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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 1985 ..

not deliver on its promises, however, if it is not able to speak openly to anyone, including any member of the Assembly. It must have an independent voice and, most importantly, actively engage with and be advised by people in the community who are supposed to be included. This will require a sophisticated and considered approach, backed up by resources. The mass mail-out of the social plan, for example, rather than being more or less a promotions vehicle for government, could have been used as an opportunity for people to respond, complain or put their own perspectives. There is a more general issue about working with community services and advocacy groups as well.

One of my key goals for this term was to see a comprehensive review of complaints mechanisms and oversight agencies. While I was somewhat disappointed with the set up of the review when it did occur, the work that was done and the report that came out of the review were valuable. It is disappointing then to not find funds in this budget for the implementation of any of the key findings of that report.

It is an ongoing problem for the community sector that people on significantly lower wages than those in the public sector have to give freely, often of their own time, to reviews and consultation only to find that the most important elements of that work are not carried forward. The failure to create a youth commissioner position—something that has been high on the youth sector’s priority list for several years and was a recommendation of the oversight agencies’ review—is a case in point. It was actually a recommendation of the committee Assembly. But I will speak more about that later.

Another project on which I worked hard with community organisations was the Alcohol and Other Drugs Taskforce. The government’s preferred approach was a high-level working group whereas we favoured a more participatory approach. In the end, membership of the group was quite wide ranging, although I would say that the number of government agency representatives may have led to too strong an influence of government priorities.

The draft strategy, presented in December last year, includes a number of far-reaching goals and actions. It is not the time to go through it in detail, but there are some useful reflections for this budget. For example, the strategy calls for further promotion of the health-promoting schools model across all ACT schools. This budget has two initiatives in schools—one is about engaging specialist organisations to deliver nutrition and fitness education; the other is for college health educators. While I am really pleased with the college project, I still await the detail of how it will work out across the sector.

Other key areas identified in the strategy and which have also figured largely in public debate, but which have not been addressed in any significant way in this budget, were the establishment of employment programs for the long-term unemployed—such as people currently in treatment for drug and alcohol issues—including training and volunteering opportunities. Nor has the government taken any more steps towards ensuring bulk-billed access to primary health care services, including those for injecting drug users.

There are other inconsistencies in this government’s approach to community engagement. I am pleased to note the substantial investment in community engagement and development through the 2004 third appropriation bill. However, there appear to be no funds put aside in the ACTPLA budget for the redevelopment of community

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