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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3696 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I am sure Mrs Carnell has been very clever in making sure she has never quite overstepped the mark; but, quite frankly, I am fed up. I am sure other members are fed up as well with your being that little bit too clever, Mrs Carnell; providing contradictory information to give an exaggerated, if not distorted, picture. The whole point should be about whether the money is adequate for the services we need.

I think it is shameful that a Minister can use figures in such a headline way when there is no accountability to the Assembly or the committees. We are never going to get accountability and openness if we do not challenge the validity of this sort of information. I also want to remind members that it was Mrs Carnell who, in opposition, said in the Assembly that on mental health generally we spend some 40 per cent less than some other States do.

Mr Humphries: We did, and that is why we have increased spending on mental health.

MS TUCKER: Not up to 40 per cent, Mr Humphries. Yet, apparently, from her statement yesterday, she is pretty satisfied that the resourcing is adequate. But I do not see a 40 per cent increase.

Lastly, I want to focus on consultation and the Government's relationship with the community. Rather than open and consultative government, there is a growing concern that there are actually consequences for speaking out against this Government. I am receiving a growing number of calls which have to be called confidential because, basically, people are fearful of the repercussions.

Mr Humphries: We send the troops out to drag them into line.

MS TUCKER: You can make all the noises you like on that side of this place.

MR SPEAKER: No, they cannot. Order!

MS TUCKER: All right, Mr Speaker; you can ask them to be quiet, but the point is that I am receiving these calls. I am very clear on this climate of fear which is developing. I am talking about service users, non-government organisation service providers and community representatives. This is particularly disturbing because part of their role is to be advocates for people with an intellectual disability, mental illness or whatever - some other vulnerable group. The need for advocacy is obviously predicated on the vulnerability of the group they advocate for. If we are going to see advocates feeling vulnerable, then we, indeed, have something falling very far short of open and consultative government.

In regard to the decision by the Health Minister about Hennessy House, I will read from a copy of a letter to the Minister for Health which was sent to me by the Mental Health Network. The letter says:

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