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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 10 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 3190 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

As we have said in this place many times before, there is also the consistent claim from people who are involved that complaints within the service are not welcomed and in fact are a punishable offence. This is of course denied by government and officials. However, what we can say with absolute certainty is that the perception is there that this is the case.

I understand that the minister at the time suggested to people that this inquiry would be funded from the disability program budget, implying that services would be affected. If that is true-and I sincerely hope it is not and I sincerely hope the minister refutes that he would have said that and will deny that-then it is obviously seen as a threat to the quality of services. That is how people took that, whether or not he said it. As I said, I hope he did not, because it is a totally unacceptable threat.

Another rumour that spread through the service from I have no idea where was that the agenda of this inquiry was to dismantle the government provider-obviously an alarming thought for those employed in the sector and for those who are dependent on it. As I said at the beginning, this is a very important and constructive opportunity to look at the performance of the services for people with disability. It is not about changing the provider or government policy.

I had to spend a considerable amount of time with one person who was very distressed at having heard this rumour. She thought her house was going to be closed down. She thought that was because on a previous occasion, even before this inquiry was mooted, she claimed-and others supported this claim-that the minister at the time, the Chief Minister, implied that if they did not stop making the fuss their houses would be closed down. This was extremely traumatic for this person, who regarded the people she lived with as family, and she was very distressed. People need to realise the impact on the individuals concerned when people make these kinds of empty claims.

Subparagraph (d) covers resource allocation, looking at adequacy, equity and efficiency of funding allocation. This is very important, because it deals with effectiveness of the use of public money. The government and the previous minister continually explained that the Commonwealth is negligent in its funding of disability services. I do not disagree with that. However, the bottom line is not the amount of dollars. The bottom line is that this government is responsible to ensure that vulnerable members of our community are properly acknowledged and supported. If the federals are failing in the area of resourcing, we have to pick up the tab. It is not negotiable. It is the basic responsibility of government to ensure that those people in our community who are vulnerable are properly supported.

As Mr Rugendyke said, we have recommended that Professor Roger West conduct the inquiry. Professor West was suggested to us by several different groups of people. It was very interesting to me that his name kept popping up. He is currently a visiting professor of law at Newcastle University. He is also a lawyer, consultant and mediator specialising in public interest and human rights law, particularly as they affect people with disabilities, elderly people, children and young people, and indigenous Australians.

His interest is in ways of improving the social impacts of laws, policies, practices and ethics of both public and private organisations. This includes effective consumer consultation and participation processes, dispute avoidance and resolution mechanisms, and complaints and appeals systems. He is an experienced lawyer and he also held

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