Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I raise the issue of the future of the National Disability Advocacy Program as a matter of public interest, because of the Howard government’s ineptitude and lack of action, which is resulting in death by delay to services funded by the Disability Advocacy Program. Advocacy is an essential service for people with a disability. People with disability need advocates to speak on their behalf and with their direction, both as individuals and as groups of people with disabilities. Individual advocacy assists people with disability to navigate the complex system of services and to achieve justice through legal processes. Systematic advocacy is aimed at changing systems in society which are barriers to participation by people with disabilities. Both types of advocacy are essential services for people with disability. These services are needed now more than ever.

There are well-founded and confirmed fears in the disability sector that changes to the welfare system will increase the need for advocacy to resolve disputes and support people with disabilities in their interactions on income support and employment issues, amongst others. But what we see from this government is that 71 disability advocacy services around the country are at risk of closure because the Minister for Community Services, Mr Cobb, cannot or will not make a decision about future funding for each of the services. Because of uncertainty of funding beyond December, advocacy groups—which support some of the most vulnerable in our society—are unable to take new clients and are unable to extend office and equipment leases. And good, committed staff with concerns about job security are leaving. This is all caused by the incompetence of this government.

The government commissioned a review of the program and arranged a series of consultations earlier this year. Because of this review, the current funding for the 71 advocacy groups was extended until 31 December 2006. At the time of the receipt of the consultant’s report into the Disability Advocacy Program, the minister said:

FaCSIA needs to meet with the reference group to discuss the review findings and recommendations before considering options for taking the review forward.

He also said:

Until this critical consultation occurs, no decisions will be made on the findings and recommendations of the review.

The reference group met in June 2006 to discuss and progress the findings and recommendations of the review. The minister gave an indication that final decisions would be announced by the end of August. But, instead of making any final or funding decisions, all the minister did after this so-called ‘critical consultation’ was post yet another report, another consultation piece, on his website on 29 September—a full month after he had promised there would be a response available. It is clearly evident to me that that occurred only after a call from Senator Patterson, who was concerned by evidence she was hearing from witnesses in the current Senate inquiry into the funding and operation of the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement. The report did not announce any funding decision. It did not indicate which services would be continued and which would be defunded. Instead, it sought further consultation by 27 October.

What are these advocacy groups supposed to do now? They cannot take new clients. They have to work out what they can do with their current clients if their funding is not renewed. They cannot renew leases because they do not have any certainty of funding. And good staff are leaving because they do not have security of employment. Does Minister Cobb have any idea how these services operate? How does he think they are going to operate if they have no certainty of funding beyond December?

Maybe the minister could indicate which services are going to have their funding renewed and which are not, so that they can get their affairs in order. Or could the minister perhaps provide interim funding until, say, June 2007 so that there is more time while he is twiddling his thumbs making a decision? In an article in the Courier-Mail on 2 October, the minister said:

No one has to be jumping up and down saying I’ll have to close my doors, that is wrong and it would be mischievous for anyone to say that.

Can I inform the minister that I have met with a series of delegations from advocacy groups that are very concerned about their loss of funding. I understand that he has met with them too. I have personally received many letters from clients and former clients of advocacy services who are concerned about the loss of funding to their respective service. The Community Affairs Committee has heard from several groups giving evidence at the current Senate inquiry who are concerned about the loss of funding. How much more jumping up and down do people need to do? Also in the article in the Courier-Mail on 2 October, the minister is quoted as saying:

... none of the services will close.

How does this fit with the minister’s consultation paper? It says:

From January 2007, current service providers could be offered 18 month funding agreements to cover services until June 2008.

The word is ‘could’. It is not ‘will’; it is ‘could’. The minister’s consultation paper also says:

In September 2007, a competitive funding round could be scheduled to ensure that the $12 million in the National Disability Advocacy Program is more fairly directed across different regions in Australia. The funding round would be open to organisations that are not currently providing services under the National Disability Advocacy Program, as well as organisations that are currently funded.

The report goes on to say:

In February 2008, the results of the competitive funding round could be announced and transitional arrangements put in place to make sure existing clients of unsuccessful services were not disadvantaged.

Keep in mind that this is all going to be coming from the same current funding pool of $12 million per year. The minister’s consultation paper does not fit what he told the Courier-Mail. He said categorically:

... none of the services will close.

How, then, can the same amount of funding be offered to new programs without jeopardising the viability of those that are currently funded? If ‘none of the services will close’, why is the minister considering transitional arrangements to make sure that existing clients of unsuccessful services are not disadvantaged? The minister needs to come clean on what his real intentions are.

The Senate inquiry into the CSTDA is currently underway and a number of witnesses expressed their grave concerns about the future of this program, including the Office of the Public Advocate in Victoria. The office’s submission said:

A serious problem in the operation of the CSTDA has been the neglect of the advocacy program.

                 …         …           …

The administering Department—

that is, FaCSIA—

has undertaken several reviews of the advocacy program during the life of the CSTDAs. ... The affected advocacy organisations have only been funded until the end of 2006. The current review will apparently result in a large scale reorganisation of the funded sector on the basis of the Department’s view about how advocacy should be organised and structured.

The Office of the Public Advocate in Victoria also said that they believe:

... that a vibrant community advocacy sector is vital to the achievement of the CSTDA vision and can make a critical contribution to service innovation and development. Community based advocacy is also an essential response to vulnerable individuals experiencing systemic disadvantage, discrimination and ill-treatment.

Additional concerns were raised by the National Ethnic Disability Alliance, whose representative said:

The advocacy system is actually under review at the moment. We have some concerns about the review and the push towards fewer advocacy services.

She also said that their four non-English-speaking background, NESB, specific services:

... are funded until the end of this year. We have not heard anything further as to whether their contracts will be extended beyond the end of this year, so there is a real fear, because the end of the year is fast approaching: what are you going to do with your staff and what are you going to do with your clients? The services are saying that they need to be accountable as employers and as service providers, yet so far they still do not know whether as of 1 January they are going to be able to open their doors.

Brain Injury Australia said that the current review of the National Disability Advocacy Program is a significant threat for people with an acquired brain injury. Their representative said:

With the current review and the fact that all disability advocacy providers were in receipt of a letter saying their funding is ceasing at the end of December, you can imagine small organisations trying to run their businesses and support individuals with whom they may be midstream while also having responsibilities to employees. We are already beginning to see a loss of some of the ABI specialist advocacy workforce ... This is happening at a time of implementation of Welfare to Work. The needs of people with an ABI are not understood in that system and in the systems that have been put in place by DEWR, Centrelink and DHS.

She also said:

The issue with us at the moment is that, as a funded advocacy service, we are awaiting the release of a paper which is now a month late. We have three months to go. Most of our services will need to close to clients within four weeks in order to allow us to wind up. We are actually in a situation at the moment where staff are leaving our agencies because they require security. We employed three people through our funding and two people are moving already. So we are losing that expertise. It is a critical issue. It cannot really wait for this process to go through because we will probably be gone by the time that is done.

She went on:

There seems to be little understanding that organisations are run and operated by committees of management, or boards of management, who have responsibilities. They have responsibilities to staff; they have responsibilities to the people they meet with. They cannot wait until the eleventh hour to make decisions about their future.

Instead of yet another consultation paper that requires yet another response by the end of October and then another response from the government, the Minister for Community Services needs to make a decision about the funding of these programs now. The minister is allowing these services to fail by attrition. This is one of the worst cases of mismanagement I have seen, and the people affected—people with disabilities; some of the most vulnerable people in Australia—deserve better.