Page 1891 - Week 06 - Thursday, 5 June 2014

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


The development of the legislation reform that captures such a breadth of services, safeguards and qualitative frameworks understandably engages a range of stakeholders across community and the government. Gaining the support of stakeholders and garnering their expertise was integral to shaping the bill and its subordinate instruments.

To this end, the government established a representative safeguards policy working group, comprising people with a disability, the Disability & Community Services Commissioner, the disability official visitor, members of the NDIS ACT Expert Panel, the National Disability Insurance Agency, National Disability Services and other key representatives.

Entrenching safeguards and quality standards in legislation offers people with a disability in the ACT assurance of the government’s commitment to maintaining safeguards in the delivery of disability services during this time of major reform. The absence of contractual arrangements with disability service providers makes this amendment even more important. The transition to a national safeguarding and quality assurance framework, once developed, will work to achieve national consistency. As the first jurisdiction to accept all eligible residents into the scheme, these amendments will support that effort by maintaining comprehensive safeguarding and quality assurance measures in the trial conditions that mirror the full scheme.

Let me say something in response to some of the comments by Mr Wall around the territory as a provider not being in the scope of this act. The territory is not in scope as a provider. This is consistent with the Disability Services Act 1991 as it currently stands, where the territory is not considered a provider.

The territory is, however, subject to significant oversight and rigour in its contact and conduct and as a provider of services. The ACT government as a provider is a public authority under the Human Rights Act and is subject to the oversight of the Disability & Community Services Commissioner, the Health Services Commissioner, the Human Rights Commissioner and the Discrimination Commissioner. The safeguard policy working group has recognised this and has noted that we are subject to the oversight of the ACT Auditor-General and a number of pieces of legislation and degrees of rigour far above the community sector.

From the director-general all the way down to staff members providing service to people with a disability, the government is subject to oversight and rigour, including, though it is not an exclusive list, the Privacy Act 1988, health records act, Public Sector Management Act 1994, working with vulnerable people act of 2011, Human Rights Act 2004, Children and Young People Act 2008, Official Visitor Act 2012, Financial Management Act 1996, Auditor-General Act 1996, public sector management ACT public service code of conduct of 2013, public sector management standards of 2006, Territory Records Act 2002, Discrimination Act 1991, Human Rights Commission Act 2005, Freedom of Information Act 1989 and Ombudsman Act 1989. They are just a few of the acts that are covered, Mr Wall.


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