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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3275 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

The government's response to the recommendations is based on positions of the disability reform group, and that is very important. Where we have differed in our approach to the DRG, the government has clearly outlined its views on the DRG's position. In a number of other areas, we have agreed with the tenor of the board's recommendations, while approaching the implementation in a manner that better reflects the ACT's circumstances, resources and service systems.

For example, instead of the commission model for disability services proposed in the board's recommendations, we have established the Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services. The intent of establishing independence from the Health portfolio has been achieved without necessarily adopting the specific approach recommended by the board.

In developing our response to the board's report, we considered it essential to engage the community in its formulation. Through the disability reform group, established by the Chief Minister earlier this year, we have produced a response that is sensitive to the needs of the community. We will continue to work with the DRG and the permanent advisory body, soon to be established, during the reform period. Importantly, the DRG undertook community consultations in the development of its response to the board's report.

I am also pleased to table today the disability reform group's response to the report of the board of inquiry. The DRG's response represents a very significant body of work on the part of this committed group of people. It has worked tirelessly to consider, in depth, the complex issues addressed in the inquiry. Again, I thank the members of the DRG for the effort they put in and the quality of their work.

The six points of difference between the DRG and the government response relate to the implementation of a small number of recommendations, rather than to the direction or substance of the proposed reforms. The first point of difference between the government and the DRG concerns the function of the Disability Services Commissioner, to whom I referred earlier.

We do not disagree about the importance of strong and independent statutory oversighting to ensure that services are performed properly and are complying with standards. The DRG, though, believe that the commissioner should also receive and investigate complaints. They have attached a copy of their proposal in their response to the board's report. (Extension of time granted.)

Mr Speaker, you will recall that in the government response to the Reid review, the Chief Minister committed to a review of statutory oversight and community advocacy bodies. This review, being undertaken as a joint project by the departments of Disability, Housing and Community Service, Justice and Community Safety, and Health and Community Care, will take a number of months to complete. This review will assess, amongst other matters, where the management of disability services complaints is best placed. The DRG, existing statutory office holders and the community will all be involved in this review process.

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