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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3933 ..

MS TUCKER: I think Mr Moore is interjecting to confirm that this will mean fewer people will be able to access the group homes. But it is a bit of a circle, is it not? If you turn the group homes into places where people do not have choices, you might as well have an institution. If you take the Government's argument that because of resourcing issues we have to undermine the rights of people with a disability, then what are we gaining? What are we gaining here in terms of rights of people with a disability and living conditions for people with a disability - all the things outlined in schedules to the Disability Services Act of which we are so proud?

People in Australia were so proud to see those standards finally in place. All Mr Stanhope's amendment is doing is allowing a redress; a channel to question if people with a disability think those standards have been seriously undermined. There is an area of defence - the justifiable hardship clause - which service providers can use. A defence is there, but the Government seems to be so intent on stopping complaints that they are seriously undermining hard-won rights. According to the Government, it seems supporting, defending, reinforcing the rights of those with disabilities is a luxury this community cannot afford. This is a very disturbing view.

In the briefing, reference was also made to recent decisions in the courts in Victoria, selectively and incorrectly interpreted. She was arguing that these decisions support the amendment by the Government. In one case the Victorian courts ruled that a decision by a service provider about to whom it can provide a service is not discriminatory when faced with two clients seeking the same service. The court found that neither client had a right to expect favourable or unfavourable treatment and that it was appropriate for a service provider with limited resources to decide to give priority of one client over another. The issue there is really about whether there was an expectation that one of those people would be treated differently. The power of service providers to make decisions about whom they provide services to will not be affected by Mr Stanhope's amendment, so long as their decisions are based on relevant criteria related to delivery of special needs services.

The Greens will support Jon Stanhope's amendment to section 27. We believe this amendment protects the special nature of services intended for members of a relevant class of persons. His amendment also ensures that section 27 cannot be interpreted so that discrimination against a member of a relevant class of people is allowable, acceptable and legal in the delivery of special services or programs.

Another comment Mr Moore made was about advocacy. He seemed to suggest that advocacy groups should not be given as much credence, because they are advocating for individuals. That is not my experience. It is clear that advocacy groups, while they may have a function for individual advocacy, are very strong voices for system reform. There is certainly user experience with individuals to highlight problems in the system. Right now the Federal Government is attempting to undermine the role of advocacy by forbidding advocacy groups to be advocates for the system. They will be confined to individual advocacy. This is of grave concern to advocacy groups around Australia who see their role through their experience with individuals definitely as being advocates for the system, system flaws and so on. Mr Moore is incorrect in saying we should not give advocacy groups credence for having an overview of the whole system, because they

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