Page 91 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 7 December 2004
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
us begin as we mean to proceed, and establish a legislative scheme that will make a difference in the lives of people with a disability.
There are two other aspects of the government’s response to the FEMAG review that are cause for concern. The first of these is the rejection by the government of a FEMAG recommendation that a commissioner’s recommendation be enforceable by an appropriate tribunal if not implemented within a reasonable period.
The legislative reform working group of Disability ACT also advised the government of the need for a tribunal enforcement mechanism. The government’s response is to offer a shaming mechanism, whereby the Human Rights and Service Review Commission is given the power to publish the names of non-compliant organisations.
We accept that a commissioner should not be in the position of making determinations in the first instance. Organisations should have the opportunity to respond appropriately or perhaps even to find a better solution. But there are occasions when something stronger will be required to make an agency take action. The possibility of enforcement by a tribunal in itself has the effect of making it more likely that organisations will comply, without needing the intervention of that tribunal.
If the government is serious about establishing commissioners with the power to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our community have their needs met, then it should ensure that the work they do has some effect.
The other area of the government response to the FEMAG recommendations that gives cause for concern relates to the FEMAG recommendation that a process be instituted to develop principles and standards applicable to advocacy.
The government contends that this could be covered by the community engagement code of practice, which is currently under development. While this code of practice may deal with the issues relating to advocacy on a systemic level, it is unlikely, as I understand it, to make any useful comment on advocacy for individuals.
Individual advocacy requires quite different skills and expertise to those required for systemic advocacy. The principles and standards that should apply are also likely to be qualitatively different because individual advocacy occurs in relation to the issues and desires of a single person. It is important that these differences are not lost and that the expertise on advocacy developed at the national level is used as a starting point for a community discussion on these matters, as recommended by FEMAG.
In a time of majority government and a time where significant changes are occurring in the way vulnerable people in this territory are being supported, it is vital that the mechanisms for review and statutory oversight are robust and comprehensive. I urge the government to recognise that good governance requires the determined approach to accountability at all levels of government that strong independent statutory oversight agencies and well-conducted advocacy can provide.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services and Minister for Police and Emergency Services)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .