Page 3705 - Week 12 - Thursday, 22 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It appears to be doing just that—assisting people with a mental illness with those small logistical tasks that can really trip people up at times.
When it comes to the discussion of holistic care, the report and the government response fail to adequately address dual diagnosis. There were a few paragraphs in the report but no recommendations. It is disappointing, given that the 35-page Youth Coalition submission focused entirely on this problem. It was mentioned last night at the Mental Health Consumer Network meeting, where somebody raised the issue of accommodation and acute care for people with a dual diagnosis and how that can be problematic within the context of broader mental health services. It is definitely an area that needs addressing.
Through consultations with its sector, the Youth Coalition found that every service experiences young people presenting with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse issues. The links between homelessness, mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse are strong. While Mental Health ACT has established a co-morbidity project for young people, there is a gap between mental health and alcohol and other drug services. The Youth Coalition submission states:
In our consultations we heard about a young person who had been put on a ‘time out’ from a youth service due to their substance abuse until they went through a detoxification unit. The detoxification service refused to treat this young person as they felt that they were being affected by a mental health condition. The young person has since been in and out of crisis accommodation displaying the same behaviours due to their substance abuse, for which they have been refused treatment.
From what my office hears, despite work being done in this field, this still seems to be a common occurrence, illustrating the need for holistic services. There is also the difficult situation whereby, if a person is assumed to have dual diagnosis problems, they are also assumed to be violent, and thus refused access to emergency accommodation. One would hope that services are provided based on the client’s behaviour rather than on perceived, assumed or actual substance use.
I have commented many times on the issue of SAAP accommodation. I wonder why the committee did not think it appropriate to discuss the ACT government’s $1 million cut to SAAP funding, and thus diminished support services provided beyond the bed. I wonder what impact the cut in funding has had on the ability of a SAAP worker to acquire mental health services for a client. Are we seeing more people get better? Is anyone documenting and reviewing the changes? Recommendation 4 states:
The Committee recommends that Housing ACT develop a strategy to ensure that workers in community organisations assisting those with a mental health illness have an awareness and understanding of all Housing ACT policies in relation to mental health issues.
Paragraphs 3.57 and 3.58 of the report note the difficulty community organisations have in navigating government services. Unfortunately, the government response to this problem merely states that Housing ACT conducts quarterly information sessions
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .