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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3602 ..

MR SPEAKER: I uphold that point of order. I have been listening very carefully. I know that there were interjections when Mr Berry was speaking, but they were not constant. I would remind members that we have another 11 days of this sitting. The first suspension is for three hours; the second suspension is for two days. If people wish to contribute to the debates in this chamber, I would ask them to reflect upon those penalties.

Mr Corbell: What about a direction to speakers not to provoke other members?

MR SPEAKER: I will be conscious of that.

MRS CARNELL: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It should be noted that in the ACT both the government and non-government sectors play a significant role in providing services such as residential rehabilitation, detoxification, case management counselling, court treatment referral, health promotion, 24-hour help lines and family support services. The fact is that Mr Berry simply has not done his work here, as always.

In its recent report entitled "Drugs Money and Governments", the Alcohol and Drugs Council of Australia reported that the ACT provided more funding on drug programs and services per capita than any other jurisdiction except the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory provides more simply because of its alcohol treatment programs for indigenous people, which are quite significant in that part of the world, and they do not have an awful lot of people. Apart from the Northern Territory, the ACT spends more per capita in this area than any other State. Is that clear, Mr Berry? Have you got it this time? They are not our figures, Mr Berry, but the figures of the Alcohol and Drugs Council of Australia. The ACT provides more funding than any other jurisdiction except the Northern Territory.

In its report, which looked at 1995-96, the council also rated the ACT second in ensuring that treatment programs and services were available and that programs were available to prevent and reduce problems. We were second in Australia, Mr Speaker; not exactly a bad outcome. So, Mr Berry, wrong again! You said that there were not very good outcomes. We were second in Australia. The ACT provides approximately $3.6m a year on drug and alcohol problems, including more than $1.2m on education. Mr Berry comes in with the simplistic notion of, "Let us chuck more money at it"; but not if Mr Howard chucks more money at it, because if he does we should have a go at him in the Assembly.

In 1994 - as I remember, we were not in government then; in fact I suspect Mr Berry was Deputy Chief Minister at the time - what happened to the Mancare program? In 1994 his Government cut their funding by 20 per cent. There was a 20 per cent cut in one year for a rehabilitation program.

Mr Berry: The 1994 budget? I was not even a Minister.

MRS CARNELL: Mr Berry, are you saying you were not responsible for anything the Labor Government did? Is that what you are saying?

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