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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3697 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Network members are also concerned at the way in which the Arcadia House move to Hennessy House was proposed and adopted; it seems that though citizens of Tuggeranong were consulted and allowed a veto, those more vulnerable and living at Hennessy were not consulted, and nor were their families. It must also be remarked that as far as we have been able to discover, those consulted inside the mental health system were almost uniformly opposed.

I have no idea what the Mental Health Advisory Council said about the decision; but the answers to Estimates Committee questions, questions from Mr Berry, actually make amusing reading if you are interested in the art of bureaucratic non-answers. (Further extension of time granted) It actually makes quite amusing reading if you are interested in the art of bureaucratic non-answers, but it leaves you with a not so amusing feeling that their response was, at best, not enthusiastic.

There is another aspect of bipartisan decision-making which is a well-respected and established part of our Westminster system, and that is our committee system. I have heard over and over from Mrs Carnell how she values the committee work; yet, since this Government has been in office, we have seen several major reports basically ignored. From my experience, it seems that the main use this Government sees for the committee system is to suppress debate on the issue being inquired into. Certainly, there have been some rather odd attempts to intimidate me with accusations of pre-empting committee reports. I can assure the Minister and this Government that I have been very careful not to speak on behalf of the committee in any way that is inappropriate.

Mrs Carnell is an enormously hardworking person with too great a load. She is capable of bringing about positive changes in areas to which she gives priority. Yesterday's announcements in relation to mental health appear to contain worthwhile initiatives which my committee will examine carefully. However, my motion stands, with all the fire I can bring to it, because I believe that this Minister has been seriously in error and her initiatives of late do not convince me that she is ready to fundamentally change the way she governs this portfolio. I remind members that there have already been two successful censure motions moved against this Health Minister. She boasts that they mean nothing. It is a cause for regret, in moving this severe motion, that the other tools are blunt, Mr Speaker.

I also remind members that the core of my concern - a failure to prioritise the needs of disadvantaged people in our community - was also the core concern of Mr Osborne's successful censure motion; that is, a basic commitment to issues and principles of social justice. It is with regret that I move want of confidence in the Minister for Health. The Minister must step aside because she has failed to give sufficient priority to people most disadvantaged in this community; she has failed to put into practice the principles of open, accountable and consultative government in this portfolio area; and through the Estimates Committee she has given misleading information about staffing issues in community care group houses for people with a disability.

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