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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (22 April) . . Page.. 1209 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Coordination and integration of services also came up again, as did support for teachers

to deal with the issues, availability of counselling services and so on. Then there was the inquiry into services for people with mental illness, which is also very relevant to this discussion.

The inquiry into the closure of the School Without Walls was also very much related because once again it was about trying to give these kids who are struggling an option other than just taking drugs. When nothing else is working it is quite an attractive option. All these inquiries came out with a strong position on the importance of preventative and early intervention responses, and my concern is that they never seem to be as attractive to politicians as the more dramatic or controversial responses.

Mr Speaker, I will also take this opportunity to raise concerns about another process issue, much as it will annoy Mr Moore. There is a disturbing tendency in this Government to not always hold genuine consultation. Also, it has become clear that public policy is not often supported by thorough information, whether it is in the area of gambling, roads through nature parks or drug policy. I am concerned that there has not been a serious evaluation of the current services. I know my office certainly get feedback on this, as no doubt other members do. This surely is basic to developing future directions for the sector.

The draft strategy does acknowledge the need for data collection, evaluation and better practice, and so, after the fact, we will see this work commenced. I am pleased to see that that is acknowledged and that it will commence, but I am sorry that this work was not picked up earlier. The department has taken close to 18 months to evaluate the 1995-97 drug strategy, and it could have done some of this work then.

Looking at this section of the draft strategy in particular, I do wonder what the sector is supposed to make of it. I am talking about the data collection here. It says in one action:

My question is: What exactly does "encourage" mean in the context of contract agreements? Contracts usually have to be specific. How does this sit with the principle of accountability? Is it now the responsibility of the providers to develop performance indicators? That is also surprising to read, and I am sure the sector will be interested in that. Is it not the responsibility of the purchaser in partnership with the sector to develop performance indicators? Why is it that within the contract we are only encouraging better practice? Surely this has to be clearly spelt out once again. Where is the accountability here?

Another very important question here is: Will these extra requirements be integrated into the pricing of services? The next action list does not just encourage through contracts but actually requires, as part of the contract agreement, that providers collect data on particular client groups. So, will this be integrated into the price? Maybe this will, and the providers who are just encouraged to collect data will not have the work included in the pricing of the service. Do we have a pricing policy yet anyway? I would be interested in Mr Moore's response to that question. I am sure, now that Mr Quinlan's

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