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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3286 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

This has also been raised in a number of other studies over the last few years, including the Purdon and Burdekin reports. The Richmond Fellowship, a significant provider of supported accommodation, has a waiting list. There does not seem to be a clear understanding from government of what the overall level of unmet need is, and that is also unacceptable.

Representatives of St Alban's Church, who work closely with residents in two ACT housing complexes, told the committee that many people with mental illness who are currently living in or have moved into the community are not receiving the level of support they need. Many do not have the skills to enable them to function effectively on their own. They cannot budget and prioritise their needs. They often cannot manage to pay bills, so that they can actually keep the phone ringing, which makes it a bit of a joke if they need the crisis team. This is the reality for many people with whom this particular priest is dealing. While we support absolutely the concept that people should be integrated into the community, if they are left in an isolated situation - and that is what is happening to a number of people in Canberra, where they obviously do not have enough support - it is an abuse of human rights.

The committee has also made a range of recommendations with regard to continuity of care, the development of clear policy guidelines, and advocacy services being maintained and valued. I understand this is a Federal issue. (Extension of time granted) Mr Speaker, I think this is the first time I have ever sought leave for an extension of time, so I thank members for their support. I do not need to speak for this long, normally; but today I would like to finish this report. On the issue of advocacy, while I acknowledge that it is a Federal issue, it is absolutely critical. Advocacy is determined by the vulnerability of people, and people with mental illness often are vulnerable. So it is a very essential part of providing support for people with mental illness. Obviously, the committee is concerned about the improvement of complaints systems and grievance procedures, and reporting requirements as well.

In conclusion, I would like to address some of the issues raised by Mrs Littlewood in her dissenting report. Mrs Littlewood has outlined her concern with several of the committee's recommendations on the ground that the Government has said they will do it. Mrs Littlewood has presented what amounts to a report of the Government's achievements in mental health, rather than a dissenting report. I would not disagree with Mrs Littlewood's dissenting report in that area. Obviously, we have acknowledged what the Government has done. We have acknowledged that it is a complicated area, and we are hoping this report will be well received by government, because it is indeed a snapshot. It is a very substantial report which will give direction to government to address these gaps in services. Obviously, it is not going to happen overnight, so I would not want to object to most of the dissenting report; but Mrs Littlewood has raised some specific issues, and I will deal with them. I believe that the committee would be failing in its duty if it did not suggest alternative ways of addressing mental health issues in the ACT. Equally, it is not the committee's role to identify where funding would come from in order to allow recommendations to be adopted. The committee's report has been based on an analysis of evidence from a range of sources - the Government, consumers, carers, community organisations, and government and non-government service providers - and it does report the experiences, some of them quite recent, of a wide range of witnesses.

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