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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3691 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

an increase in suffering, even a crisis, will often not be enough to change a policy or shift a priority, let alone radically reorder a government's approach, particularly if that group, the group that is suffering, is not wealthy, well connected or in some other way likely to become a powerful force. That is what has happened in this case and that is why I have reconstructed this silent crisis into a political issue.

Members will recall that in August I began asking the Minister a series of questions in relation to the adequacy of policy and procedures for infection control in group houses for people with an intellectual disability. It was an extremely serious matter and one that I brought into the political realm only after personal approaches had failed to bring an adequate response. A Social Policy Committee inquiry and Ken Patterson's inquiry would not be able to deal with this matter as it was not included in their terms of reference. During this debate I became convinced that the Minister had a very poor understanding of the occupational health and safety issues in group houses. Not once during that period did the Minister acknowledge that a problem existed. Her responses were, frankly, fob-offs, while her advisers and senior bureaucrats constructed excuses and finally a conglomeration of paper cobbled together to try to show that an infection control policy had been developed thoughtfully and introduced with care and training. It was a disgraceful sham; it was totally unconvincing.

Along the way, blunt and clumsy attempts were made to silence staff and blame them for my criticisms of the poor state of the policy, the policy process and practice in this area. In fact, I did refer some of those implied intimidations to Mr Patterson. While this denial was occurring, policies were hurriedly put together, too hurriedly in the first instance. After I pointed out the obvious flaws, the first draft policy was withdrawn and then re-presented, with an opportunity for consultation with other players. Make no mistake; there was no effective infection control policy in operation in ACT group houses before I began raising concerns. If there is one now - and I say "if" because we are still getting a lot of concerns from people - then it is as a result of political pressure. More recently, through the budget discussions and through several very tragic events, public focus shifted to mental health. Mrs Carnell has reacted. It did not happen because this was a priority area for the Government, even though mental health is one of the greatest social challenges facing us; it happened because of political pressure.

A decision was also made by Mrs Carnell to locate the ADD Inc. detox unit in a vacant villa at Hennessy House. My concern was that the Minister did not wait to hear the views of the Social Policy Committee before making this decision. The inquiry into mental health services is obviously relevant. The committee has been contacted by people in the mental health community who believe Hennessy House should be further utilised for mental health services. Hennessy House is a purpose-built mental health facility and is highly regarded, even by the consultants Mrs Carnell employed; but, because of a shortage of funding, it has never been fully utilised, even though there is a waiting list. As chair of the committee, I wrote to Mrs Carnell expressing concerns about the decision. Mrs Carnell's written reply stated that, because of the Government's policy of "deinstitutionalisation", it was extremely unlikely that the unused cottages at Hennessy House would ever be used as accommodation for mental health clients.

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