Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 3176 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

for cleaning too much. I do not imagine they do it for fun and, if they are using the wrong concentration of the disinfectant, that is obviously a matter to be dealt with in the ongoing training sessions that Mrs Carnell claims occur regularly and the detail of which will not be available to me for 30 days now, even though it was a question without notice.

Mrs Carnell spoke passionately yesterday about how these are people's homes and not institutions, and how these people have the same rights as other people. I could not agree more. Staff and clients do have a right not to be exposed to unnecessary risk of illness. This is also a right. This means Disability Services has a responsibility to ensure that the individual needs of clients are met in regard to infection prevention. If staff have to deal with blood, faeces, semen, mucus or bodily fluids of clients, there is a risk of infection. Whether or not a place is a home or an institution is much more about the approach of staff, the culture, than about whether certain mechanical barriers are used in some circumstances to prevent infection. Is it not entirely reasonable that, if you are showering a fully grown person who has been hurt in some way and is bleeding or who has defecated on himself or herself, you have an apron and gloves, and protection for eyes if necessary, for splash protection. The relevant section in the practices manual implies that it is necessary now.

Most of the staff in Disability Services are extremely caring and some are working in very difficult situations. They do try to make a homelike atmosphere. Parents who have contacted me are mostly not at all critical of staff in the houses. They are very appreciative of their work and care, but they are not always so complimentary about management. Concerns of parents and staff have turned out to be quite similar. The Social Policy Committee is, of course, looking at the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement, and we have Mr Patterson's inquiry going on. I understand that parents are also meeting to discuss their concerns this month. Obviously, there are problems in the service.

Another issue that is of great concern to me is that last week a note was sent to all houses in Disability Services from senior management which said:

It was recently quoted in the Tuggeranong community newspaper "The Chronicle" that several staff have come forward to highlight certain matters of concern in relation to the operations of the Accommodation Support Service.

This is of great concern to me as it does not reflect well on the organisation and its staff when such allegations are reported in the press.

I would like to remind all staff that as public servants we all have to ensure the professionalism and integrity of the ACT Public Service. All staff have a responsibility to act appropriately in accordance with the Code of Ethics (Section 9 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994) which states the minimum acceptable standards of behaviour officers are expected to demonstrate in carrying out their roles.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .