Page 2780 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Government was placed in an extraordinarily difficult position by Barnardo's. Barnardo's said, "We will not continue our program unless you pay us the higher rate". That forced us into a position of either paying a higher rate to Barnardo's than is generally paid or saying to Barnardo's, "You must comply with the standard rates that everybody else complies with. We offer to review those rates to see whether they are unfair, to see how they compare with other jurisdictions; but we cannot bend to your demand that we effectively double the rate to one agency". That was the position the Government found itself in. It acted in the only way it could.
MS SZUTY (3.56): I would like to commence by commenting on a number of the issues that both Mr Cornwell and Mr Connolly have raised this afternoon. Firstly, I should place on the record that I do not endorse Mr Cornwell's comments about the funds needed for the establishment of the abortion clinic. I think that is a completely different issue from this current debate, and I certainly do not endorse the sentiments he expressed.
I was very interested in Mr Connolly's comments about the rates of payment for foster carers across Australia. That is all very well, but I think we fail to take into consideration the cost-effectiveness of paying foster carers as opposed to supporting residential care programs. That is the risk we run. If we reduce the rates to the extent where foster families are not prepared to take placements, we are in real difficulties in terms of the much higher costs that will need to be paid to support those teenagers in other environments. That is a very important consideration that we have to take on board.
Mr Connolly also said that he would be reviewing the arrangements over the next little while to ensure that our rates of payments continue to be in line with other States' rates. We must not forget that should the program suffer a downturn across the board, not only with Barnardo's but also with some of the other community agencies who are supporting teenagers with families, we run the risk of much higher expenditure in the ACT. I do not believe that that is cost-effective, and I think at this time we need to look very carefully at what organisations like Barnardo's are providing for their foster carers, to make sure that that level of support is maintained.
I wish to place on the record my support for the RAFT program as it has been established and conducted by Barnardo's in the ACT. There is no doubt that the program has provided many teenagers with the support they need because of their personal difficulties and dysfunctional family situations and has provided a number of Canberra families with the opportunity to contribute to the community in a unique way by becoming foster carers. RAFT now faces closure because of a lack of recognition of the need to adequately fund such programs. I agree with Mr Cornwell that a payment of $100 a week for a family supporting such teenagers across the board is probably not enough, and we need to consider seriously whether it would be more cost-effective to raise them across the board.
We know that for the past two years the Government has allocated $100 per placement per week for financial support for parents who take on the responsibility of caring for a teenager in the program. We know that in 1985, at the request of the then Welfare Branch, the Government subsidised Barnardo's between $220 and $240 per week for each adolescent in the program.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .