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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3276 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

The second point of difference between the government and the DRG concerns the administrative location of the centralised service access arrangements. The board of inquiry recommended that a centralised service access mechanism be established to assess all people with disabilities, and subsequently assist in identifying options best suited to individual needs. The DRG has suggested that there should be further investigation and consultation on the appropriate service access model and provider. The government believes that in the first instance such a service should be located within government. We do not, however, disagree on the fundamental need to establish such a service.

The third point of difference concerns the board's recommendation that non-government organisations receive a greater proportion of the disability budget allocation. The DRG has proposed a budget time line for allocating new funding towards existing clients in non-government accommodation services. However, the government considers that, if this recommendation were adopted, all new growth funds would be consumed by existing clients, leaving no funds to meet the needs of new clients. The government recognises that the non-government sector will undertake more activity in providing care options. The government has proposed that, in the context of future budget deliberations, the issue be addressed by focusing on reforms that deliver consumer choice and innovative service models.

The fourth point of difference relates to the board's recommendation to reduce the disability program into a number of smaller service units. The DRG would like the disability program to limit the number of new clients to those who meet certain criteria. The government is currently reviewing the role of the disability program and is assessing whether it should continue to provide the same range of services, or whether some would be placed better elsewhere. I can assure families that, while various options are being considered, vacancies in the disability program will continue to be filled.

The fifth point of difference is in regard to arrangements for appointing the Community Advocate. The board of inquiry recommended that future appointments be for a period of seven years only. The DRG disagrees with this recommendation, suggesting that the position be publicly advertised every five years, and at the end of the current appointment. The government believes that all statutory officers should be treated equally and appointments will continue to be made in the same manner as is presently the case.

The final point of difference between the government and the DRG relates to the board's recommendation that the head of Disability ACT be a statutory office holder, able to exercise legislative power in support of people with disabilities. The DRG recommends amendments to the Disability Services Act to provide the head of Disability ACT with statutory powers.

These powers would include ensuring a whole-of-government approach, policy development, a person-centred focus, and responsibilities for funding, service provision and quality assurance across the sector. The government will make the executive director of Disability ACT and the chief executive of the department accountable for these matters by way of their administrative responsibilities and performance agreements. It is therefore unnecessary to create these powers in legislation. We do not regard these

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