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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3692 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

There were many things in the week that followed that letter which might have concerned me but which were, in the end, just irksome political noise - a media release in which Mrs Carnell's office headlined a shoddy misquote of a radio interview; a Chronicle article where her spokesperson twisted the facts shamefully; several references to the Government's wide consultation over the location of the detox unit, which were a totally irresponsible use of the term "consultation". However, it was the misuse of the concept of deinstitutionalisation that I found most disturbing. It was, for me, a profound indication that this Minister was refusing to address the problem. I have been to many, many meetings; I have been to a health conference on mental health. This whole discussion about how this concept of deinstitutionalisation has been used to justify inadequate services and cost-cutting comes up over and over again.

One constituent I spoke to recently told me about her son who has recently returned from Kenmore. She is no longer able to care for him; she is extremely fearful for his welfare; and she is very desperate. Hennessy House would be appropriate but, she has been told, there is no room and there is a waiting list. I can tell you that she is not too impressed to hear that the Chief Minister believes this facility is an institution, and therefore is inappropriate. "What is appropriate" - this mother asks - "to be homeless, to be in a refuge, to be in gaol, to be admitted to hospital in crisis because the support was not there?". The attempt to use deinstitutionalisation in this way followed a series of similar attempts to misuse important concepts during the debate on group houses.

These are cornerstone ideas that people have fought to make the underpinnings of policy for the just treatment of people with a mental illness or an intellectual disability. They are concepts that grew out of concern for human rights. During the debate on group houses for people with an intellectual disability, Mrs Carnell tried to justify inadequate arrangements for prevention of infection, at the same time as her bureaucrats were actually getting themselves up to scratch on the issue because they recognised it was important. Mrs Carnell said that the focusing on this issue of prevention of infection would violate the idea of the home; that these were people's homes. For the same reason, she then went on to invoke the concept of dignity of risk - an important idea about protecting a person's right to human experience, including the inherent dangers we all face. We are all very well aware of the concept of dignity of risk and why it is important. But to bring it up in the context of basic infection prevention procedures is absolutely unacceptable.

In her letter to the Social Policy Committee, the Minister attempted to justify not waiting for the report of the committee by saying that Hennessy House would not be utilised because of her policy of deinstitutionalisation. The fact was that the needs of people living with an intellectual disability and/or a mental illness and the concerns of their families, communities and carers had been at the bottom of the Health Minister's agenda. The result of her poor attention to these areas was that the cracks are now opening too fast and too wide to be covered up in the old ways; the complaints are too numerous to damp down; and the problems are beginning to overlap and compound. She had begun to cynically manipulate the key concepts in an attempt to cover this neglect and her decisions taken on the run. She then began to distort the truth. Again, I remind members of the approach that the Minister could have taken; that is, the open, consultative and accountable approach she had promised as a candidate. I do not hear her say that so much anymore.

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