Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to put on record the contents of a letter I have sent to the Hon. Sharman Stone, the Minister for Workforce Participation, concerning the plight of one of my constituents regarding problems he is experiencing following recently implemented coalition government policies:

Mr Pearce is 16 years old, and has acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. He applied to Centrelink for a disability support pension on 8 June, 2006. I have been advised of the following. Mrs Pearce, Matthew’s mother, has permission on Matthew’s file to act on his behalf concerning any Centrelink issues. Mrs Pearce was informed by Centrelink staff that they would have to wait eight weeks for an appointment for a work capacity assessment for Matthew. On Wednesday, 26 July Matthew was discharged from hospital in a wheelchair and with a gastro-nasal feeding tube. On the same day, the 26^th of July, Matthew received a letter from Advance Personnel Management, of 58 Ord St, West Perth, stating that he had to attend a work capacity assessment appointment on Thursday the 27^th of July at 10 am. The letter from APM was dated 25 July and stated that their office had been unable to contact Mr Pearce by phone or to arrange an appointment. On Thursday, 27 July Matthew and his mother arrived at APM for his appointment, only to find that there was no wheelchair access to the building. Matthew and Mrs Pearce only gained access after two policemen exiting the building came to their assistance and lifted Matthew’s wheelchair up the stairs. Mrs Pearce states that the APM staff were very apologetic and had not realised that Matthew was so ill. Apparently, they had not received all of Matthew’s files from Centrelink. They informed Mrs Pearce that if they had had all the information on Matthew’s case they could have done a work capacity assessment over the phone.

I find the treatment of Matthew and his mother incompetent and callous. I have no doubt that it is a result of ill-conceived government policy and policy implementation. The letter’s arrival date is more than just clerical error—it is a disgrace. Matthew had just left hospital and was given less than 24 hours to contact Centrelink if he could not make the appointment. Mrs Pearce felt she had no choice but to take Matthew to the appointment as she was concerned that failure to do so would further delay the process of Matthew’s DSP application. The letter also stated that Matthew’s application could be rejected if he did not attend the appointment. The day of the appointment was also very cold, wet and windy. It is of extreme concern that Matthew was forced to endure the elements with a significantly reduced immune system. The letter also states that ‘APM cannot contact the client’. As Matthew was in hospital, Mrs Pearce gave her contact details to Centrelink. She states that her mobile phone is always with her and is always switched on, so there is no reason why she could not be contacted to change the appointment. I have included a copy of the letter to Matthew under the dual letterhead of APM and Centrelink. There needs to be an urgent investigation into Matthew’s case and I would appreciate a response as soon as possible.

Finally, I am certain there will be more Centrelink clients with disabilities who will need to attend a work capacity assessment at APM. Can you please explain to me how they will gain access to a building that does not have disabled access? I received a response from the minister that said that it is not her problem; it is Joe Hockey’s problem. It is absolutely unacceptable, and it is time the government dealt with this extremely poor—

(Time expired)

See this speech in context