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

Today we have seen some very interesting events in this chamber, and we have seen, on a number of occasions, the government not bothering to turn up to explain why. However, I am happy to move my motion. I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 17 August 2006:

An examination of the funding and operation of the Commonwealth-State/Territory Disability Agreement (CSTDA), including:

(a)

an examination of the intent and effect of the three CSTDAs to date;

(b)

the appropriateness or otherwise of current Commonwealth/state/territory joint funding arrangements, including an analysis of levels of unmet needs and, in particular, the unmet need for accommodation services and support;

(c)

an examination of the ageing/disability interface with respect to health, aged care and other services, including the problems of jurisdictional overlap and inefficiency; and

(d)

an examination of alternative funding, jurisdiction and administrative arrangements, including relevant examples from overseas.

It is a timely reference for a number of reasons. As we know, the Commonwealth State/ Territory Disability Agreement is in its third iteration and we are now leading into negotiations for the fourth agreement. However, the CSTDA has, over time, been subject to a range of criticisms.

It has been criticised, and I think quite rightly, by people with disabilities. They regularly advise parliamentarians—some on the other side, I am sure—of the lack of clarity in the intent of the agreement and that it has changed over time. Because of those changes, people with disabilities and their advocacy organisations and services are unsure and unclear about what the detail of the agreement actually entails. People with disabilities say there is a lack of consistency in the application of the agreement, not only state to state but within states and territories. That needs scrutiny. That needs to be unravelled so we know why that is occurring.

Given the passage of the so-called Welfare to Work legislation last year, we are aware of the potential impact on the services delivered by the states and territories to people with disabilities. That needs clarification and understanding. We also know that people with disabilities are not involved in the negotiations between the states and territories and the Commonwealth. That has been the case for some time, but people with disabilities and their advocacy groups have much to say about what they think should occur through this agreement process. We also know that there is no portability of disability funding and support between the states and territories if people with disabilities want to move.

The big issue that is starting to get some understanding nationally is the interface between the ageing portfolio and the disability portfolio. People with disabilities are ageing. That is fantastic; that is wonderful. But what happens to a person with a disability as they age? We always end up with this dispute between the states and the Commonwealth: is the person a person with a disability and therefore should be state funded or is the person ageing and therefore should be supported through the federal government’s funding processes? Those are just some of the criticisms that I am sure the government has heard from people with disabilities, and that surely supports the idea that this inquiry is timely.

We have also received criticisms of the agreement from the states and territories. It has been said to me that the agreement has changed from its original intent. We can all remember back to the so-called negotiations for the third agreement when the minister at the time eventually got to an absolute stalemate with the states and territories and basically said, ‘There you go: take it or leave it.’ That was the state of negotiations at the time. This inquiry will give clarity to the way the Commonwealth and the states negotiate about people with disabilities and their services. This inquiry will give clarity to people with disability about what the intent is of both parties so that they can understand what will be delivered.

We have also seen criticism from the Commonwealth itself. The Australian National Audit Office recently undertook a performance audit of the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement. The report was, in my view, quite damning. They said that there was no monitoring of the effect of the expenditure that was delivered through the agreement. They said there were no systems available to collect data. There was no analysis of the unmet need—the need that was not being delivered through the CSTDA. They also said that there was a lack of coordination within Commonwealth departments about policy for people with disability. They said that the disability section of the Department of Family and Community Services had no ongoing relationship with the section that is devoted to housing. They had no ongoing relationship with the people in the transport department or in Health. And they particularly identified a lack of negotiation and coordination between the Department of Family and Community Services—especially the disability part of the department—and Indigenous affairs. In fact they noted that back in the nineties there was some sort of notion that we would have a committee between Indigenous affairs and the disability sector, and that committee has never met.

So we have had criticisms of this agreement from all sources. That is why having this inquiry at this time is particularly timely. The Community Affairs References Committee is very close to completing the inquiry into toxic dust. There are no more hearings required for that inquiry and so, to all intents and purposes, that inquiry has completed its task and it is simply a matter of writing up the report. They have another ongoing inquiry into petrol sniffing. There are some hearings but, by and large, that inquiry is well and truly on track and will report in the middle of the year. There is no expectation from the committee of a heavy hearing schedule for any other inquiry. There is no further reference on the agenda. The committee cannot say that they have got too much work to do—as we have heard in the past, quite legitimately. There are times when the Senate provides references to committees that have too much to do, but that certainly is not the case in this instance.

This reference is supported by many agencies and many advocacy services. It is actually supported by people with disabilities themselves. In the correspondence I received from those sorts of people and organisations following the government’s refusal to adopt this reference late last year, they expressed their astonishment. They support the idea of this inquiry in the lead-up to the fourth negotiations. They support the idea that it is timely.

I am not going to speculate as to why the government is not going to support this reference. It is up to the government senators to explain why this reference cannot be supported. But I will be very interested to hear what they have to say. Going on what happened here earlier today, they may not come and tell us what is wrong with this inquiry. We did not get any government response to why they did not support the inquiry into aviation. The government did not bother telling us why they could not support an inquiry into immigration. But let us get them to change their pattern. Let us see whether someone from the government has got something to say about why this inquiry cannot be supported today. I will wait for that explanation and I will have a listen to it. I will finish my remarks during my right of reply.