NSW — A DISPUTE
over operational funding has kept the million dollar
Nardy House respite care facility at Quaama closed and
unused despite a desperate need for the service it could
provide.
Completed in March 2005, the
facility represents a major commitment and capital outlay
by the Bega Valley community, the NSW government and
donor businesses.
Yet, despite this, in the NSW
government's recently announced $1 billion boost to
disability funding there is still no indication of any
money being allocated to the facility.
Nardy House committee chair, Denise
Redmond, said Nardy House had been constructed in its
current form because of an initial commitment by the NSW
government to provide recurrent funding for its
operation.
"It was designed to provide 24/7
level care for profoundly disabled clients yet despite
this, the only funding offered by the department to date
has been on a single grant basis for the provision of
short-term respite care for lesser need clients.
"This is completely unsatisfactory
as the building was not designed to accommodate people
with a lesser level of disability, either physical,
mental or both.
"The physical restrictions stem
from a lack of basic things such as handrails throughout
the building.
"They were not installed as they as
they are of no use to a profoundly disabled person.
"Also, due to the possibility of
occupational health and safety issues, its proximity to a
major highway makes it unsuitable for people with a
lesser physical and/or mental disabilities who are
relatively mobile," Denise said
The director general of the
Department of Ageing, Disability and Homecare (DADHC)
claims a recurrent funding offer of $400,000 has been
made by DADHC.
"It has not and there is nothing in
writing to support the claim.
"Even if it had been made, it costs
$420,000 to operate four beds for twenty weeks and we are
a six bed facility, so the offer is well short of what is
required.
"To provide the level of respite
care which the building was designed for requires
recurrent funding of about $980,000 funding per annum,
yet despite this we have received a letter from the
southern region manager, which is contradictory to the
Department's recurrent funding claim as it offers only
his version of what he wants, not recurrent funding," she
said.
Track Record Needed
The latest development in the
dispute involves service provision rights.
Mrs Redmond said the department has
stated that "a proven track record" is necessary for any
group seeking service delivery rights for Nardy House and
that tenders would be called for provision of the
service.
"This is not feasible as Nardy
House is governed by a Trust arrangement, which we
administer and as such we could not allow any tenderer to
use Nardy House without an appropriate cost being
applied.
This would make the operation far
more expensive for this tenderer than the rate at which
the Committee could run the service
"We were supposed to receive a
tender document specifically related to Nardy House on
April 24 yet despite several requests for details of the
department's service delivery requirements, to date we
have received nothing.
"The Department also contends that
it has been clear about its requirements. This is a
complete nonsense as its own correspondence indicates
that under the Disabilities Act no new service providers
could ever come on board because they would not have a
proven track record.
"In our case we are being mentored
by the Wollongong based CRAM Foundation which operates a
profound disability care facility in Wollongong, however
the department's idea of channelling all Nardy House
government funding through CRAM has been firmly rejected
by both CRAM and my committee.
"In the meantime a community asset
stands idle and people who desperately need assistance
are missing out."
