Legislative Council - Tuesday, 29 June 2010, Page 490

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:31): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill. My comments will be specifically about the work of the Public Service in relation to the Social Inclusion Unit. The Commissioner for Social Inclusion is Monsignor Cappo. This unit is located within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. In particular, I want to discuss the work that the unit will be doing over the coming months in relation to the review of disability services. I will remind honourable members of the establishment of that review, which was announced in a press release by the Hon. Jennifer Rankine on 10 December. I will quote a couple of excerpts of that release to explain what the review is meant to do. The press release states:

Ms Rankin e will also announce that Monsignor Ca p po has been asked by the state government to apply the Social Inclusion approach to disability services across government to develop a blueprint for long term reform across all government agencies in South Australia.

Later in the release it states:

'W e recognise that there is clearly more that needs to be done. That is why the Premier and I have asked the Social Inclusion Board to develop a blueprint for long term reform — to join up services between health, education and the Department for Families and Communities. '

I was gobsmacked by the announcement of that review. At the time, I was the Liberal spokesman for Disability Services. I was amazed that eight years into government, on the very eve of the next election, the government announced a reform of disability services. It was also four years after what it hailed as one of the greatest reforms of disability services in living memory, that was the reform that led to the establishment of Disability SA.

This council has made its view clear, in a strong motion against those reforms in 2008, that we believe those reforms are a failure. Four years after the Disability SA reforms, the government's response is to have another review with a view to even more reforms. I would put reforms in inverted commas.

What is particularly frustrating for people with a disability is the reporting time frame. The review, we are told, has a time frame of 18 months to report. Then, of course, the community will need to wait for a government response. I am reminded of Monsignor Cappo's recent comments in relation to the government's response to one of his earlier reports, the Breaking the Cycle report. That report particularly focused on young offenders. Monsignor Cappo said that he gave the government one out of 10 for its implementation of that report.

The disability sector is being asked to wait for 18 months for the report, and it cannot afford another 'one out of 10' report. My response at the time was to suggest that the government's announcement of that reform failed to appreciate the urgency of the situation. At that time, disability waiting lists had been published, first of all in November 2008 (it might have been December 2008) and again in June 2009.

At that time, we did not have the December 2009 stats; in fact, we did not even know they existed. We did not know that those statistics had been produced until last month—May. That is six months after the government had those stats. The government was willing to go to an election, announcing a review into disability services, which was announced in the very month that statistics were available in relation to unmet need for disability. Yet, in another example of the government failing to be full and frank with the community, those stats were not made available to the disability sector and the wider South Australian community until May this year.

In December, the government had stats which showed that there were 663 South Australians in category 1 of disability services unmet needs. I will remind members of what category 1 means. Category 1 in disability services speak means that the person's need for support is critical—they are homeless or at immediate or high risk of harm to themselves or others. This is not a waiting list of inconvenience. Often, if we are on a waiting list for health services, or any sort of services, the delay is a matter of inconvenience; but, for people on the critical category 1 list, the government itself recognises that the person's need to wait is putting them at immediate high risk of harm to themselves or others.

That was not a revelation. As I said, we had stats from November 2008 and June 2009 that showed not quite as scary but very concerning data in relation to unmet need. Even if the government had been full and frank with the South Australian community, we already knew that the disability services sector was in crisis.

So, what was the government's response? The government's response was to call for another public sector inquiry. What was the opposition's response? The opposition's response in the lead-up to the 2010 election was to give a commitment to clear the category 1 waiting list. In making this commitment, we had a team of people with budget and finance skills who calculated the cost of the commitment and identified a series of initiatives to fund the cost of providing additional services to meet this commitment.

We were planning to effectively deploy funding that had already been committed, including the $31 million committed in December 2009. We had plans to improve efficiency within disability services. We planned for greater impact for expenditure through individualised funding, improving the health disability interface, and, in addition to all that, a commitment of $10 million in extra funding. Our calculations were that it would take a lot more than $10 million additional funding to clear the category 1 list but that, with a range of strategies and an additional $10 million, it could be done. Our priority was action that was focused on outcomes. We knew, and we still know, the urgency of the situation faced by people with disability and those who support them. The government's response was another inquiry: our response was a commitment to outcomes.

Whilst the opposition anticipates a greater impact for expenditure through individualised funding, our costings did not rely on any financial savings from individualised funding. Unfortunately, as an opposition, our work—and, for that matter, the work of all members of the Legislative Council and the parliament—was made harder by a government that is not being full and frank about the unmet need and the spending required to meet it. The government had the December update and failed to provide it to the people of South Australia until May—six months later.

In relation to our commitment to outcomes, for us the key commitment was to clear the category 1 waiting list, not the $10 million commitment. Our commitment to clear the category 1 waiting list was not conditional on its being able to be achieved with an additional $10 million. We were not saying that we would clear the waiting list only if it cost no more than $10 million. I repeatedly said, with the authority of the Liberal team, that if we were not on track to reach our commitment to clear the category 1 waiting list we would adjust the strategy, and one option would be to increase funding to meet our commitment.

Labor, on the other hand, right through the election period and even up to this day, has made no commitment to clear the list. The government did not allocate a single additional dollar to address the list in the election campaign or make any commitments in relation to the crisis waiting lists. Its commitments to disability education were within the education department budget. Its commitment to disability equipment was beyond the unmet needs waiting list and is not prioritised for those in crisis needs.

It is my view that outcome-based commitments, such as our commitment to the crisis waiting lists, offer much more hope for people with disability than funding commitments alone. Whilst funding is necessary to deliver outcomes, insufficient or poorly targeted funding will not deliver outcomes, as we have seen over the past eight years of the Rann government. Outcome commitments will drive funding, and commitments by parties to outcomes are more transparent and the benefits more measurable than funding commitments.

Faced with a crisis, the opposition response was urgently to address the waiting list. On the other hand, faced with a crisis, the government's response was to call for another inquiry. The government's failure to appreciate the urgency of the situation is causing growing disquiet in the disability sector. I note that Disability Speaks issued a press release today with the headline 'Is it any wonder that parents harm their children?' I will read a portion of that release to the house. It is dated today, and it states:

Last Sunday, the Adelaide Sunday Mail ran a great story on the d isability waiting crisis in SA.

You know the waiting lists that the G overnment just hopes will go a way! With the official new data released just last month (after the state election ? ) the Dec 2008-Dec 2009 comparison makes horrific reading.

In just 12 months, SA Cat 1 critical waiting lists jumped from 525 clients to 663 or 26.2%.

Total clients awaiting disability services jumped from 2 173 to 2667 or 22.7% .

And the Dec 2009 major response of Premier Rann was to announce...yup, another inquiry?

Little wonder no one seems keen to support this Cappo inquiry unless crisis management in tervention is taken first!

I will repeat the last sentence of that press release:

Little wonder no one seems keen to support this Cappo inquiry unless crisis managem ent intervention is taken first!

I highlight that that statement reiterates the theme of my contribution, which is that the disability sector is becoming increasingly cynical about the government's inquiry, the Cappo inquiry, because it looks, first of all, to a response to the crisis. Our view is that reform is important but that, first and foremost, the government urgently needs to address the waiting list and that reform should go hand in hand with strategies to address urgent need. I urge the government to re-prioritise and, through this Supply Bill, and particularly through the next budget, to provide tangible outcomes to people with disability and not just postpone and play with their hopes.