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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3936 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

As Mr Moore pointed out, across Australia over $200m worth of unmet need has been identified in disability services. As a member of a government that attempts to meet unmet need in the ACT in this and other areas, I regret that fact. I hope this community, and in particular, this Government, can continue to address unmet need. It has to be a community decision through its government; through its elected representatives, to deal with those issues. It is not appropriate to transfer that decision-making power into the hands of the courts.

Mr Stefaniak: Talk about separation of the powers.

MR HUMPHRIES: Well, it did. It is an argument about separation of powers, as Mr Stefaniak has suggested. Who should decide what quality of service we deliver in the area of any part of government programs, any part of community programs? I would suggest that appropriately it is a decision for the community to make in the context of democratic processes. A party says, "We stand for more services for people in particular areas. Vote for us and we will deliver those services". People vote for that party and they get those services. That is the nature of the democratic process. That is the right way of going about improving quality of services.

This suggested way is the wrong way. Mr Stanhope's provision is the wrong way, I argue. It is also not what was the case before the Hill and Vella decision. I think Mr Stanhope has been saying, "I just want to correct the law to what it was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision in Hill and Vella". No, that is not what the legislation Mr Stanhope proposes actually does. He wants to create a new avenue of complaint and redress within the ACT which I believe did not exist in the ACT. So, it is wrong to argue that we are simply correcting a wrong comprehensively with this amendment of Mr Stanhope's, and that the Government's amendment does not go far enough.

This amendment of the Government's - subsections 1 and 2 of section 27 - restores a clear message, clouded since the decision in Hill and Vella, that people are not to suffer discrimination in the context of special needs programs in the ACT, unless you can argue that it is relevant to the provision of the service of that program. That is what the Government amendment does, Mr Speaker. I think it is a reasonable objective. I hope members will support that. I ask members to carefully consider whether there is a case for taking us to a new, unprecedented level of access to the courts through the amendment Mr Stanhope is moving tonight. That would be an unfortunate step. I believe we should not go down that path.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

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