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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 681 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The Disability Reform Group had a clear view that there must be external auditing, which is extended to include the quality of services provided and compliance with legislation and standards. The DRG recommended that, in order to receive funding, service providers must demonstrate their capacity to provide responsible care; relate appropriately to service users and their families; provide services that support people in the community, based on best practice principles; assure people of the common sense necessities of home life; provide feasible safeguards for health, safety and physical security; manage administration, financial and legal obligations; and protect people from abuse, mistreatment, and neglect.

At recommendation 7(iv), the DRG recommended that external auditing of all disability services should be conducted by the proposed disability services improvement agency while responsibility for internal auditing of government-funded services would lie with Disability ACT.

The proposal for the disability services improvement agency is summarised at the end of the Disability Reform Group response to the Gallop recommendations. A full paper was produced, entitled "Consumer protection, complaints and appeals, service improvement, service monitoring, and advocacy in disability services"-by Roger West, August 2002. That is an important document for anyone interested in the whole question of the report to read.

It is in this area that I have the main concerns about the government response. The proposed independent disability services improvement agency is an essential requirement if we are to ensure the wellbeing and dignity of people with a disability. Previous attempts to monitor services have been inadequate-complaints mechanisms have been associated with a defensive, even punitive, response from the provider. It is very important to have complaints mechanisms situated in the context of service improvement.

Apart from the importance of complaints mechanisms being independent and accountable, and seen to be so, complaints need to be received as information which is welcomed and integrated into development of improved policies and programs-in other words, the culture of a learning organisation rather than a defensive one. This change will benefit providers and people using the services.

The question of how outcomes are assessed is also relevant. Outcomes must be determined in light of whether outcomes for individuals are achieved and sustained, not just outcomes related to safety and so on. The government, in its response to recommendation 28, acknowledges that the Disability Reform Group is stronger on the matter and says it will consider the matter further in the standards development project. This is again a critical issue for ensuring that services are, in fact, what people want and need.

Good access mechanisms are also very important in improving individual outcomes-a one-stop shop, or something like it, where a person can be helped to find what suits. This has always been a problem, and brokerage is not necessarily the way to do it. It needs to be about standing beside people, rather than doing for people. As I understand it, in other states there are local area coordinators who do this work. Perhaps the ACT is not big

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