Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2720 ..
MR MOORE (continuing):
permanent staff. It is a nationally recognised, one-year, certificate-level course based on a national competency framework. ACT Community Care provides ongoing training in all aspects of disability support, allied health discipline specific skills and knowledge, administration and management. Training is responsive to staff needs identified through the performance management approach.
Supervision: ACT Community Care's disability programs provide support to their staff at both an individual and a team level. Trainee disability support officers are rostered on shift with an experienced staff member. Where staff work in isolation, a team-based, quality-monitoring approach monitors outcomes. Quality audits are being introduced to ensure a full and consistent implementation of program-quality systems and procedures. I have to say that the introduction of those quality audits illustrates that work is constantly being done on trying to improve the way we do things.
Mr Speaker, I can talk about the tendering process, but I am conscious of the time. I would like to talk about complaints handling. I touched on it before in terms of the Community and Health Services Complaints Commissioner, but he is at the third level. All complaints are dealt with initially at the local level, where possible, to promote speedy resolution. If resolution cannot be achieved, they are then investigated by a senior officer and a report of the investigation is provided to the complainant to try to resolve the issue.
If that is not satisfactory, they go to the health complaints commissioner. By the way, anybody can always go directly to the Community and Health Services Complaints Commissioner. Since the establishment of the process in December 1997, the ACT Community Care disability program has managed 28 formal complaints, on average just over nine a year. The commissioner noted in his last annual report that the number of complaints in disability services was relatively low and that many of these complaints were related to gaps in service provision. I have conceded that there are gaps in service provision. That is what we are seeking to overcome and that is a matter for government and for the budget.
There is also the Office of the Community Advocate, whose role under its act is to foster the provision of services and facilities for persons with disability, to promote the protection of such persons from abuse and exploitation and to protect the rights of such persons. So we have two separate systems in place to try to deal with the issues that Mr Rugendyke is concerned about.
Mr Speaker, it seems to me that we do have the systems in place for constant improvement and we do have the systems in place to deal with complaints. What I would be very keen to do is to have Mr Rugendyke's motion passed now by the Assembly. If further concerns come out of this committee inquiry, let us talk then about having an independent inquiry.
MR WOOD
(11.36): I am going to extend the debate just a little from what has been said today just to explain something. In the space of one week I have been damned when I did and damned when I did not. That was compounded when what I was supposed to do and not do did not represent what I did. If you find that a bit confusing, so do I because that is how I am today. I do welcome the low-key approach that has been taken today and I will maintain that. I wish it had been maintained in the media as well. But
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .