Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today is the International Day of People with Disability, and I rise to talk about some of the challenges and opportunities faced by people with a disability. It is a particularly pertinent topic because, over the weekend, there was a COAG announcement about funding, and one of the challenges that people with a disability and those that care for them and love them are concerned about is the direction of disability funding in this country. The COAG announcement of additional funding was, quite frankly, very welcome. As always, however, the devil is in the detail, and the announcement raises a number of questions to which, as the opposition spokesperson on disabilities, I have been unable to ascertain the answers. One of these questions is about the level of indexation. I have read in the paper—and it has been put in statements—that the indexation for this funding is six per cent over five years. The general feeling in the disability community is that six per cent per annum over five years would be a very generous gesture. However, when we contacted the offices of the minister and the parliamentary secretary in order to seek clarification, they were unable to tell us whether that is indeed the case. It might actually be a six per cent increase over five years. That, to me, does not seem as generous as the previous arrangement, which was 1.8 per cent indexation per year.

The other question in regard to disability services and the COAG announcement is about levels of accountability and transparency. Much was made about the key performance indicators for the health portfolios and other areas, and the replacement of specific-purpose payments. But we are unable to find out exactly what the performance indicators are. What are the accountability criteria? What scrutiny is going to be applied directly to disability funding? Those are two of the areas of concern. One of my colleagues, a shadow spokesperson on disabilities in another state, has also contacted me, concerned that they have been told that the funding for their particular state may actually decrease in real terms. We cannot ascertain whether this is true or not because we have not been given a list that details how the funding is going to be applied through the various states. So whilst I—and those who are interested in the disability area—support increased funding, there are a number of questions that need to be answered.

One of the most fundamental questions that need to be asked of the decision to allocate all the responsibility for disability services to the state governments is: is this a passing of the buck by the Rudd government? I fear we are setting up a blame-game exercise—the kind of exercise which has been talked about a lot over the last year or so—where the responsibility for disability services will fall entirely on state governments in order that the Commonwealth government can say, ‘Well, it actually has nothing to do with us.’ I do not want to see that happen, and I do not think people with a disability or their carers want to see that happen, because the state governments have failed in a terrible manner for too many years to provide adequate services for those with a disability and for those who care for them.

The list of failings is long and, I have to tell you, very undistinguished. I can give you some examples. In 2007, the New South Wales Labor government failed to provide permanent accommodation for 1,706 people who had applied for it. They made only 64 places available. This is the same government that has allowed disability accommodation houses to remain vacant for up to 20 months. In September this year, it was revealed that the Queensland government had short-changed people with a disability out of $100 million in failed funding promises. In Victoria, volunteers from the Community Visitors Scheme uncovered poor conditions of accommodation for people living with a disability, including soiled carpets, out-of-date food, and blood and faeces in the bathrooms. The Tasmanian Labor government recently announced that they were transferring provision of disability services to not-for-profit organisations, and a report commissioned by the Tasmanian government found that it was becoming much harder for the state to ensure quality services. The report actually recommended the transfer of service delivery to non-government organisations. If you want an admission of failure to deliver adequate services, there is no more damning one than that of the Tasmanian government already washing their hands of the issue in this way.

Someone does need to be accountable for the area of service delivery. I raised the question earlier in my contribution today as to what the key performance indicators are, and it is a very real question that needs to be asked. Someone needs to assure the public that the money that is put into disability funding actually goes to where it has to go. We need acceptable accountability; it needs to be an open and transparent process. Money needs to get to where it is most needed, and clearly that is not the case right now, because there are lots of people that contact my office—and I am sure they contact other members and senators—about problems with disability funding. We need to ensure that funding for services is effective and delivered in the most effective manner possible

In my experience in examining this issue, when you give the states a pot of money, they love looking for new services. They love to try and develop brand new things so that they can appear innovative. Yet, at the same time, they will often neglect things that work very, very effectively, and they will take funding away from them to the disappointment and the disadvantage of the many people who rely on those things. Funding of disability services is a uniquely individual process. No individual that I have met has exactly the same set of circumstances as others that may have very similar conditions or disabilities. I believe that individuals are best placed to determine what services they want and to decide what services are actually most needed. This would allow individuals and those who care for them the choice of what services are needed. I believe that this would give increased flexibility and offer a wider array of choice. It would allow people to determine exactly what is important for them, and I think it would result in reduced red tape. This means that less funding would be spent on bureaucracy and the maintenance of bureaucratic infrastructure, and more would get to where it is actually needed.

Clearly, it is not getting to where it is necessary. The headline in the Advertiser today over an article written by David Holst, who is the acting chair of the Intellectual Disability Association of South Australia, refers to ‘Soviet-style neglect for the disabled’. That should be a concern for all of us. Mr Holst reports:

SA provided the lowest level of financial support to the 22,205 seriously and multiply disabled listed being funded by the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement.

While he welcomed the announcement of additional funding, he went on to say:

… there is no guarantee that things are going to get better any time soon—

when administered—

by a government that has been dragged bucking and squealing on every step of the disability journey of the last five years to even release key data, far less step up to the mark and address the real issues.

I am not trying to be inflammatory, but the fact is that it is not working very effectively. I think that we need to start to examine how best we can more efficiently provide the services that people are so desperately in need of. People often feel isolated when they are living with a disability, because they do not have the advantage of choice and options, particularly those living in rural areas, who may have limited service provisions available to them under the official guidelines and programs.

One of the ways we can actually seek to address this is to go down the path of individualised funding. Individualised funding gives people with a disability control of the funds so that they can choose the support and services most important to them. I think this is a common-sense approach. Quite frankly, those living with a disability and those closest to them should be best placed to decide what services they actually need in order to live the best possible life. In general terms, an individual will be assessed to determine the amount of funding that will be available to them, and they are then free to prioritise how these funds will actually be spent. They may take on the responsibility of purchasing these services themselves. They may ask others to assist them. They may even opt to remain in an existing structured system where they are provided the services without having access to the funding.

There are lots of different models that have been used all over the world. The UK has been a pioneer in this area. The USA has also been involved. Canada has a very strong history. Even in Australia, we have state governments that are looking at this. In Western Australia, I believe it is operating very effectively. In South Australia, they have been examining it for some months. Clearly they cannot manage exactly what they are doing right now. I understand they are also examining it in New South Wales and Victoria. As I said, in Tasmania, they are looking at it as well.

But there are problems with that state-by-state approach. One of the problems, of course, is what happens when people with a disability actually move from one state to another. I have heard that, if someone moves from Western Australia, they are allowed to take their funding with them into another state, but the other state will not allow them to spend it there. To me, that is nonsense. It seems to be bureaucracy gone mad. At the end of the day, we need to make sure that we, as a wealthy nation, can provide the best possible services to those who are amongst the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society. This goes not only to day-to-day living needs but also to equipment needs. I have heard a story of someone who needs wheelchair access in Queensland. When they sought to move to New South Wales, they had to be put on a waiting list of more than 12 months in order to be able to access a wheelchair through the equipment and aids programs that operate there. It is not good enough.

I do not believe that the federal government should wash its hands of disability services. I support more money going into it, but we have the problem that this government is looking to say: ‘It is the states’ responsibility. We do not want to deal with it.’ We need a national program, quite frankly. How it would work, I do not have the answer right now, but we need some consistency across the jurisdictions to ensure that there are workable, viable opportunities for those with disabilities and those that care for them.