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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (12 March) . . Page.. 903 ..

Mr Cornwell: For the Hansard, I am not sure I want to be associated with Mrs Cross.

MS MacDONALD (10.44): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ms Dundas has raised an important issue for us in the ACT. Like the Minister for Health, I am happy to give this motion my general support-with a couple of provisos. The first relates to the importance in these tight economic times of ensuring that limited government funds are spent on clearly demonstrated areas of need. The second is a plea that the community be involved in the determination of these priorities.

It is a source of deep regret that, after seven years of Liberal government in the ACT, we rank poorly in comparison with other states and the Northern Territory. I note with alarm Minister Corbell's reference to the Commonwealth figure showing ACT mental health expenditure at 18 per cent below the national per capita average.

However, I wish to commend the current minister, former minister and this government for moving quickly to address the shortfall. We have exceeded our election commitments for this area.

We promised an additional $1 million but instead delivered $2 million in the 2002-03 budget. This is no more than this vital area of health care deserves. I will not repeat the range of initiatives outlined by the minister but do want to put on record my support for the speed of the government response across child, youth, respite and other mental health services.

Ms Dundas calls on the government to make the recruitment of more mental health outreach workers a high priority for the 2003-04 financial year. I can see why and I laud her interest in this area. However, this is where I start to have some difficulty with Ms Dundas's motion. I do not believe it is appropriate to consider this motion in isolation from the range of competing priorities facing mental health services in the ACT.

Simply put, the state of mental health in the ACT when the current government came to office was such that additional resources were required almost across the board. The question was less about what needed additional funding but what did not. This is the essence of rational government: the responsibility to allocate scarce resources based on assessed priorities. I am prepared to support this motion as a matter of principle; the good intentions that underlie it are clear. However, the government must be able to determine which services are more deserving than others.

With resources scarce, we must be all the more clear about the process of determining priorities for funding. Ms Dundas's contribution, while welcome, does not deliver this clarity. There are different services, different service models and different needs. It is the government's responsibility to decide the highest priority and which kind of service best meets identified needs. I support the minister's call for the development of a strategic approach to mental health service development. Responses in the past have looked knee-jerk. In fact, I would go beyond that and say they have been knee-jerk.

Governments have a duty to people with mental health problems, and to the broader ACT community, to deliver a more strategic approach to service planning and delivery. I understand that the new five-year mental health strategy and action plan for the ACT

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