Page 1555 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee—the chair, Karin MacDonald; and the deputy chair, Mary Porter—and the people who made presentations to the committee. It was quite traumatic for some of the people who came. I think they showed great courage in actually appearing before our committee and baring all, as it were, to help us better understand their situation and that of their families and people with whom they are in contact. I also thank the people who took time to make written submissions, which were really appreciated. We can certainly see from this report that there is a challenge for any government. I think Ms MacDonald covered that.
Without a doubt, we are becoming more aware of people being diagnosed and, with diagnosis now being so much better, we are identifying the needs of people, whereas before, perhaps, we just let them go in the community and were not really sure that they had a mental health problem. But now we are able, in terms of diagnosing people, to specifically help them at their point of need. It will be a challenge for the government. The challenge is one of implementation. The challenge will be to fund places for people to go and get the right accommodation.
We looked at alleviating the burden not only on the people with mental illness problems, but also of those people on the community. That sounds awful, but it is a two-way thing. We really need to look at all those aspects when dealing with people with a mental health problem. Also, we talk about appropriate accommodation as opposed to adequate accommodation. We can say that if somebody has a roof over their head that is adequate. Nobody would argue with that. But is it appropriate? We learned from many people about what happens often in some of the settings that we send people to. Perhaps they have come out of a rehabilitation situation from a schizophrenic-type attack or episode. If we send a single person, for example, to something like a multiunit complex, often that can complicate their full rehabilitation. A one or two bedroom unit in a multiunit complex may be classed as adequate, but we have to ask ourselves whether that is a particularly appropriate place to put such people, not in terms of isolating them but in terms of those people actually being a burden on those living around them.
Also, we need to concentrate on the support. I note that the government sees itself as a junior partner in the system. I was thinking about that after we wrote the report. I submit that they do play an extremely important and integral role in the provision of accommodation and in recognising the needs of people with a mental health problem. I note that the government is trying to work on that aspect and congratulate it on that. We really need to make sure that our people on the front line are fully trained, that they have adequate qualifications to deal with the complex needs of many tenants that are now presenting to them.
Finally, is the system working for people with a mental health problem? I think that at this stage we would have to say that we have a lot more work to do. There is a long way to go before we get it right. I would encourage the government to up the ante a little and work more closely with Mental Health ACT, which does an absolutely brilliant job. I commend the CAT team. At times I have called them to recommend that they call on people with a difficulty, and they have been just marvellous. I cannot say enough about the people who work in the system.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .