Page 4137 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
expertise in mental health policy matters, has observed that the ACT is more concerned with bricks and mortar and it says nothing about community-based care.
While Mr Corbell attempted to represent his announcement as a soundly-based approach, he has only dealt with part of the whole issue. He and this government have failed to deliver for people who have mental health issues. It is simply not sufficient to propose a bricks and mortar approach as the answer to mental health issues when this flies in the face of all the policy developments that have taken place in Australia over the past 10 years or so.
Mr Corbell has said that his proposal would be part of “a new approach to providing mental health services in the ACT”. It is actually hard to find what is new in this approach. In fact, in the absence of dealing with the development of appropriate community-based care programs and services, the ACT government’s approach can be characterised as a retreat to the philosophy that applied in this country prior to 1992.
Over the past 15 years or so, under the guidance provided through the national mental health strategy, there has been an orderly reduction in the deinstitutionalisation of psychiatric facilities. As one measure of the national strategy, there has been a reduction of 60 per cent in the number of stand-alone psychiatric beds since 1993—and this is a very pleasing outcome.
At the same time, according to the Mental Health Council of Australia, while there has been an increase in awareness in the community, some service improvement and an increased understanding of mental illness through research and epidemiology, there has been a failure to implement orderly and integrated care and support systems that meet the needs of consumers and their carers.
Put simply, the ACT has proposed some action to deal with half—and only half—of the appropriate response to mental health issues. You have to ask: why is this so? Is it because the minister has asked for a response that deals with only half the issues? Is it because the ACT government has made some decisions about the allocation of resources to mental health and this proposal represents the limits of what those resources will provide? Is it because the advice given to the minister is not satisfactory? We do not know what the reason is. But, whatever the reason, it is evident that this government is only proposing to do half the job in responding to people with mental health issues.
There may be some who will think that this is the typical whinge of an opposition, that these comments are not really valid and that the opposition is simply trying to score political points. Unfortunately for this government, the Mental Health Council of Australia is thinking along exactly the same lines. The council put out a media statement, after the minister’s recent announcement, that was headed “ACT Government’s ‘New Strategy’ No Solution to Mental Health Problems for Canberra”.
The CEO of the Mental Health Council, John Mendoza, acknowledged the proposed investment in mental health facilities and services but then went on to say:
… Mr Corbell’s announcement today of a ‘new strategy’ for mental health looks a lot like more of the same. …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .