services and who are unable to access the community or employment opportunities and recreational activities.

In relation to equipment, the Physical Disability Council complains that the lists are growing longer and longer, and that people who are in need of equipment are not being provided with the same range of choices as they have in the past and they tend to be offered what bureaucrats think are best for them. A range of other criticisms are made in relation to the lack of transparency in the way the system operates and a complaint that the goalposts keep changing, especially with service users not knowing what the current rules are. The council complains of a lack of genuine consultation with people with disabilities about the services that impact on their lives. Really, the list goes on and on, and the effect of it is to support the motion that the honourable member has put forward.

However, rather than just give a list of complaints, the Physical Disability Council also provides some suggestions that they believe would help the situation. The first improvement they recommend is that key decision makers at the executive, management and planning level within the disability sector must have experience and knowledge from within Disability Services to fully understand the impact of disability on people's lives, their connectivity to work, community and leisure. Importantly, these personnel need to have a very defined understanding of the impact on individuals living with disability when changes to policy (or the lack of it), programs, services and funding levels occur.

They also recommend that, in the area of equipment, personal support equipment must have an injection of ongoing funding from Treasury. They want the equipment list to be transparent and they want a showroom with the full range of equipment options to be made available to people whose disability requires equipment for mobility, personal care and safety to help them make well informed choices that meet their particular needs. People who need scooters, wheelchairs, hoists, walking frames or shower equipment should be able to have choices over the equipment which they will then need to use probably for five or 10 years. I am appreciative of Ray Scott's writing to me and encouraging me to support this motion.

One letter that I received tells a fairly sorry tale of a young woman who has tried to be as independent as she could from an early age, yet with a degenerative illness she finds that she is more and more dependent on disability services. This young woman was diagnosed at a very early age with a physical disability, but she managed to live as normal a life as she could into her teenage years and was even able to buy a house, pay a mortgage and hold down a full-time job. However, eventually her condition got the better of her and she now spends all of her time dealing with medical professionals. She has 20 prescriptions that cost much more than any of the government concessions that she is entitled to, and she says that she has 'spent thousands of dollars on equipment, such as crutches, frames, hoists and endless other items'. The part of her letter that I will read onto the record talks about her dealings with Disability SA, as follows:

I have now had dealings with Disability SA over a number of years and have endless problems trying to secure the most basic of services. Despite not being able to walk at all, relying on an electric wheelchair, being in severe pain, living alone and having no family assistance, for the last few years I have not even been allocated a particular case worker, which I believe is supposed to be the usual practice. Countless phone calls have gone by without reply. In the last couple of years I have had seven operations and even all this did not guarantee some useful help. Earlier this year, after returning from hospital, I could not secure help even to have a shower for six weeks. I could not explain the indignity and embarrassment that was involved in being very ill and having to unsuccessfully beg for this sort of help. I, and I am sure others in my situation, would simply purchase their own assistance to avoid having to deal with this government department, if this was financially an option.

Over the past few years the electric wheelchair has broken down several times and there has been no help from a repair service, or temporary replacement chair, whilst the chair is unusable. This makes me feel intensely vulnerable all the time, whether the chair is working or not. One worries about the possibility of it breaking down. When the chair has broken down…I have called the 'supposed' after-hours service, which is not a 24-hour service, and all that is done is that the call is logged and someone may get back to you in the next few days. What do you do in the meantime? This is outrageous! Several times I have been left languishing for days on my bed or lounge without being able to move at all. This has created great amounts of anxiety and places me at great risk. When I was alone, I could not move to get medication, eat or drink, use the bathroom, etc. The last time I spent all night alone, the only way I could go to the toilet was because I had been vomiting and happened to have a bucket next to me. How is it that our society tolerates this cruelty and negligence of the most vulnerable people and yet other people are on the front pages of the newspapers feeling outraged if the trams break down, or there's a wait for an hour or two? My problems unfortunately aren't a rarity. I've heard endless similar stories and I don't understand why. Why do I and people like me deserve this sort of treatment?

The answers are simple. There must be a 24-hour service to people. In the case of wheelchairs, I need to be able to have a spare chair delivered ASAP. The emergency service does not fix things beyond blowing up a flat tyre. It is also wrong to tell people that a repair service exists, when it does not. People would not tolerate the RAA taking days to respond to callers and yet we are expected to do just that.

It should also be remembered that these people are often very ill, facing complex medical problems and have few funds or resources to advocate for themselves, unlike many other groups. For this reason they are easily ignored and forgotten. Please don't continue to do this. People need fair income, appropriate equipment, housing (none available even to me with my severe disability), affordable medications, transport, etc.

I am grateful to the Hon. Stephen Wade for putting this onto the agenda and encouraging me to write to people, so that we can get stories such as this from our constituents and put them onto the record, to show that we do need to do much better in relation to disability support services.

The final matter I put onto the record is another piece of correspondence; this time from the mother of an intellectually disabled young woman who has been fighting a battle with the bureaucracy to try to allow her daughter to continue her education. According to this mother, the government's attitude is that educating this young woman would be a waste. The sheltered workshop approach is the approach that they think is appropriate and, as a result, this young woman's desire to learn has been thwarted.

I might mention very quickly as an aside—I do not think I have mentioned this before—that one of the very many jobs that I have had over the years was in London as a carer to a man with cerebral palsy who, to all intents and purposes, was completely incapable of doing anything. He had very little physical movement, he could not speak, and it amazed me that he had a Masters degree in international relations.

He eventually managed to convince someone, I do not know how, that he had intellectual potential and, once they got onto communication techniques involving nose pointing and blackboards, and unicorns strapped to his head pointing to a vertically placed keyboard, we found out that he was an incredibly intelligent man but trapped in an entirely non-functioning body. Maybe this young woman has some potential that is not being able to be realised because her mother has been unable to keep her within the education system.

With those few anecdotes the Greens are very pleased to support the motion, and we hope that it will urge the government to put more resources into this most important sector.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (22:21): Thank you for your indulgence, sir. I apologise for not being on the list; we intended to be. Family First strongly supports the motion of the Hon. Stephen Wade, namely, 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 will be brief, because there will be lots of times in the future where Family First will be putting policy forward to support and improve disability services in South Australia, but it is very important that we briefly speak to this motion.

First of all, this is one of the core policies and values of Family First, that is, equity and justice for all sectors of South Australian society and, clearly, when it comes to disability services that is a very important area. In the House of Assembly I dealt with many constituents who had situations in their families where they had a family member with a disability, and sometimes a very severe disability. That goes right back to the days just after the State Bank and, believe you me, there were incredible struggles in trying to provide services and policy direction back then.

As I said at a meeting tonight, what disappoints me is that over the past six years in particular, and for probably two or three years before that but particularly in the past six years, we have seen such revenue flow into the state like we have not seen in modern times if, in fact, at all. Right now, as we head towards the end of the year and 2009, we should be standing up here congratulating the government on the service delivery improvement and the proactive policy development for assisting families and individuals with disabilities.

We should be here congratulating the government; that is what the motion should be, but indeed that is not what the motion is, nor should it be, because there is little, if any, to congratulate this government on. I am concerned, at a time when social dividends should have been reigning supreme, for proper social inclusion. It is one thing to have a Social Inclusion Board and people heading that up who can run in and out of cabinet and have more say than a cabinet minister, but actual delivery of on-the-ground services is another, and we have not seen that social dividend at all.

Now we face uncertain times, and it worries me immensely that these people have not had a proper social dividend. Let us remember that it is not very long ago that a minister in another place was advocating $2.50 a week rent for a piece of vital equipment for one of these people. That is outrageous.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Name him.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The Hon. Jay Weatherill was advocating that. It was only when the Premier had to jump in because of the political fallout that, within 24 hours, it was turned around. Clearly, the department put that paper up to the minister and the minister, one way or another, signed off. That is how it worked. That is measly, it is out of touch and it is certainly not in the best interests of the disability sector.

I look forward next year to working with a great deal of endeavour to argue for a better go for the disability services sector before the next budget, and I will have a lot more to say then. The important thing in speaking up and supporting this motion tonight is that it actually puts the government on notice. It also puts the opposition on notice because, at the moment, I have had to have a go at the government more because it is out there delivering. The opposition and the government are the two that have direct opportunity to the chequebook. I want to see policy and direction from both major parties next year—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I tried as much as I could to get the chequebook from the honourable treasurer of the day. The fact of the matter is that, next year, policy and direction has to come from both the major parties, and Family First—and I am sure other crossbench colleagues—will really be starting to put the pressure on them. Having said that, at the moment, the government of the day is a Labor government, and I want to see a much better commitment and focus on delivering proper services when it comes to the disability services sector.

They are doing their level best. They do not ask for a lot. The dollar value that carers and parents put into their loved ones—young children in particular—and the years of pain and suffering are enormous. They wear out. I can give you an example of a family that I have had a lot to do with. They have to lift this beautiful lad in and out of the bath, feed him and do everything for him. By the time they are in their middle years, they are worn out. They need support and they need decent services and, at the moment I am afraid to say, they are not being delivered. Obviously the buck stops with the government, so I support this motion.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (22:27): I welcome the mover's concern for the disability sector and acknowledge his long involvement with the issue. It is more with sadness that I rise to set the mover straight on some of the facts. It would have been better, given the mover's avowed interest in the sector, if he had noted the sorry state that the disability services were in when we came into government, and the positive steps that this government has taken to address the needs we inherited. Perhaps then he can offer his support to work with the government to make the system even better, because there is still a lot of work to do.

The Hon. Mr Wade cannot resist playing politics with a sector that really should be quarantined from such behaviour. Let me skip past the pettiness of the motion and place on record some of the positive changes that this government has introduced, working hand-in-hand with community organisations and Disability SA.

An honourable member: Make sure Mr Brokenshire is listening.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: And I hope Mr Brokenshire is listening as well. I must say that I am staggered at the praise heaped on the minister from the crossbench. You only have to look at what we inherited with the disability sector—

An honourable member: From his government.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: From his government. You would be absolutely appalled and, actually, you should be ashamed of yourself. Much-needed reform to the disability sector introduced by this government resulting in the formation of Disability SA has resulted in consistency and equity of service through a single set of operating policies and procedures. The new system delivers a single system of government, providing disability services that are easy for individuals and families to understand and obtain assistance from.

Disability SA was formed on 1 July 2006 following the dissolution of the boards of the Intellectual Disability Services Council and the Independent Living Centre. The board of Julia Farr Services, incorporating Brain Injury Options Coordination and APN Options Coordination, was dissolved effectively—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Mr Acting President, I sat here and listened to all the tripe from some of the crossbenchers, so I think I should have the right to speak in silence. Prior to the formation of Disability SA, the former health units operated independently—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Do you want to hear all the good news or do you want to preach Armageddon? After the disgraceful position in which you and your government left them, you do not want to listen to the good news stories; that's the problem. You want to politicise it. Instead of trying to help them, you want to make political gains. So just sit there and listen to the good news stories that have happened. One thing we all acknowledge is that there is still a lot more to do. There is still a lot to be done which you fail to recognise.

Prior to the formation of Disability SA, the former health units operated independently with different sets of policies and procedures, resulting in different outcomes for clients. Since the formation of Disability SA these policies and procedures are being amalgamated into a single set of operating policies and procedures, resulting in significant improvements to client and carer outcomes. In Disability SA's first year of operation (2006-07) the service provision increased by 9.6 per cent compared with the previous year under the former arrangements, and this trend has continued.

The management of funding budgets has changed, and the devolution has enabled greater control around decision-making and funding allocations, which allows regional managers unprecedented flexibility and delegation in response to client needs. Staff have noted a growing improvement as a result of the reforms and now feel that the internal silos have been removed, making it easier to work with clients with dual or multiple diagnoses.

Prior to the reform, rather than having a single point of access, there were three separate intake systems, each with its own eligibility criteria. As part of the reform, a single entry process has been established for Disability SA services, which includes a call centre for inquiries and referrals. If a person contacts Disability SA with a need that can be addressed by the provision of information or brief assistance, this is provided immediately without the person having to be placed on a waiting list or meeting any eligibility criteria. If the presenting issue requires more than brief assistance, intake and eligibility assessments are undertaken.

Eligibility is now determined more on the basis of a person's functioning and fewer people have fallen through the service gaps. Processes have been established to ensure a rapid response to people in urgent situations. Recent feedback from the health sector—a major referral source—indicates that the new intake system is simpler and more responsive.

Prior to the formation of Disability SA and the accommodation placement panel, there were multiple lists, contact points and criteria for assessing supported accommodation. This did not always result in the person with the highest need receiving the next available vacancy. In addition, agencies at times could be tardy in notification of their vacancies. Examples of the benefits of the new arrangements are:

People with multiple sclerosis living in regional towns can be accommodated in local supported accommodation services that were previously made available only to people with an intellectual disability, regardless of the urgency of the situation. This means they can remain living near their family and in a familiar community.

Prior to the formation of Disability SA, clients with Asperberger Syndrome were able to access only limited case management and brokerage services. The formation of Disability SA has allowed this client group access to a full range of services offered by Disability SA.

Within the Department for Families and Communities the creation of Disability SA has enabled opportunities for service innovation and collaboration that were far more difficult in the past. For example, Housing SA and Families SA have collaborated with Disability SA on many occasions to provide supported accommodation arrangements for disabled people and their families.

The establishment of Disability SA has led to an expansion of supported accommodation services for Aboriginal people with disabilities and clients with complex needs. A new exceptional needs service draws on the advice of key Aboriginal community members in order to ensure that services are culturally appropriate. Some of the new initiatives on which Disability SA is currently working include:

The Bedford 'Homes for 100' Project, an initiative in which the state government has matched a $5 million commitment from the Bedford Foundation to develop 100 community-based living spaces. Seven dwellings were made available in 2007-08, and the first group of nine clients have already moved into these accommodation options. A further 11 homes are projected to be available by 30 June 2009.

The Companion Card scheme was developed through a partnership between the state government and National Disability Services SA. A total of $0.28 million was invested in developing the scheme, and it was launched on 3 December 2007. A further recurrent commitment of $0.1 million has also been committed for the maintenance of the scheme. Currently, 1,157 cards have been issued and 28 organisations (equating to 54 venues) are affiliated with the program.

With respect to Disability SA's Day Options programs, the state government invests about $1 million in new funding each year to guarantee new school leavers who, as a consequence of their disability, are unable to access further education or employment and wish to attend a meaningful day activity with a development focus. Around 50 to 60 clients have a placement made available each year, which is delivered through about 20 non-government organisations.

Some $1 million recurrent funding for autism spectrum disorder was allocated in 2007-08 for the development of specialised early intervention programs. Additional funds were allocated to Autism SA to expand its early intervention group sessions and, in particular, to ensure that all families with a child under six years old with ASD have intensive support from a family worker. Further funds have been invested with Adelaide University for research into this area.

Disability SA has increased services to families with children up to eight years of age with autism by empowering six senior developmental programmers located in regional areas. An additional two full-time staff have also been employed in the metropolitan area.

The state government has continued to provide substantial equipment funding to address client needs in this area. Some $5.7 million was provided to the non-government organisation sector in the 2007-08 budget, which is expected to provide over 1,450 additional pieces of equipment. Over the past six years, the Rann government has spent an unprecedented $38.2 million on equipment for people with disabilities, including one-off payments.

To develop the Regency Park Centre, which includes adding a Novita hydrotherapy pool, the 2008-09 budget allocated a further $2 million. This centre provides a service to about 200 students. Minda Project 105 is a partnership between the state government and Minda Inc. and is expected to deliver 105 community accommodation places and address clients on the urgent accommodation waiting list and progress the program of deinstitutionalisation for Minda campus accommodation. The state government committed $15.65 million to this project.

The new recurrent funding for psychiatric disability programs, amounting to $5.25 million in 2007-08, has been committed to a range of programs and supports for clients with psychiatric disability and homelessness issues. As at September 2008, 181 clients were receiving services through this funding, which is delivered through a range of non-government organisations.

Disability SA undertook the task of developing a seamless and accessible information service based on a 'just ask once' philosophy. With the help of our non-government information partners, a 1300 number was established where people are able to access a call centre equipped to provide information to relevant government and non-government organisations. In addition, a new website has been developed within the departmental website with links to our non-government partners and other government agencies. An email service is also available for people requesting information to be mailed out or to contact subject experts in particular areas.

The re-establishment of the Ministerial Advisory Council, chaired by Dr Lorna Hallahan, and the Disability Advisory Network of South Australia, chaired by Dr David Haslam, provide a direct voice on the needs and aspirations of people who live with a disability. These examples note that the progress so far is positively encouraging. The government is under no illusion that there is still much more work to be done to ensure that South Australians with disabilities have a decent life and can realise their dreams and fully participate in the community.

The Rann government has a strong commitment to improving the lives of people with disabilities. We have taken major steps forward for South Australia's disability system to help not only people with disabilities but also their families and carers, and we will continue to do so. Rather than suggesting failure on the part of this government, this chamber should be acknowledging the many good initiatives and improvements and the commitment of this government to those with disabilities. It is regrettable that those opposite choose to play political games, as they serve no-one, other than the egos of those opposite. The government is unable to support such political game playing.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (22:39): In summing up the debate on this motion, I am acutely aware of three facts. First, given that this is the last sitting day of the year for the consideration of private members' business and, in particular, the last opportunity for the Hon. Sandra Kanck to progress her private member's business, and that the hour is already late, it is necessary for me to be brief, or at least briefer than the topic deserves. Secondly, I have had from a number of members indications of support and assurances that they do not feel the need to be further persuaded. I thank them for that.

In particular, I thank those honourable members who contributed to the debate: Hon. Ann Bressington, Hon. John Darley, Hon. Mark Parnell, Hon. Robert Brokenshire and Hon. Russell Wortley. In passing, on her last sitting Wednesday, I acknowledge that the Hon. Sandra Kanck and her former Australian Democrat colleague Kate Reynolds have been strong voices for people with a disability in this state. Those members and most members who contributed tonight have maintained a strong tradition in this council of standing up on statewide issues such as disability services.

Thirdly, I made the judgment that I would best serve the people who have raised issues with me, and pursue the range of issues more forcibly and strategically, by making an omnibus contribution late in the evening. Accordingly, while I do not propose to engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of minister Rankine's response to an identical motion moved by the member for Heysen in another place, I will merely rebut one assertion to highlight how unreliable I see the minister's comments as a whole. On 16 October, when referring to me, the minister said in the other place:

…banging on in the media and putting out a whole range of things that are simply factually incorrect. In a media release dated 25 September he asserted that 'Disability SA is haemorrhaging staff'.'

The minister then quoted me as saying:

There are consistent reports of an exodus of experienced and skilled professionals from Disability SA, leaving fewer people in a position to train those who remain.

The minister commented:

My understanding is that we currently have a full-time equivalent vacancy of 3.7 people in occupational therapy and physical therapy.

That sounds like spin to me. The minister limits her remarks to OT and physical therapy, and she quotes the FTE vacancy rate and not the turnover rate, which was the focus of my concern. As evidence for my position, I invite members to look for themselves. If tonight they go to the vacancy page on the DFC website and the vacancies for Disability SA and Domiciliary Care SA, they will see at least 25 positions vacant, with applications due to close in the next two weeks. That level of vacancy suggests that there are at least 600 vacancies a year—not the image of an idyllic settled village the minister wants to assert.

As I said, I do not propose to go through a point-by-point rebuttal of the minister's rhetorical speech. Instead, I take this opportunity to share with the council some observations I have made since I moved this motion some eight weeks ago. As I move around the state, I am reminded yet again of tragic examples of the lack of services to meet the need in housing, personal care and transport inaccessibility as three simple examples.

One disability sector leader recently told me about cases of which they were aware, where one person was hospitalised for 700 days because no suitable accommodation option was available and of another who was hospitalised for two years before a placement was made. I am advised that Disability SA workers are telling some clients that they will need to wait for two or up to five years for an electric wheelchair or gopher.

The government is in denial. In the face of persistent and alarming reports of service problems, the minister continues to deny that there is a problem, and we heard another example today in the Hon. Russell Wortley's contribution. For example, in the Messenger newspaper of 16 October, disability minister Jennifer Rankine said that there was no evidence that waiting times had increased under Domiciliary Care SA.

The government controls the information. If the minister asserts that the constant flow of anecdotes and case studies do not accord with the reality of the situation, she should not just claim that there is no evidence; she should adduce the evidence and demonstrate what she asserts by putting out the evidence to support the fact that there is no waiting list. To tell dozens of people who dare to put their stories into the public domain that those stories are not evidence is to insult and diminish them. When it comes to transparency, the minister lacks credibility.

In late October disability advocate Dr Paul Collier highlighted that the South Australian government has not delivered on an election promise to table annual reports on the performance of disability services. In response, the Minister for Disability, Jennifer Rankine, admitted that an audit had been done but that she would not release it. On one hand there is no evidence, and when there is some evidence do not expect the government to release it. The government is wilfully blind.

In discussions since the motion, I have been overwhelmed by the feedback on the speech I made in moving the motion. People consistently said that it reflected their experience. I can only recall a couple of people outside government who asserted that disability services were getting better under these reforms, and one of those was a government contractor. So, if there is no net improvement in services, as I assert, why are there not more voices being raised? To me that demonstrates vulnerability; when I posed that question to people they consistently said that they felt vulnerable. As evidence I cite the Julia Farr Association's report on its 2007 Loop conference, which says:

Across all venues of the 2007 Loop conference, participants report that they don't speak up because of a fear that they will be punished in some way. This includes fears that there would be a loss of service, or the person would be labelled as a complainer and not receive agency cooperation, and even be more socially excluded.

It continues:

Despite what is known about the wrongs of discrimination and marginalisation, it appears that participants' comments that our disability support systems are perpetuating those wrongs…by creating a climate where people fear to raise their voice.

I experienced this first-hand when working on this motion and afterwards. A number of people contacted me to tell their story, but did not want to be named for fear that action would be taken against them. The Messenger newspapers were moved by the plight of people with a disability and published a series of three articles highlighting issues with equipment, transport and accessibility.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Time and again people would raise their concerns but would not want to talk to the Messenger for fear of retribution by this government.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are out of order on both sides of the council.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This is not Soviet Russia. People are not criminals because they speak up when their entitlements are not met. This government needs a revolution—a revolution in its attitude to promote a culture of respect for people with disability.

I was similarly disturbed to hear organisations and leaders claim that they also felt unable to speak out for fear of loss of funding or due to contractual restrictions on their ability to speak out. The sector is acutely aware of this government's bullying of legacy organisations in the restructuring and defunding of advocacy organisations. It will be a stark test of the new federal Labor government as to whether it will allow the state Labor government to be the only state in the nation which fails to fund information and advocacy services in breach of the commonwealth and state disability agreement.

This government's failure to deliver adequate services is leading to a crisis of confidence in public sector delivery of disability services. This is feeding two trends which I suggest are countervailing. First, people are demanding control over their care and the resources that fund it. A number of people already have some level of control, but there is increasing demand for more control and a growing movement to promote individualised funding. The government wants it to be known that it is open to implementing individualised funding, but I have my doubts. It is now 10 months since the government floated that it might be interested, but still there is no action.

To the extent the government is acting, it is actually acting contrary to the principles of individualised funding and self-determination. For example, in mid-2008 Minister Weatherill positively highlighted the opportunity for individualised funding to be applied to the provision of disability equipment, but since then we have seen a series of decisions that are actually counter to self-determination in relation to the provision of equipment. First, people were deprived of their choice of repairer, and we now see that the government is running a tendering process which will limit the choice of equipment. It is like the Model T Ford—you can buy any scooter you like as long as it is black.

Secondly, there are persistent rumours about the government undertaking a pilot of individualised funding. In my view, a pilot would not be a sign of action but a cover for inaction. It would be like saying we need to pilot a motor car. Individualised funding has been operating since the 1970s in Canada and, in the United States there are at least 31 states operating it. There are individualised funding initiatives in Australia, Wales, the Netherlands, Austria, Germany and England. The concept has been proven: we do not need a pilot. If the government is sincere in its commitment it should begin rolling it out, choose the most relevant model available and evolve it for South Australian services in implementation.

The other crisis of confidence in the public sector is that people are turning to non-government organisations to guarantee their care, to insulate them from the vagaries of government. These services tend to be funded by block grants from government. They may not be government services but the buying decisions are made by bureaucrats, not by individuals. The fundamental problem is that Labor governments see themselves as mere custodians of the eternal wisdom of the bureaucracy: bureaucracy knows best. In fact, the minister's comments and response to the identical motion in the other place reflect that attitude. The minister, in referring to the reforms under Disability SA, stated:

The management of funding budgets has changed and that means that there is much more local control about decision making and funding allocation. It has allowed regional managers unprecedented flexibility and delegation in response to client needs.

For the minister, local control does not mean control by consumers, it means transferring control from one bureaucrat to another. I can assure the minister that there is no magic in a bureaucrat sharing the same postcode as the client. I suggest that the minister needs to get out more.

I would also like to take the opportunity to address some of the personal remarks that the Hon. Russell Wortley chose to direct to me. I remind members of my contribution on Wednesday 24 September when moving this motion. I said that I was going to calmly state the facts. At the risk of understating them I was determined that what I had to say would not be dismissed as rhetoric. I went on to say that 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. Later in the speech I said:

To sum up, one respected disability leader told me that we had gone back 40 years over the last 10.

If the Hon. Russell Wortley would care to listen, or perhaps read the Hansard at his leisure, he might reflect on those last words:

...one respected disability leader told me that we had gone back 40 years over the last 10.

Indeed, the Liberal Party does need to take responsibility for its contribution to meeting the needs of people with disability, and I am more than happy to reflect soberly about both the successes and the failures. However, what that last quote tells me is that over the last 10 years of the Liberal government (the years of the nineties) we were making progress. What has happened in the past few years is that we are going backwards. We will take responsibility for the nineties if only Labor will take responsibility for the 2000s.

In conclusion, I thank the hundreds of people with a disability, and those who support them, who have taken the opportunity to contact me and other honourable members, to tell their stories and share their concerns. I assure the disability sector that, particularly over the next 16 months leading up to the next election, we will continue to maintain a dialogue with them and try to deliver a practical, positive future for disability services in South Australia.

Motion carried.


[Sitting suspended from 22:54 to 23:15]


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