After listening to David Davis and reading the opposition’s motion, at first
glance one could be misled into believing that the Brumby government does not
care and that at best the Brumby government is somewhat tardy when it comes to
the most vulnerable people in the community, but I will just deal with the
facts.
These are the facts: the Brumby government has increased
funding in disability services, including supported accommodation, by 87 per
cent since 1999. It is not my intention to go through each and every program
that the government has initiated during that period. Over 6500 beds are
provided in nearly 200 facilities across Victoria in supported
residential services. It is important to note that they are privately owned and
operated.
The Brumby government has made an unprecedented commitment to
support pension-level supported residential services, allocating $40 million
over five years in the Supporting Accommodation for Vulnerable Victorians
Initiative, known as the SAVVI program. This was designed to make the sector
more viable, improve accommodation care and identify gaps in services. The
government sees this as an important way of ensuring the viability of this
important service.
In addition it has been important to be vigilant in the
monitoring of standards of supported residential services (SRSs) to make sure
they are up to scratch and that the sector is regulated by the Health Services
Act 1988.
In saying this I am indicating that there are mechanisms
currently in place, contrary to the impression the opposition has given tonight,
that there is no monitoring or regulation. However, we are not saying that this
is all that needs to be done, as a lot of work needs to be done in this area.
That work started in 1999.
As recently as this Parliament, the government has recognised
the growing importance, awareness and trend of mental illness to the extent that
we now have the first Minister for Mental Health in this state. That position
enables government to more clearly focus on, identify and work towards resolving
a whole range of issues not just in terms of what we currently have but with
forward trends that affect people regardless of gender, age and cultural
diversity.
In addition the community visitor program that the Greens
speaker mentioned was introduced.
The government sees this as a very important part of the
complement of ways it goes about handling some of these issues. For the record
and for those who are not aware, the program is administered by the Office of
the Public Advocate, and it provides volunteers with visiting facilities on a
regular basis. As a government we rely on that program to provide us with input
and comment on how it is finding the system, and we acknowledge that it plays an
incredibly important role in visiting the people who are in care.
However, as I said, there is always much more to be done,
particularly in this sector, and we need to continue to adjust our approach to
ensure that residents of SRSs continue to have decent and safe accommodation.
That is why last year the Brumby government announced an intention to review the
regulations monitoring SRSs. It is not as if these sorts of things are not
looked at or there is no intention or somehow there is a blind eye.
In fact the government is very committed to ensuring that the
most vulnerable in our society have their needs met.
That has been done in a number of ways, and we have had a good
start. In the last three years some innovative models have been put in place by
the Department of Human Services. The Rooming House Plus program, established in
2006, provides housing for people with complex needs due to mental illness,
disability or challenging behaviour. The support component is jointly funded by
the aged care and mental health branches. The Office of Housing funds the
tenancy management. In recent times we have learnt a lot more about the Mental
Health Pathways program, of which the Minister for Mental Health in the other
place, Lisa Neville, has been a keen advocate. The program was expanded in
2006-07 by over $1 million. The Integrated Rehabilitation and Recovery Care
Service commenced in 2007 and was developed to support the transition of people
from secure extended care to community care units into the community.
As I mentioned in my introduction, it is not my intention
tonight to go through each and every program; a number of speakers on the
government side wish to speak on this and will be doing so. But going back to my
original comment, I almost find it unbelievable that the Liberals, given the
facts that I have just outlined, are now dressing up this issue and saying,
essentially, that they are the vanguard to rally behind this issue. The reality
is that they defunded disability support agencies and silenced the voices of
disability advocates. The Kennett government’s attitude and actions towards
disability services and organisations, quite clearly, will not be forgotten by
those directly involved with family members. It is a fact that there was a cut
of 10 per cent of the budget across the board in community services in Victoria.
The Liberals defunded the advocacy services, and in 1997, 14 disability advocacy
centres were closed. There were massive cuts to the training budget, which meant
that we had untrained workers in the area who were working very closely with
people with disabilities.
We as a government have tried to turn that around, not just in
terms of an injection of funding but also in terms of programs such as the
Victorian Industry Development Plan, which attempts to assist people to rebuild
their lives and make entries into the workforce. I could take members of the
house through the five key areas of that plan, but in terms of headings the
focus is on creating individualised support responses, workforce planning and
development, increasing community awareness and valuing diversity, community strengthening through partnerships, and
industry governance, management, planning and investments. Two advisory groups
have been set up — namely, the consumer advisory group and the industry
advisory group.
We have brought about a whole range of campaigns such as Bar
None that are quite instructive in getting not just those who are directly
involved but those who are in support services and others in the community to
understand that all people need to be included in society. We are not just
talking about inclusive programs and procedures, but actually demonstrating that
and putting them into play. That needs to be applauded and embraced like a whole
range of other community-funded and functioning programs.
For the record I would like people to understand that it is all
very well for the opposition to come in here and place this motion on the books,
but the reality is that when the Liberal Party was in government it went out of
its way to dismantle the whole disability services program, including the
advocacy program.
Leaving that to one side — and I could go on and do some
point-scoring; I am not going to go into who said what, whether Ms Wooldridge,
the member for Doncaster in the other place, said this and who said that — it
is sad, however, and it should be said that there were lots of efforts from the
government for this to be a bipartisan approach. When it comes to the most
vulnerable in society, a bipartisan approach is the only way to go. However, the
reality is that we have in front of us a motion from the opposition, and we also
know of another motion that was passed in the Assembly this afternoon.
There are two elements of both of those terms of reference that
I will be particularly encouraged to see explored by the parliamentary committee
— that is, the issues that give rise to an investigation on the access and
service issues for particular groups, including rural communities, culturally
and linguistically diverse communities and indigenous Australians. Whilst we
know that we are talking about the most vulnerable, we are now also talking
about the most vulnerable of the vulnerable within that grouping. Also I think
the reference about the impact on families of the current service provisions of
accommodation will be a very thought-provoking and enlightening exercise for all
members and people involved in the committee.
We can talk about what the committee might do in the future,
but the reality for all the parties here is that the test of our mettle will be
the ability of our party representatives on that committee to work in a
bipartisan way that actually looks at a whole range of issues, to work in a way
that is not dictated or determined by brutal political manoeuvring and cheap
political point-scoring.