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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1206 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The commission, it argues, should not be under the scrutiny of the ACT Health and Community Care Services Board. Rather, it should be scrutinised by a new free-standing disability body of some sort.

It recommends, among other things, strategies to attract and retain good staff, which it emphasises are at a premium in the sector. It talks about the introduction of new programs for clients, but perhaps the essential recommendation, as far as clients are concerned, is the much wider use of individual support packages for those clients so that, in future, people are not required to take up a place in a group house or a service in a particular standardised form, but rather have the capacity to take a relatively portable sum of money to a service provider who suits their needs.

It deserves comment that that recommendation will be an expensive one to implement. Of course, ACT Disability Services provides services to a significant number of clients. The number of clients concerned is to some extent a function of the way in which the services are provided. It is arguable that, with a much higher standard of service provision and much greater flexibility, ACT Disability Services might attract other clients to take advantage of those arrangement.

In balance with that argument is the observation that, in many areas-including in disability programs-the ACT has been at the forefront of Australian practice for a long period of time. Many things that have been done in this territory were done here before they were done elsewhere, and many of the achievements that we have notched up in disability programs have been the result of intense negotiation and consultation with clients and partners in the service. They are achievements about which we can feel some pride, although, of course, the tenor of this report is rather one of concern about the lack of advancement and progress in the field of disability services, rather than pride in our achievements.

I think that all of us in this place will have spent time speaking to the families of disabled people. None of us will be insensitive to the fact that there is tremendous pressure on these people, and that the quality of life that their family members-disabled people-experience is a direct product of the amount of attention, and particularly the amount of money, which is devoted to them within this system.

I think it is fair to argue for an evolution in the quality and nature of support programs available in the ACT, and therefore I, and the Liberal Party in general, do not view with a sense of alarm the recommendations about the expenditure of greater amounts on disability programs in this territory.

In saying that, we do not underplay how much it might cost the territory to go down this path. However, we also acknowledge that the need for greater empowerment of the people concerned, and greater acknowledgment of the changes taking place elsewhere-which the territory may ignore at its peril-warrants an approach that puts the ACT again at the forefront of Australian practice.

It is important to be able to say we have done our best, with the resources available in this territory, to advance the position and the quality of life of people with a disability. The conclusion of the report notes, and I quote:

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