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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3622 ..

MR SPEAKER: The question now is: That Mr Humphries's amendment to add paragraph (6) be agreed to. Ms Reilly, would you like to move your amendment?

MS REILLY (12.29): I move:

Add the words "and that the ACT Government allocate these funds to an appropriate provider of such a facility within 3 months of Commonwealth approval for funding for a treatment facility; and within 6 months to alternate drug therapy program providers".

I fully support Mr Humphries's new paragraph (6); I have no objection to it. But one of my concerns is with the failure of this Government to spend money in a timely way. I want to ensure that this money, if it is allocated by the Commonwealth, results in services being set up as soon as possible. Obviously, there are some procedures that we have to go through; but we do not want to waste time by having the money sitting around for a couple of years while everybody thinks about it, we do 10 more studies and then maybe we get around to it at just the last minute before an election. I am hopeful, of course, that the Chief Minister will be able to screw sufficient funds to get a decent service for the ACT. Let us hope that the Commonwealth is generous to the ACT in this instance. But, that aside, timeliness is the reason behind my amendment.

If you look at some of the recommendations of the social policy inquiries of this Assembly you will see a number of gaps in services in the ACT, particularly for young people. In some instances the gaps are massive or the services actually are non-existent. This request for funds will go part of the way towards addressing that, and that is why I support it. But there is no point in having money if we do not spend it. If we look at services that are available, the gaps in services are particularly apparent for people under the age of 18. At this stage, in a number of areas in the ACT, the worst age you can be is between 12 and 18 because there is not very much for you. If we get this residential service and add innovative drug programs, we will address that, and this is important. But we need to guard against the Government holding onto these dollars for so long that young people continue to suffer problems through illicit drug use and to live in circumstances that are unsafe.

The other problem, of course, is that if we hold onto these dollars for too long we will, in fact, lose them back to the Commonwealth or lose them to a State, as happened to some of the moneys that were available in relation to youth suicide. Because we did not have a strategy set up in the ACT, those moneys were not allocated to the ACT but were reallocated to other States and Territories. The matter of drug use in the ACT is too serious for us to sit on our hands and not do something as quickly as possible to set up such services as Mr Humphries sets out in his amendment.

It is important that we have a time factor in this as well. We need to get the money - and I am sure Mrs Carnell will fight hard for it - but we also need to set up services as quickly as possible. We do not need to wait two years, as we did with the new youth health service. We need to do it within three months of getting the allocation so that we can assist young people in the way that assistance is needed. I look for support for this amendment.

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