Page 3704 - Week 12 - Thursday, 22 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We also know that the Minister for Housing has a keen interest in seeing community housing organisations amalgamate. While such amalgamations might be of great assistance to the ACT government, how do they assist community organisations? Most importantly, are amalgamations of more assistance to the people living with a mental illness who are in housing crisis? Who are we trying to serve here? And why not also discuss quality as opposed to just quantity? By providing extra beds but fewer support services, more people are off the street, but what are the chances of keeping them off the street? The minister likes to tell us that no beds have been lost through the cuts to SAAP services, but important targeted services have been lost, such as Canberra Community Housing for Young People and its special attention to young people’s needs.
I was pleased that the committee recognised, in paragraph 3.78, that amalgamations may be counterproductive and that we should tread carefully in this field. I would have liked to see a recommendation to that effect, but the observation was made. Consequently, it would be advisable for the government to carefully assess the impacts of the post-Costello review changes to community housing. Who misses out?
The committee report and government response compare ACT government spending on mental health and housing to that of other states and territories. Canberra’s poor people who also suffer from a mental illness are just as poor as those elsewhere, but because we have a high average standard of living there is further distance between those in poverty and those living in the median in the ACT. On mental illness and housing, our government should see it as appropriate to do more for each client, given the larger gap.
This point was not mentioned in the report, but should be mentioned when we discuss how the ACT compares with national averages. We must also be careful when governments quote how they compare with national averages on spending. While it can be a useful figure in knowing whether we are spending enough, we can get caught up in a race to the bottom. If national averages are falling, as in the case of public housing, to compare ourselves against the national average is to accept a falling level of services. So we must ask the question: do we—a rich city—also want to run to the bottom or do we want to provide the level of services that our community needs? (Extension of time granted.)
One of the key points arising from this report, the government’s response to it and the national action plan on mental health is the need for coordinated care. Mental health consumers need a holistic response that incorporates mental health services, accommodation, education and employment—the full range. I am pleased to see that the ACT government is committed to improving this aspect of its service provision.
I have long been interested in the United Kingdom’s idea of employing support people who can help with small daily tasks. I note from the ACT government’s response to the report that the national plan for mental health includes local implementation of a personal helpers and mentors program. I know the mentor program is up and running and at this early stage it is certainly worthy of more support. It is a federal government program that is administered by local organisations.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .