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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (20 August) . . Page.. 2984 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

be wary of supporting that. Regarding planning a step-down facility to southern Canberra, I do not understand Mr Cornwell's argument about why we need two. We know the government is doing one. Why does it have to be in the south?

The last point, "improve the location, frequency and quantum of respite care places", is the one I probably would have supported coming into this motion. I will put it on the record that I think we have enough evidence to say that we do need to see a greater provision of respite services.

The Standing Committee on Health and Community Care in the last Assembly recommended in its report on respite care services in the ACT that "the unmet needs of people with dementia be accurately assessed and that an appropriate methodology is utilised to achieve this purpose". Has this happened? The then government's response claimed that it had already been done and quoted significant studies such as the ACT Home and Community Care Needs Profile, Spice Consulting, August 1999, data from the 1999 Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing Older Person's Health Survey, and anticipated data, in July 2000, from the Home and Community Care Minimum Data Set collection.

Also, in response to that committee report's call for the government to accept that a substantial increase in respite care is of the highest priority, the then government said that they agreed. However, having noted that increased respite care is a high priority for both younger people and older people in Canberra, the government also said that "The majority of respite care is however a Commonwealth responsibility and as such the ACT has limited capacity to substantially increase respite care". So it really cannot accuse this government of playing around with whose responsibility it is.

Successive ministers and governments have responded to calls for improvements by claiming to be addressing the problem in various ways, or by saying, as in this instance, that it was really a Commonwealth responsibility. I repeat that that was the last government. What we need to know is how much the measures in place, no matter who they are funded by, have gone towards meeting the needs that have been identified. We also need to know about what we do not know and how to meet that need.

There is an argument that, if the support services were provided to a high enough level, then there would not be such a need for respite. I notice that Mrs Cross talked about choice and that is certainly something that has come up regularly in discussion. It is not something that has been ignored at all. When we were looking at the respite issues in the last Assembly, for example, ADACAS, in its budget submission, noted in response to recommendation 10 of the committee inquiry into elder abuse, which recommended an increase in respite care, that other options could be investigated first. It suggested that, if adequate support were provided, respite would not be a usual part of life, and would only be necessary when external crises come up.

There are, of course, alternative views to this one but the point here is that the level of unmet need has been raised many times. There should be enough information available to government to tell the Assembly how much of that unmet need will be met, if not, why not, and when that need will be met.

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