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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3293 ..

MRS LITTLEWOOD (12.24): Mr Speaker, I wish to preface my comments by acknowledging the efforts of my committee colleagues and their genuine concern for most of the stakeholders associated with mental health. There is no doubt about the compassion felt by all members of the committee. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the committee secretary, Judith Henderson, who did a sterling job. I support the comments by Ms Tucker with regard to the people who came and gave evidence and their courage. However, Mr Speaker, I cannot completely embrace all the recommendations contained in the report. While I do not intend to go over my dissent in detail, I would like to add some background and mention some positives.

In my report I mentioned that, by even the most conservative estimate, the adoption of all the recommendations would commit a Territory government, irrespective of who it might be, to additional recurrent expenditure of at least $5m per annum. The report does not identify where this funding would be found, what services would be knocked down and what other areas would be defunded. I am of the opinion that the Assembly's committee has a very responsible role, and I am sure that there are many here who would agree that inquiries should not just highlight perceived flaws or offer motherhood statements as solutions, but instead should look at real and achievable solutions, and actually offer suggestions as to how objectives can be achieved, rather than just adopt the fistful of dollars approach.

Of course, we would all like to see a perfect world; but, unfortunately, we must also address reality. The committee has not costed its recommendations; nor has it taken into account the capacity to achieve its recommendations. Certainly, we visited South Australia and Victoria, and some of the recommendations have been based on a Victorian regional model. This region corresponds in population to Canberra. But what has not been added to the equation is the fact that Victoria had owned large institutions, which were sold off to help finance their initiatives. Regrettably, the ACT does not have that financial stash.

Mr Speaker, I would be quite concerned, too, if the community thought that this report would be a panacea. I hope that the committee has not projected any false hopes into the community. What we would like to achieve and what we are capable of delivering are often two very different things. It is not possible to be all things to all people. That is regrettable, but unfortunately true. I believe that all committees should keep that important aspect in mind and temper desired outcomes with achievable outcomes.

Mr Speaker, I am also disappointed that greater acknowledgment of the efforts made by the Government was not included in the report; hence, my comments to highlight those initiatives. They are:

An increase in funding for mental health services amounting to more than $1.5 million or almost 10 per cent during the past three years.

Additional funding of $400,000 over the past two years to expand community-based residential support for people with a mental illness. This has created an additional 45 supported accommodation places in Canberra.

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