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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Wednesday, 30 June 2004) . . Page.. 3060 ..

He goes on to speak in detail about what that means for us as a society. I think this kind of thinking is really important in a debate like this. We have to be prepared to look at it. The pathologising of people in this particular way is not understanding or respecting that reality and, in some ways, is an unfortunate attitude for the individuals concerned.

I am amending and supporting Mr Smyth’s amendment because I think there is a value in using it to urge for a stronger and sharper response to mental health needs in the ACT. In particular, I am happy, through this motion, to support ACTCOSS in its campaign to attract greater support for the newly formed mental health peak organisation, the Mental Health Community Coalition, to further develop the mental health consumers’ network and see the development of a wider variety of mental health facilities and services to deal with the diversity of mental health concerns and treatment options. To quote from the ACTCOSS budget response:

These issues have been canvassed in detail with the various mental health consumer and peak groups over the past few years and ACTCOSS calls on the Government to now carry through on those consultations and reviews.

That is why the issues, once again, of tangible targets and time lines take on a particular resonance. To go through this motion point by point: points (1), (2) and (3) are arguably self-evident, although they fail to recognise the social or economic dimensions to these problems—and I have spoken about that at some length. Point (4) is as pointless in this form as it is in the original motion. Clearly, there is some progress. I would say that there is not enough. Either way, we do not need to put that point in the motion. Point (5) is well supported by people in the field who have described the process to me as both slow and badly managed. Point (6), as I have said, is the measure of it all. The consultation and the reviews do not really deliver until targets are in place, which is why, at point (7), it is important to identify that there is not any specific funding being committed.

I seek leave to move my amendment to Mr Smyth’s amendment.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I move:

(1) Paragraph (4), omit.

(2) Paragraph (7), add the following words: “, particularly outreach and other community services for mental health consumers;”

MS DUNDAS (4.06): I will try to speak to everything that is before us. I am happy to support Ms MacDonald’s motion. I understand what Ms Tucker and Mr Smyth are doing with their amendments and I am happy to support both amendments—Ms Tucker’s amendment to Mr Smyth’s amendment and Mr Smyth’s amendment as part of the motion.

I want to talk specifically about youth suicide and how that impacts on the population. Over the last seven years the rate of youth suicide in the ACT has doubled and the incidence of teenage depression is at epidemic levels. Statistics show that about one in seven children and young people will experience mental health problems in the next six months. That makes it as common as asthma. Young people with problems often do not know where to turn for support, despite the fact that there are a number of excellent

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