Page 616 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think what is there is a noble ambition. We both spoke at the mental health forum and I think we said similar things on the day, quite in contrast to what the government said. The government’s commitment—have no doubt about this—is about new money. It refers to 30 per cent of new money; so in the context of the Greens-Labor alliance as it goes forward I wish the Greens well in achieving this.
I think it is worth putting on the record what is stated on page 48 of the draft report, because it is interesting:
Community consultation revealed a strong preference for community-based care where possible and a review of in-patient activity data and the community consultation process identified a range of strategies that can better utilise existing in-patient resources and release capacity through the development of more appropriate and cost-effective care options in the community. The development of community-based care options will reduce the required number of in-patient beds.
I think this is what the community has certainly been saying to me for a long time. I know they have said it to Mr Hanson. It is entirely appropriate and it is desirable. It is something we should be working to, because it works in other jurisdictions. Ms Bresnan mentioned that New Zealand has made great steps forward with this. A lot of it is based on the fact that they have gone to the community-based option. They have put the money there to allow the community sector to function properly. This government has not. So as the Greens-Labor alliance goes forward, it will be interesting to see who wins in the tussle on community-based funding. The other point that I would like to back Mr Hanson on—
Ms Gallagher: The lowest mental health spending in the country on your watch.
MR SMYTH: The minister interjects, “The lowest mental health funding.” But, indeed, at that time it was some of the most effective, because it was actually outputs-based. It seems that the judgement of everything, as the minister continues to interject, is that we are putting more money at it. That is the hallmark of all Labor governments: just throw money at the problem. Judge us by what we throw at the problem, not what we achieve. This is what the community sector is saying. If the minister would listen to the community sector, she would know that they want the money spent wisely.
Ms Gallagher: Oh, so they want less money? They want to go back to being the lowest funded in the country. Is that what they want, Brendan?
MR SMYTH: It is interesting. You need to be very careful, minister. Minister Corbell got himself censured on this stuff because he claimed that they had increased services and the measure was that they had increased funding. A large amount of the money that you apportioned in your first term in office was simply administration. We hived off Mental Health ACT from the health department and we transferred across admin costs. It bolstered the budget; it made it look good; that is true. But what it did not do is improve services. What it did not do was make money available to community services, and that is the problem.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .