Page 1952 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 7 June 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There can be no doubt that the matter is urgent. And no-one can blame the Indigenous community for being irate, considering the time spent, almost 15 years from when the United Ngunnawal Elders Council first approached the ACT government with the concept of a bush healing farm in 2003. It took six years before the purchase of a suitable property. Then there was the land lease challenge, the finding of asbestos on the property and the bridge debacle. Now we hear that they failed to build an egress road. So the saga continues.
It begs the question: how much money has been spent on the development of this property? We know from recent annual reports that a revised project value of almost $12 million was reported, a far cry from the original project value of just under $7 million, in fact, almost double. Is this another case of the government’s inability to bring projects in on time and on budget? We should know the true costs of the project. In this motion we call on the government to table a detailed timetable of costs in all areas. And this must include the costs associated with the model of care that will be implemented at the facility.
Four models of care have now been developed for the facility. The first one was published in 2010. This model was developed after extensive work by many, together with the advisory group on the project which included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives. Developing this model included, according to members of the community whom I have spoken with, the visiting of like facilities overseas. It would be interesting to know just what the final cost of developing all these models of care will be.
The model of care at the centre of the current controversy was developed by Winnunga and ATODA, at the behest of the Health Directorate. They requested Winnunga to develop a short-term, 12-week drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation model of care based on the national drug and alcohol clinical care and prevention model, and that was their words.
It is no wonder, then, that the very comprehensive model developed included a clinical component, not a detoxification component; nor would methadone be administered on site. But in keeping with the model of care requested, a GP and a dual diagnostic nurse as well as 10 Aboriginal social health team workers would be employed, all to provide a holistic service. This would include the provision of psychotherapy, also in the original model, comprising a mix of cognitive behaviour, interpersonal and narrative therapies. This model was rejected, without notice or warning, and a fourth model of care developed and presented to a small, select group of people without explanation on 8 May this year. The Health Directorate must have nothing better to do with its time or money.
Eventually we reached the truth when the Director-General of Health gave us the explanation that this model of care could not be delivered on the site. The shame of it is that at no time was this made explicit to the community throughout the many years that the building of the facility was in progress. Why this government went out to tender for a service to run the Ngunnawal bush healing farm as an Aboriginal and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video