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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1093 ..

priorities and actions for the people of the ACT. Indeed, as I have indicated, the consultation timeframe for this strategy was extended to ensure that all interested parties had a chance to have a detailed say.

The strategy also provides a base for further consultation and participation to identify and address specific and emerging areas of need within both public and community mental health services. The plan is in line with the broader social policy framework of the Canberra plan and, in particular, the social plan, the health action plan and the national mental health strategy. It will also, of course, reflect the outcomes of the government’s current work on forensic mental health services.

I look forward to continuing to work with all key stakeholders in implementing this plan as we seek to continue to maintain and improve the quality mental health care that all members of the ACT community deserve. This is an indisputable and clear commitment made by the government. It is backed up by our actions to date and we will continue to work hard on this issue.

MS TUCKER (3.59): As Mr Corbell said, as chair of the health committee I have certainly written to the minister requesting reporting on the government’s response to the Mann-LaRoche report and the Patterson report.

There really is so much that I could say. I could go through every single recommendation of Mann-LaRoche or Patterson and potentially criticise a lot of the government responses, and the slowness of the responses, to a number of key and critical recommendations of both these reports. I would also be able to acknowledge where some work has been done and give credit where it is due. But there really is so much, I do not think I will even start. What I might do is make a couple of general comments.

Firstly, I think there is still a tendency to focus very much on the medical model of mental health. That is something that applies more generally to health, of course, and is in response to the political and community pressures around acute care. While I appreciate that those pressures exist and government has to respond to them, I get concerned when it is to the detriment of the broader social health model.

In mental health in particular, what has come out clearly time and time again from people involved in the field, particularly consumers and their families and loved ones, is the need for government to understand better and resource better the notion of social mental health. This means that you look at people in a holistic way—you do not leave them isolated in the community.

There are social supports in place to enable these people to reach their life goals. If people are experiencing mental illness and are vulnerable—and my memory of the statistic is that one in five of us experience mental illness at some point in our lives—social support, if available, will help them get through this period in their life in a way that does not scar them permanently. Basically, for some people their period of illness can become chronic because of the lack of social support, the associated stigma, and the loss of things such as employment, housing, social connections. These factors are critical to how a person will get through an episode or episodes of mental illness. I have to say that I do not think we do that at all well.

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