Disability services in Western Australia 

This article states the law of Western Australia. The Disability Services Act 1993 (WA) is organised around ten principles in Schedule 1, and those principles are not decoration: the Schedule's own note records that they are applied by ss 12, 23, 24, 28, 40 and 57 of the Act¹. The prior question is which operative provision brings a principle to bear, because the principles do not stand alone.

The ten principles

Schedule 1 states that people with disability:

1. are individuals with the inherent right to respect for their human worth and dignity without discrimination and with equality of opportunity;
2. have, whatever the origin, nature, type or degree of disability, the same human rights as other members of society and should be enabled to exercise them;
3. have the same right to realise their individual capacities for physical, social, emotional, intellectual, cultural and spiritual development;
4. have the same right to access services that support their choices, assist them to be as independent as possible and enable participation in all aspects of life;
5. have the same right to participate in, direct and implement the decisions that affect their lives;
6. have the same right to receive services in a manner that respects and protects their rights and opportunities and is the least restrictive option in the circumstances;
7. have the right to pursue any grievance concerning services;
8. have the right to access the type of services and supports they believe are most appropriate to meet their needs;
9. who reside in country areas have a right, as far as is reasonable to expect, to access similar services to those provided in the metropolitan area; and
10. have the right to an environment free from neglect, abuse, violence, intimidation and exploitation.

Four principles worth naming

Principle 5 goes beyond participation to direct and implement. It is not a consultation principle; it contemplates the person leading the decision and carrying it out.

Principle 6 imports the least restrictive standard into service delivery. The same idea appears in the WA guardianship Act at s 4(4)–(6), but there it constrains a tribunal's orders; here it governs how a service is provided day to day. A student should keep the two uses distinct.

Principle 8 is framed subjectively — the services the person believes are most appropriate. That wording places the person's own assessment at the centre rather than a professional judgement of need.

Principle 9 is a geographic equity principle. It is qualified — "as far as is reasonable to expect" — but it is expressed as a right, and in a State of Western Australia's size it does real work.

Where the principles bite

Schedule 1 is headed with a note listing ss 12, 23, 24, 28, 40 and 57. Those provisions attach the principles to particular functions: the text read includes requirements that a body further the principles, and that a grant will further them, with a further provision about steps to ensure they are furthered by a date.

The practical consequence is that a principle is argued through an operative section. An answer that cites Schedule 1 alone, without identifying the section that applies it to the decision or funding in question, has not connected the principle to any legal consequence.

Section 4 is separately headed "Legal proceedings to enforce provision of a service", which indicates the Act addresses enforceability directly rather than leaving it implied.

Three State models after the NDIS

The State disability statutes now diverge sharply:

• Western Australia retains a principles-and-funding statute, with Schedule 1 applied through named operative sections.
• New South Wales retains planning obligations on public authorities and contains no restrictive practices provisions at all.
• Victoria built an integrated State regulator with registration, standards, a worker exclusion scheme and supported residential services.
• Queensland keeps substantive restrictive practice conditions in its disability statute while routing consent through the guardianship Act.

Each answers the same post-NDIS question — what is left for the State to do — differently. A student must read the particular State's Act rather than assuming a national pattern.

Applying this in a problem question

1. Identify the decision, funding or service in issue, then find the operative section that applies Schedule 1 to it.
2. Cite the principle by number together with that section; the principle alone carries no consequence.
3. Where restriction is in issue, apply principle 6 as a service-delivery standard, distinct from the guardianship Act's constraints on orders.
4. Where the person's own view of appropriate services is displaced, argue principle 8 in its subjective terms.
5. In a regional matter, consider principle 9 and its "as far as is reasonable to expect" qualification.
6. For provider regulation of an NDIS provider, go to the Commonwealth scheme; this Act does not supply it.

Self-check

• Have I linked the principle to an operative section?
• Have I kept principle 6 distinct from the guardianship least-restrictive provisions?
• Have I stated principle 8 subjectively?
• Have I avoided assuming another State's disability model applies here?