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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1258 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

this challenge to them: let's see, at the end of your first three years, whether funding will have grown by 30 per cent, as it did under us in the last couple of years.

The issue of responding to the Gallop report is very important. When Mr Wood was talking about whether there should be an inquiry of this nature, whether it should go to the health committee or whether we should wait until the coroner's inquiry delivers its findings, the issue of urgency and immediate need was constantly raised. When in opposition, those opposite were saying that this had to happen "now" because it was about where people live "now". I find it interesting that they now think it okay to wait nine months before responding to the recommendations in the Gallop report. That says a couple of things.

Firstly, if we wait until September for the response and the consultation that will contribute to that response, how can we have meaningful additions in the coming budget that cannot therefore be considered ad hoc? That is a criticism they made of us in our last budget. Secondly, if we have to wait until December for the consultation and report to be delivered, how can money get into the budget that would meet the scope of the need that Gallop speaks about in his report?

I compare that to the way we responded when important reports were delivered-for instance, when the coroner's inquiry on the hospital implosion was delivered. We accepted those recommendations, many of which had already been met or were being met. We met them, we agreed to implement our responses as soon as we could and we set up a review process to make sure that actually happened. We did not wait nine months.

Indeed, when an inquiry was made on Friday 3 August last year into one of the deaths-which contributed to this inquiry-a number of recommendations were made. I will read from our responses to them, which were either under way or had been accepted and gotten under way in a very quick manner. Indeed, by 7 August-in the time from 3 August to 7 August-the then minister was able to say, "We accept what you've said. These are the bits that we're already doing, and this is what we'll do to implement the rest."

It is important that governments respond quickly and effectively and that they allay the community's fear. We have heard on the radio that workers in this industry believe the current government will sweep this under the carpet. It is the workers in the industry who are already saying that. As I said, I will read from the responses we made to the recommendations.

In response to recommendation 1-review to identify inappropriate work practices-the disability program has already introduced individual risk assessments for every client, which leads to the examination of work practices to address the identified risks. This investment-in relation to potential risk for clients and providing ongoing risk management training, education and support of staff in areas of client safety-was $180,000 per year.

Responding to recommendation 2-review of individual plans to ensure instructions are clear-the disability program has already commenced a project to improve the individual planning system to result in better-quality plans for individual service and also

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