Page 603 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
prevention and recovery-focused services provided by the community sector, but it is concerning that the document incorrectly refers to community services as those clinical services provided by the government to the community rather than services provided by the community sector. The definition of community services that the government uses is somewhat misleading and will not result in the much-needed shift in mental health resources to agencies in the community sector.
This document is very much about the service provider being Mental Health ACT or ACT Health. But this is not the only manner in which a person suffering a mental illness engages with the ACT government. The plan does not incorporate ACT Policing, Housing ACT or the education department. Most significantly, the key area of drug and alcohol and comorbidity is not given adequate attention, and there is no connection to the government’s drug and alcohol plan. I am disappointed that this is not a whole-of-government strategy for mental health. The plan ought to recognise that consumers not only fall through the gaps in health services, but also fall through those services provided by different departments.
Coming back to the community consultation conducted by KPMG, I can only presume that the government was not in agreement with the report’s recommendations provided and that ACT Health was tasked with providing a diminished version of the mental health plan. Members of the mental health community put considerable effort into their submissions and were disappointed not to see their ideas included in the draft plan. This is why this motion requests that the ACT government table the KPMG reports and recommendations.
I am surprised that this draft plan is unimaginative and limited. Recent frameworks developed in New Zealand and Victoria provide strong examples of a mental health policy reform which could easily have been drawn on in developing this draft plan. The New Zealand mental health and addiction plan, for example, places the needs of the consumer first and the service provider only after that. The plan gives prominent recognition to dual diagnosis and addresses issues such as funding models, trust and transparency.
Victoria is currently developing an outcomes-focused system. Its draft plan recognises the increasing complexity of consumer issues and the need for a number of government agencies to respond. The Victorian government has amended its funding models to rebalance its mental health system towards earlier intervention and supporting recovery within an integrated community-based system. Significant announcements have been made for supportive housing models and step-up, step-down facilities.
This draft plan is also out of step with the changed political landscape nationally and locally. The COAG decision of November 2008 to transfer Australian government funding for community health mental services to states and territories in order to minimise the duplication of funding that currently occurs needs to be incorporated into the final version of this plan. In addition, we have recent election commitments made by the ALP here and in Canberra, including enhancement of community-based recovery services, a ministerial council on mental health, a charter of rights for consumers and funding for acute inpatient facilities including assessment and forensic
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .