The Consultation process

Purpose

The Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA) sought information about the needs of parents and immediate family planning for the future care and support of a person with disability. Information collated from this consultation process may be used by the Department to assist in developing future policy including identifying areas where further research may be required on the needs of carers.

Process

The consultation process was divided into two parts (submissions and consultation meetings). A Discussion Paper "Succession Planning for Carers" was made available on the FaCSIA website and advertisements were placed in major newspapers on 4 November 2006 requesting submissions from family members or groups by 15 December 2006. The Discussion Paper was also sent to all major disability and carer peak organisations who were asked to circulate the paper amongst their members.

In November and December 2006, consultations (focus groups and in-depth interviews) were also held in each capital city.

The purpose of the Discussion Paper and the consultation meetings were aligned but each process had a slightly different focus, resulting in a broad range of information being collected with some overlap between the two parts of the process.

Submissions in response to the Discussion Paper canvassed a diverse range of views on general issues and concerns but provided only a limited number of direct responses to the four questions posed. Less than a quarter of submissions (26) directly responded to the questions, with widely varying degrees of detail. The consultations involved more detailed discussion of the Special Disability Trust (SDT).

The Discussion Paper

The Discussion Paper referenced a number of government measures and highlighted some key issues for families in planning for the future. In particular it asked four questions:

• What prevents parents and families from planning for the future?
• What could be done to encourage private provisions within families?
• Are other informal arrangements or schemes needed to assist parents or carers who wish to provide for their child with a disability over time?
• Are there innovative models of accommodation that would assist parents and families make provisions for their child with disability?

Most (78%) of the 117 submissions received in response to the Discussion Paper and advertisements did not use the four questions to frame their responses; rather they raised general issues and concerns around being an ageing carer and planning for the future. Forty five submissions (38%) commented on the SDT and 23 submissions (19%) provided suggestions around the SDT.

A small number of submissions (13) made comments about the accessibility of the Discussion Paper and the timing for submissions. Most expressed concern about the relatively short timeframe for comments, the timing of comments being at the busiest time of the year (just prior to Christmas and school holidays); the limited advertising of the call for submissions; and that the Discussion Paper was only available on the Internet which some ageing carers noted they could not access or use. This may account for many family submissions addressing general issues only and not specifically the questions raised in the Discussion Paper.

Of the 117 submissions received, just over half (51%) came from family members, 29% came from advocacy or support groups and 16% came from service providers. The remainder came from government agencies (2%), University (1%) and unknown (1%).

Submissions were received from all states and territories with the exception of the Northern Territory. NSW provided around one-third of those received (30%) with WA (17%) and QLD and VIC (16% each) the next highest. The ACT provided 10%, which could be considered relatively high for its population base.

The Consultation Meetings

Invitees to the consultation meetings held in each capital city included individual carers, representatives from carer and disability organisations, state and territory governments, service providers, public trustees and advocacy and support groups. The program for the meetings consisted of an introduction by Ian Spicer AM, a presentation on the Special Disability Trust (SDT) by Allan Swan (of Moores Legal) and an opportunity for questions and answers on more general matters regarding succession planning.

A significant part of each consultation meeting was taken up by the presentation on the SDT: where it came from; what it did; how it fitted with other measures; and what it did not do. The presentation also provided information on All Needs Protective Trusts, will drafting, the Disability Support Pension (DSP) and the impact of the means test. As a result, much of the discussion at these consultations centred on understanding the details and potential implications of the SDT.