Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2284 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
It is simply unacceptable that people are being asked to wait up to eight weeks in order to access the methadone program. These are people who have reached that stage in their addiction where they do say, "I need help." They put out their hand and are told, "Come back in eight weeks." It is simply outrageous, if we are to seriously attack the vicious cycle of drug abuse and drug misuse, that we cannot manage our rehabilitation services, or that we cannot create across the spectrum the range of services that we need to deal with people suffering drug abuse in the community.
The Minister for Health and Community Care has heralded that 100 new methadone places will be delivered in this year's budget. What he has not told people is that these new places will be created by doubling the cost of treatment for clients in the so-called third stream of methadone treatment. The old third stream contained subsidised treatment places costing clients $15 per week. The new third stream, created by the budget, will cost full fee paying clients $30 a week. The cost to the clients entering the third stream of methadone treatment will therefore double because of this budget initiative.
The first stream of methadone treatment, in contrast, provides fully funded treatment to clients for the first six months, with clients paying $15 per week thereafter. The amount of places in the fully funded first stream, on this analysis, will be cut from 292 to 270 under the budget. It seems that even the methadone program cannot escape the user-pays principle that this government is bent on applying to all aspects of community life. (Extension of time granted.)
An initiative in the budget papers under the heading "Disability Services" refers to providing a range of respite for carers of people with disabilities. However, when you read the fine print, it becomes apparent that only carers over 65 who have cared for their child or ward for 30 years or more will be eligible for the assistance. Surely adequate respite care should be available to all carers of people with disabilities, not just those over 65.
It seems to be quite an extreme application of social capital to restrict that assistance to people who have been caring for their children for 30 years or more. This is a truly unique definition of this bastardised expression of social capital that we are meant to accept characterises this government and these initiatives. If you have cared for your child for 30 years you can access this range of care.
Another huge area of unmet need exists in the area of accommodation services for people with disabilities. The ACT Division of the Australian Council for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled advised the Estimates Committee that an inter-jurisdictional comparison shows that the ACT spends well below other state and territory governments in the community sector for accommodation services for people with disabilities. The committee has recommended that the government review the basis upon which funds are provided to the community sector for accommodation services for people with disabilities, taking into account an inter-jurisdictional perspective and the level of funding currently provided for government places.
Indigenous health constitutes another neglected area in this year's budget. If the government is committed to achieving real and improved health outcomes for indigenous people in the ACT, why has it allocated only $100,000 to its indigenous health budget initiative for the next financial year? Surely the government is not suggesting that the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .