Page 2498 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 August 2007

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


While most people in the field would believe that they do, or that they hope to, treat people with courtesy and respect, it just does not always happen. Furthermore, individuals need to put their case strongly if they are to get the support that they hope for and need. These two goals, courtesy and respect and putting your case, often conflict. That highlights the importance of advocacy bodies taking up the case for individuals and pursuing systemic issues.

The newer arrangements in regard to housing, both in the SAAP sector and inside Housing ACT, only highlight that need. Perhaps problems of conflict and lack of courtesy and respect are now being diverted from individual constituents to community organisations, rather than being addressed. It is better if conflict is tackled wherever it occurs, rather than being displaced.

There is the overarching issue of the disability reform project, which has been in train for several years. While it was driven by chaotic events in government-managed disability group houses, the subsequent inquiries and reports set up a reform process running right across the government in community sectors. Out of that process came Future directions: a framework for the ACT 2004-08, which has provided the policy framework for the sector ever since then.

This March, the department commissioned a mid-term evaluation of the framework by Dr Michael Kendrick—although 2007 it is not quite mid-term, is it? Dr Michael Kendrick, who is a respected international practitioner in the disability area, worked on that report from March to May in 2007. He engaged a number of nationally regarded specialists to work with him on the evaluation, which looked at the adequacies of current projects, the gaps or oversights that needed to be addressed and whether the existing model does in fact provide an appropriate level of community engagement and consultation.

I find no mention in the budget paper of the findings of that review or of any process to implement those findings when they come forward. The existing priority in the budget simply restates the government’s commitment to work with community and business groups within the framework. I am asking the government to commit to releasing the Kendrick evaluation. It is profoundly important that service providers who work within the framework get to see and respond to the evaluation that they have contributed to and are full partners in designing and delivering the implementation of improvements and changes that flow from it.

The strategy ends in 2008 and we need to know what is going to happen next. The Kendrick report will have made recommendations. Is the government taking them up? Will there be more community consultation on what happens after 2008? The time for discussing that is right now.

I would also like to take this debate as an opportunity to raise the issue of social employment and disability. There is a small amount of this in the ACT already, and Mrs Burke has already touched upon the difficulties experienced by people with a disability in finding employment. I think this is something that could certainly be explored further.


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