HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-06-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Community Visitor Scheme

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Human Services regarding conflicts of interest. Minister, when the Public Advocate was appointed as the Principal Community Visitor, were any concerns raised or did you as minister think to seek any advice about actual or perceived conflicts of interest between the roles?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (15:01): I thank the honourable member for his question. I would like to, with the indulgence of the chamber, just remind people of the origin of the Community Visitor Scheme. In 2004-05, there was a report commissioned, which was done by a gentleman by the name of Ian Bidmeade who did a review into the Mental Health Act, entitled 'Paving the Way', in which he recommended that a community visitor scheme be established in South Australia. Yes, it was 2005. I'm reading from the Hansard of 30 April 2009. In his comments in relation to his recommendation that the then government establish a community visitor scheme for mental health, he says:

One obvious issue in a small state like South Australia is whether the people involved in such schemes could play other roles, such as advocacy, or assistance to consumers coming before the Guardianship Board. Another is whether the visitors should be looking at standards of care, or be more focused on a personal supportive relationship with individual consumers. We support any such scheme being housed with the Public Advocate to emphasise advocacy and synergy with other advocacy roles.

The person who read that into the record on 30 April 2009 was myself at which time I moved for the establishment of the first Community Visitor Scheme in South Australia, and the government at the time opposed those amendments.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Government benches, please; I can't hear the minister.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The government at the time opposed those amendments. That was the clear direction that was provided by Mr Bidmeade in that report. We took his advice in the Liberal Party and proudly and, I might add, along with the advocacy of organisations like the Mental Health Coalition—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: The Mental Health Coalition, where I was the policy officer at the time lobbying for this.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, the Hon. Tammy Franks reminds me—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Franks, you are interjecting out of order.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —in an out of order manner—that she was the policy officer. I think there were probably a range of other organisations that were advocating for that as well. That was the advice then. I'm quite happy to go and check the records to see whether any specific individuals or organisations raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest, but we believe that there are natural synergies. It is the Minister for Health's responsibility to determine who the Principal Community Visitor is, but we believe that there are synergies with the role because we are dealing with the state's most vulnerable people, that is, people under guardianship. These are people who don't have family and friends.

The term that's often used—that very unfortunate term—is guardian of last resort. These people don't have the capacity to advocate for themselves. They don't have friends and they don't have family. In fact, we extended the Community Visitor Scheme last year to enable the Principal Community Visitor to visit those people, because we think they are an incredibly important cohort for both roles to be able to advocate for.

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