HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DISABILITY EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES

Adjourned debate on motion of the Hon. J.M.A. Lensink:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be appointed to inquire and report upon—

(a) Disability equipment payments made to non-government organisations raised in the 2009-2010 Auditor-General's Report;

(b) The appropriateness of one-off funding commitments for disability services in comparison to increased recurrent expenditure; and

(c) Any other related matter.

2. That standing order No.389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order No.396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 10 November 2010.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:40): I rise briefly to support this motion, which has been put up by the Hon. Ms Lensink and is a very worthy motion. Most of us would be aware that disability funding in this state is a debacle. I was very pleased to join the Hon. Stephen Wade, the member for Bragg (Vickie Chapman) and the Hon. Ann Bressington yesterday, along with the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Dignity for Disability grouping, in a Christmas carol calling for better treatment of those who suffer from disabilities in South Australia, and certainly a better deal from this government. We Greens think that this call for a committee has great merit. We think there are some anomalies here that need to be addressed, and with that I indicate that the Greens support the motion.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:42): I put on the record my support for the Hon. Ms Lensink's motion to establish a select committee. I, and many if not most of the people in the disability community, are concerned by the necessity of one-off funding for disability services in South Australia. However, from the outset I stress that, if established, the committee must not be used as a vehicle for a witch-hunt against the then minister for disability or the Julia Farr Association.

I have spoken with Robbi Williams at Julia Farr, who told me that as far he was concerned the Julia Farr Association (JFA) has acted above board in all the circumstances. I also met with the former minister for disability, the Hon. Mr Weatherill, yesterday and I must say that I am satisfied that there is nothing sinister about these two payments made to JFA. The former disability minister advised me that he effectively put up his hand for surplus moneys that were found to be in the government coffers toward the end of the financial year.

From my reading of the Auditor-General's Report and discussions with the minister, these funds were distributed to a non-government organisation because it was too late in a budget cycle for the department to purchase the equipment and there was a risk that, if the moneys were not spent, they would not be carried on to the next budget cycle. I understand that, whilst Julia Farr was not a provider or distributor of equipment, it was provided with the funding for equipment, that the department then purchased the equipment and invoiced Julia Farr for the cost of that equipment.

Whilst I had concerns surround how the grant moneys were spent, I now note that the current Minister for Disability on 9 November gave a run-down of this in the other place, outlining what equipment was bought with the funds, although I must say that I am still concerned at the slow rollout of the funds. Therefore, the government should not be worried about this inquiry. If it has acted in good faith to improve the situation for people with disabilities, that will come to light in the proposed committee's report.

While I think that it is great that the government sought to use surplus funds for the funding of equipment, I cannot accept that there were and still are people waiting for equipment in this state, and it seems as though the government is treating our people with contempt by expecting us to wait for budget surpluses before funding much needed equipment that is essential for people with disabilities, equipment that will enable us to live full and meaningful lives. The government must stop treating people with disabilities as charity cases who are fed only the scraps.

The government must put these people as a high priority on its list. These people have the right to services and equipment. It is a disgrace that people in this state are waiting for lifters, wheelchairs and handrails, just as people are waiting on the unmet needs list for some in-home support, accommodation and respite. These are essential items and services, not luxuries, and must be funded appropriately, in view of the need that is out there.

That is where we come to the second point of the inquiry in Ms Lensink's proposed committee—and this is the point that I am interested in exploring further—that is, the appropriateness of one-off funding commitments for disability services in comparison to increased recurrent expenditure. While it may look good for the government to clear unmet needs waiting lists, quite frankly, it is ridiculous that these waiting lists are so long that the government tries to score a few cheap points by clearing them.

The government needs to look at the crisis in our community now. It needs to ensure that disability services are adequately funded both now and in the long-term so that we do not have people who are waiting for funding. If the government wants to make a real commitment to people with disabilities, it will ensure that disability services and equipment are equally funded. One-off funding should be used for one-off projects, not the provision of disability equipment and services in this state.

As Ms Lensink has so rightly pointed out, we cannot continue to drip-feed people with disabilities with one-off grants and the associated media circus and self-congratulatory backslapping that goes along with it. It is about time that we looked at the appropriateness of one-off funding commitments for disability services in comparison to increased recurrent expenditure, and that is why I support this motion.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (16:47): The government opposes this committee because it is a witch-hunt and a waste of the council's time. The reality is the Auditor-General is highly respected by this government, unlike how he was treated under the Liberals. The Auditor-General has already made many inquiries in relation to this matter, and let's be very, very clear about what he has said.

The Auditor has raised various concerns about the government's ongoing control of our grant payments made to Julia Farr Association during 2006-07 and 2007-08. He has also made comments about payments in 2009-10 and the improvements that have been made by this government and this department. The Auditor-General identified that the grants to Julia Farr Association were used for the purpose intended, and I quote from page 446:

Of crucial importance, it is acknowledged that the grant funds allocated to the Department were used to facilitate the purchase of disability equipment as was approved by Cabinet.

Further, it is clear that the Auditor-General is satisfied that DFC has new processes in place that demonstrate good management and accountability practices. Again I quote from page 447:

Audit is satisfied that managing Department funds through JFA has ceased. In April 2010 the Department received additional approved funding for the supply and management of disability equipment. Again this was too late in the year to allow the full funding to be spent prior to 30 June. However, approval for the funding included approval to carry forward unspent funding at 30 June 2010. This and other actions taken to administer the funding demonstrated good management and accountable practice and indicated no repeat of the abovementioned or similar practice used in relation to JFA.

Those opposite can add two and two together as much as they like but these are the facts. The state government has a very strong record when it comes to providing equipment and support to people with a disability. We have spent $44.5 million since coming to office.

In this instance, minister Weatherill asked cabinet to provide one-off money to NGOs to spend on people in need, and that is what occurred. JFA was given $2.9 million in June 2007 to facilitate the provision of disability equipment. In 2008, the state government then decided to provide a further $2.15 million to continue to allow JFA to facilitate the provision of more equipment. This money was spent (and accounted for) on equipment for people who needed it. During the entire process, JFA continued to provide the money it was granted to fund disability equipment and home modifications for South Australians who needed assistance.

Let us look at some of the results of this funding, which has provided for about 2,100 pieces of equipment and more than 250 home modifications. Going back to the Auditor-General's concerns, this government respects the Auditor's long-held concerns regarding the lack of documentation and formal conditions surrounding non-recourse grants. However, it is worth noting that non-recourse grants, by their very nature, are without recourse. Vitally, along with acknowledging that the money provided by cabinet was spent on the purpose cabinet wanted, the Auditor concludes that:

...there can be circumstances sometimes where those responsible for decision making (as in the Executive) may consider that the benefits of certain actions outweigh the adherence to generally accepted process for good management accountability. In this case the department was able to secure additional funding available to achieve reductions in the adult disability equipment waiting list by making grant payments to JFA.

Again, about 2,100 pieces of equipment and more than 250 home modifications were provided because of this funding, and the committee is nothing but a nonsense.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:52): I thank all honourable members for their contributions, in particular, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Hon. John Gazzola, although, as usual, there was much hubris in his response. I am not sure that the government has learnt yet that that approach does not gain them any friends in this chamber.

In response to those comments, I think that my speech in favour of this motion was fairly clear about what this involved. Indeed, as highlighted by the Auditor-General, this was quite a breach of the government's own policy. So, when the government says that it is a witch-hunt, I am not quite sure how they would describe what they did to poor Kate Lennon, in her position, when she did something she believed was part of government practice at the time.

There are two terms of reference: first, that this is limited to the matters raised within the Auditor-General's Report and, secondly, the appropriateness of one-off funding commitments. We have had contributions made by the crossbenchers on that, who I think recognise that reform can be made in this regard.

I am not going even to respond to some of the nonsense the government has placed on the record, because they are clearly trying to avoid the matter and muddy the issues. I encourage all members to support an investigation into this matter, which I do not anticipate will be particularly extensive or longwinded. I think such an investigation will be quite beneficial to reforming the way in which disability services are funded in South Australia.

Motion carried.

The council appointed a select committee consisting of the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the Hon. Ian Hunter, the Hon. Russell Wortley and the Hon. Michelle Lensink; the committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to adjourn from place to place; the committee to report on 9 February 2011.

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