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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 208 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

and good management. For a government which prides itself on a businesslike approach to government, this is particularly surprising, as such unplanned responses are usually more expensive. Reactive and crisis-driven responses are particularly inappropriate in disability service provision because what comes before the crisis is often considerable suffering for the people concerned.

I have seen first-hand several such situations in the last few months, Mr Speaker, and I have been shocked and saddened. It is my belief, as I have said before in this place, that government's first responsibility must be to support those people in our community who are vulnerable and unable to manage without support. They may not be powerful political lobbyists, there may not be many votes in providing that support, and it may indeed be expensive; but it must be a prime responsibility of government.

This inquiry supports what has already been reported in other forums. We have indeed made considerable improvements in the overall recognition of the rights of people with a disability, but the practices are lagging behind not only the rhetoric but also the Commonwealth standards. Many people with a disability still do not have the same choices as others in the community. They are still discriminated against. Carers of people with a disability are not given adequate support or recognition, and governments continue to under-resource the area. There is still much work to be done.

Mrs Carnell has stated in this place that "disability services is, without doubt, the most difficult and the most sensitive area of service provision within the community today". I note that Mrs Carnell has also said this about mental health and sexual assault. There is a danger here that debate can be silenced because of so-called sensitivity. I remind members that, because for years these issues were regarded as so-called sensitive, they were brushed under the carpet and ignored and terrible injustices occurred. We must be able to discuss these issues and, yes, disagree on what are best ways to achieve desirable outcomes. Whether or not the issue is sensitive or difficult, there must be appropriate services. I can assure members that the consumers I have spoken to are not offended by public debate on the issues; they welcome it. What they are offended by is the lack of support and the lack of recognition of the difficulties they are experiencing. They are offended by grand statements from governments but little substance following.

I commend this report to the members. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the recommendations, as I believe they are very important for the improvement of delivery of services to people with a disability and those who support them. Obviously, negotiations with the Federal Government are critical to some of our recommendations. However, many are entirely within the power of the ACT to address. We have seen a number of reports in the last few years which have come to similar conclusions. These include the Dell report, the Yeatman report and, more recently, the Morgan report.

The committee is appreciative of the time and energy that participants gave to this inquiry, as we are aware that there have been numerous demands on these same people from other evaluative forums. I would also like to express my thanks to the other members of the committee - Mr Hird and Ms Reilly - because it has been a very long inquiry.

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