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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 682 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

enough for this, but we can develop our own model. The importance of this approach cannot be underestimated. I look forward to seeing a positive commitment from the government to progress the work.

The discussion of service monitoring and complaints mechanisms has resulted in the government initiating a broad review of complaints mechanisms in the ACT, covering all community services. This is very welcome and long overdue. With some of them there are duplications, jurisdictional conflicts, serious gaps, and questionable effectiveness of.

While I do welcome this review, and have been raising the need for it for some time, I have had to raise concerns about the lack of consultation in development of the terms of reference. The government did open up the process considerably, and I commend it for that. I have also raised concerns about the process of selecting a consultant to do the work. It is regrettable that the government has refused to allow community membership on the selection panel. If the community is not happy with the consultancy, a very important opportunity for collaborative work to occur will be lost.

Obviously people were not happy with the imposition of Justice Gallop to run the independent inquiry. Concerns were expressed that a person was needed who would not rely on a legalistic process-and those concerns were shown to be well founded.

As I said before, the bureaucracy and government do not need to be afraid of community input. It will improve the process and outcomes for everyone. It is about collaboration and genuine dialogue. I understand there will be a community reference panel to work with the consultant, but I would like confirmation of this fact-today if possible-from Minister Wood. (Extension of time granted.)

Another very important thing that has come out of this whole process is the acknowledgement that the group home model should be seen as only one option and that there should be different options tried and evaluated. If we are to see innovation and new service models developed, there has to be ongoing funding and support for new models to be tried. The allocation of $350,000 over three years will allow some of this work to occur. As I understand it, it is envisaged that the money will support small projects for individuals.

It is not clear whether there will be opportunities for organisations to try new approaches, which would be good. It is a positive move by government to have any support for innovation, though, as the public service is often risk averse. The amount allocated is very small, however, and I hope to see greater funding in the future for this important work.

Related to this is the role of non-government providers and, in particular, the need to fully fund them for care of clients. Fair pricing is essential if people with a disability are to have choice.

The situation arises where a provider is not able to continue support of a client when their needs become higher. The person's life is then disrupted. They have to go to the disability program, where the cost is much higher than if they had stayed where they were but were reasonably funded. As I understand it, Bill Wood did commit to funding

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