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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2303 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

almost a hopeless way that there is unmet need, as if responsibility is lifted by admitting it.

I might be more sympathetic to this position if the minister had not gone on to support the Treasurer's claims of good governance because the budget is in surplus. You cannot argue one minute that you really care but there is no money and the next minute talk about the surplus, especially when you gave $7 million last financial year to a car race that was run by the private sector, with another $3 million to come this year and another $5 million after that. That is really offensive to people who are suffering from the lack of essential services. Maybe Mr Moore did not hear me read the section from the poverty report on the lack of essential services.

The Chief Minister spoke enthusiastically about the social policy unit in her department and how important it has been to the management of the healthy cities program, an initiative of this department. Yes, we all want healthy cities, and I support the work of the program. But to have credibility, this government has to start integrating into its policies and practices the conclusions of initiatives such as the poverty task force and healthy cities and reports such as More than the sum of its parts into which so much community energy went.

Social capital relies on the community having some trust and confidence in institutions of government and public systems of support. My request for targets which are informed by an overall understanding of the objectives and specific to meeting them is not an unrealistic ask. It is an essential element of accountability and is necessary to counter growing disillusionment in the community with the commitment of governments of all persuasions to policy promises.

If government is actually doing the right thing-of course, it does sometimes-the community will be able to see it when it occurs and have confidence in government's ability to understand what is actually happening. Obviously the media releases and spin and the unclear targets can work for government to a certain extent, but in the long run it destroys the social capital that the government claims to be committed to supporting.

Mental health is an area I will focus on first. As members are aware, I am familiar with the detail of this sector as a result of the inquiry into mental health services which I chaired in the first Assembly that I was here-the last Assembly. Through that inquiry, I met many people whom I am still in contact with in this field and I am very dissatisfied with funding and resources in the area.

The increase in growth funding for the portfolio is a response to real need and the identified expenditure of that growth funding appears more or less responsive to recent consultation. However, the basis of a trusting partnership with community and professional organisations is much less secure.

Management of the community-based mental health services funding over the past couple of years provides a succinct example of the erosion of trust and enthusiasm of the very community the funding was intended to support. In the specific case of a mental health consumer clubhouse, the feasibility study for the clubhouse was paid for out of these funds in one year and evaluated through another and larger consultancy the next year and staff funds were finally awarded from the same source in this budget year, but

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