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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 10 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 3189 ..

MS TUCKER (12.16): This is indeed a very important motion, because it will lead to a thorough and constructive look at the performance of the services for people with disability in residential care. The government claims that they are doing a good job and that this inquiry is unnecessary. This is clearly not the view of key people in the sector. People with disabilities, carers, guardians, advocates, members of the legal profession and service providers have all expressed grave concern to me and other members of this place. The terms of reference for this inquiry reflect these concerns.

Subparagraph (a), under the heading "Service Quality", deals with the basic issues of safety, wellbeing and dignity of people who reside in disability services. Recent tragedies have brought the adequacy of current administration in this crucial area seriously into question. People have died-and it cannot get worse than that.

Mr Moore claims this inquiry is a waste of money. That is not the view of those people whose loved ones have suffered under the current arrangements. The government would look more credible if they acknowledged the value of this inquiry and accepted responsibility for these significant failures. But, of course, as we know, this government will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid taking responsibility for its failures.

Subparagraph (b) is "Service Monitoring and Accountability". This is obviously a very important responsibility of government. We now have in place federal, state and territory legislation whose objectives are to eliminate discrimination and to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that people with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community. However, these worthy goals are empty of meaning and will not be realised if they are not supported with resources and accountable systems of management.

Subparagraph (c) of the motion covers consumer protection, complaints and appeals. This is a very important aspect of any system of quality assurance. I recall that in the original debate on this matter Mr Moore-and he mentioned it again today-claimed that this motion was a motion of no confidence in the health complaints commissioner. The terms of reference refer not only to the Community Services and Health Complaints Commission but also to the Community Advocate and Human Rights Office. Clearly, it is in the community's interests to look at the efficacy of such complaints mechanisms.

If Mr Moore and the government are so confident about their effectiveness, then Mr Moore has nothing to worry about. I would have thought he would be interested to know whether, and how, such offices could be improved. The issue has certainly been a consistent concern raised by almost all people who have contacted my office and other members' offices about this inquiry.

It is clearly quite inappropriate for Ken Patterson to be given the job of undertaking this inquiry, when one of the factors that have come out from the community and the various stakeholders I have mentioned is concern about the external complaints mechanisms. He clearly would be in a very inappropriate situation if he had to look at his own office. I am sure that, as a man of integrity and a person I respect immensely as an individual, he would not want to. But this is about looking at the structure of the office which he heads.

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