Page 1889 - Week 06 - Thursday, 5 June 2014

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


It has been 13 years since the Disability Services Act was passed in the territory. The primary purpose of the act was to establish a system for the administration of funding for the providers of services to people with a disability. Up until now, that system has been contracts. Many in the community may be unaware of the complexities and the detail that currently exist in the contracts for the delivery of disability services. Much of this detail enables the administration of funding and monitoring of the delivery of those services; however, there is some critical detail that ensures that safeguards exist for people when they receive those services.

This bill is a complex and important piece of legislation reform. I recognise that sometimes the ease of understanding the value of measures is lost in the technicality. “Safeguards” and “quality frameworks” are not necessarily terms commonly bandied about in the community, but that does not minimise their significance. A safeguard is a measure taken to protect someone or something, to prevent something undesirable. This bill provides the community with assurance that they will be able to expect the same quality and safeguards from disability services that they currently enjoy. These include standards for specialist disability service provider staff and volunteers, compliance with relevant national quality standards, access to international independent avenues for the resolution of complaints, and an obligation to report critical incidents.

This bill establishes what and who constitutes a specialist disability service provider for the purposes of the act and allows for the approval of standards with which they are obliged to comply. It also amends the act to remove reliance on a funding relationship with the territory, to enable the disability official visitor to visit disability accommodation.

It is significant that the government can maintain key protections for people with a disability in the ACT by embedding them in legislation.

I will go to the key provisions in the bill.

Clause 5, new part 1, outlines what is a specialist disability service for the purpose of the act. It provides that services are in the scope of the act by virtue of the “type” of service that is provided and because the service is provided specifically for people with a disability. This is an important distinction between this bill and the act being amended, which defines providers on the basis of their funding relationship with the government. Service types that fall within the scope will be detailed in a disallowable instrument.

Clause 4, section 5, establishes that a specialist disability service provider is a person or an entity. It states that the territory is not considered a specialist disability service provider for the purpose of the act. It further states that where a close relative is engaged directly to provide services to a person with a disability, they are not considered to be a specialist disability service under the act.

Clause 5, section 5A, gives the minister the authority to approve standards with which specialist disability services must comply. These standards will be detailed in a disallowable instrument, as will quality standards applicable to each type of specialist disability service.


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