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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2244 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I know it is a long-term view; I know it is complicated; and I know it is resource intensive to take this preventative and early interventionist line. I acknowledge that. I hear the Government say it, but what we have to accept is that governments have been saying this forever. They have been talking and thinking about their three-year cycle or four-year cycle, or whatever it is that they have. We continue to have to pay the costs of previous governments not doing that preventative work. We are now actually determining that that will be the case in the future. If you look at who are in our gaols, who are unwell, who have mental illness, who have been shattered by abuse, you will see that, if we had been able to appropriately support those people early on, a lot of those situations would have not arisen at all; for the rest, hopefully, the harm would have been reduced significantly because the support would have been there to begin with.

I think family support is particularly important. We do see some programs in the ACT - Barnardos, for example - where they have one-to-one support within homes for families; they work in a way that is not intrusive but supportive; and you can see very good results from that. You can actually see parents or sometimes single mums who are struggling to find a new confidence, a new self-esteem and greatly increased and improved parenting skills, which is fantastic for everybody. It is obviously the way that we want to go. No-one wants to be removing children from homes.

The introduction of mandatory reporting, of course, is a very important issue and has occurred in recent times. That makes it even more critical that we do have an understanding of the unmet need in the area of support for people who come to the notice of Family Services. Whether it is a notification or a consultation, there are still going to be resource implications. I note that consultation is a new measure and a new method. It is less invasive, and I support that. But I do believe it has resource implications as well. I have heard too many times that right now we are seeing young people inappropriately accommodated in refuges and so on because there is nowhere else. We know the issues around Marlow Cottage, it being the shelter under the Act; the really difficult young people that they have to deal with sometimes; and the inadequacy that they sometimes feel in dealing with these complex issues.

I will continue to be very alert as to how the Government is handling this area. I am sure we will get a lot more information through our Social Policy Committee. I also hope that, in the process of the inquiry, the Government will respond, which they have done with other inquiries we have held. I think there has been a really good relationship which has led to good outcomes in a number of areas - particularly disabilities, I am thinking of at the moment - but not so good outcomes on violence in schools, I am afraid. I feel you are still in a bit of a state of denial on that one. It can work well. I hope it does in this very important area in our community.

I think someone else said there are increased stresses on families in the ACT at the moment, probably due to unemployment and other social factors. I think we have to actually understand that, too, as policy-makers and particularly as a government. That is why I believe it is important that you do really stay in touch with those agencies providing the support. If they are getting stressed and are not accommodating people's needs, the consequences are very sad, alarming and expensive in the long run. I would just like to state that one more time.

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