Page 4476 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This motion today is, if you like, an exercise in the possible. I have taken out elements of the original motion that were critical of government or people within it, because we really need to be using this moment of change as an opportunity to put something better in place. It is very important to gain here in the Assembly a strong government agreement to offer some real scrutiny of this reformulated ADP. For example, the review of clinical governance made the point in its first recommendation that, in the past, ADP procedures had evolved to suit the ADP. Now they will be required to develop a client-centred approach. I am not convinced that just appointing a few new staff and writing a planning document that addresses the recommendations will ensure that such a significant change is effected at all levels of operation, whatever the intent. More is needed.
There is a requirement for government to ensure that there is sufficient support. That means not just support for enough staff hours, although that too is important; it means support for mechanisms to hear divergent views and comments. It also means support for some internal and external scrutiny. I will certainly be taking up the opportunity to ask for regular briefings from the ADP and I will remain in reasonably close contact with community organisations and individuals who access the ADP’s services to provide some scrutiny from my position. I would imagine that members of the Assembly’s health committee might also find a constructive role for themselves in that regard.
More generally, in meeting the terms of this motion, I would like to see ACT Health echo the approach of the Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services in reporting against the outcomes of these three reviews. While ACT Health’s 2004-05 annual report does mention that the reviews have taken place and that the recommendations of those will need to be pursued, there is almost no detail of the kinds of changes that are required. If readers did not know anything about the history of the reviews and the issues underpinning them, they would have no appreciation of the substantial changes now under way. That, in my eyes, is a failure in the reporting mechanisms and it highlights the need for specific scrutiny. In addition to using the annual report requirements to give some transparency to the implementation of the plan, I would ask that an advisory council or committee have some overview of the process. Given that the alcohol and other drugs task force is no longer operating, perhaps it should be the evaluation group for the ACT alcohol, tobacco and other drug strategy, or a subcommittee of that group.
To quote a constituent concerned about the process as it exists now:
The three reports make a number of far reaching recommendations. 53 recommendations in the Clinical Report alone. Has the government set up a taskforce or some other committee or body to review and progress the recommendations? Will they do that? Have they learnt anything? Do they really care?
There are lessons in what happened at ADP for the government and its service agencies. There are no doubt dissatisfied and concerned members of staff at all levels who would like to speak out on behalf of their clients. The Greens would like this to be seen as a positive opportunity for growth and change, not an ongoing exercise in individual incrimination. This motion is driven by a desire to see that the government and we as a community learn from our experiences and that the recommendations of these reviews
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .