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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3932 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

7. People with disabilities have the same rights as other members of society to receive services in a manner which results in least restriction of their rights and opportunities.

Schedule 2 sets out "requirements to be complied with in relation to the design and implementation of programs and services relating to people with disabilities". These include:

Other provisions of schedule 2 ensure that people with disabilities have access to advocacy support, can participate adequately in decision-making about the services they receive, and ensure that they are provided with opportunities for consultation in relation to the development of major policy and program changes. Mr Humphries' amendment to section 27 will in many cases disadvantage and discriminate against already disadvantaged "classes of persons in our community" by denying them or lessening them a right available to the broader community.

The schedules I have just referred to from the Disability Services Act are there to set standards. Where is the redress? Where is the place or the channel, if we support Mr Humphries' amendment, for them to challenge how services are actually being provided in the ACT? If we support this amendment, I believe it would seriously diminish the ability of redress for this group of people.

Listening to Mr Moore's arguments - and it is consistent with the arguments that were given by the official who gave us a briefing on this matter - it seems basically about resourcing. I noted some of his comments. He referred to the fact that we have increased the wellbeing of people with a disability because we no longer have them institutionalised and they are in group homes instead.

I immediately recalled many of the submissions I received when we did the Social Policy Committee inquiry into the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement. The point was made many times that a group home can be an institution. It is obviously about how you live in that group home and how you are treated and what choices you have. That goes to the core of this debate tonight.

As has already been mentioned by Mr Stanhope, the question of the right to have a say in whether you have your one room turned into a bedroom or not; or a particular person living with you, is obviously an issue that is significant for people in any class.

Mr Moore: It tends to exclude somebody else and they have nothing.

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