Page 1263 - Week 05 - Thursday, 4 June 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
mental health. These statistics have not been dreamed up by me; they come from the Productivity Commission reports, questions on notice, annual reports, ministerial briefs and other sources. They show a system that is struggling to cope with demand and that is not performing well when compared to other states and territories. In Victoria, for instance, the Andrews government has initiated a royal commission to investigate the mental health system in that state. It recognised that the current system is failing Victorians who have mental illness, and that change was needed.
But even with a royal commission on foot, it is clear from the Productivity Commission RoGS data that Victoria has a better performing mental health system than does the ACT. I note, and I am particularly pleased to see, that the education, employment and youth affairs committee is inquiring into youth mental health. For the most part because of that, I will reserve any comment that I have to make about youth mental health until a later day, but I note that ACT Labor’s 2016 promise to build an adolescent mental health unit by 2019 remains unfulfilled.
I noticed, in passing, a comment in the media today that it will be another 18 months before we see that facility. I want to go beyond the statistics and look at the human side of the problems with mental health. Each statistic in reports represents a person who has needed help after a serious incident such as attempted suicide or self-harm, or someone who suffers from a myriad of diagnosed and undiagnosed mental health issues. Every statistic also represents partners, parents and children, friends and relatives, workmates and teachers who have loved someone who is suffering.
On 29 April this year, I wrote to Mr Rattenbury after receiving a complaint from a constituent about mental health services. Among the constituent’s many concerns was that he waited for three days in the adult mental health unit to see a psychiatrist. In Mr Rattenbury’s reply to me, on 18 May, he said:
The adult mental health unit is a dynamic clinical environment and is often impacted by high clinical demand. While the team at the AMHU work hard to prevent this directly impacting the experiences of patients, it may result in a perceived delay in psychiatric consultation.
I repeat, Mr Rattenbury said that there was a “perceived delay” in psychiatric consultation.
My constituent did not perceive that he did not see a psychiatrist for three days; my constituent failed to be able to see a psychiatrist for three days. That is not a perception; that is a reality. Mr Rattenbury seems to be the person struggling to distinguish perceptions from reality. To see a constituent’s complaint dismissed in such a way is, quite frankly, infuriating. It is quite stunning that someone who is supposed to be as empathetic and as switched on and concerned about mental health as Mr Rattenbury says he is dismisses a constituent’s complaint because that person is a mental health patient. Saying that the patient perceived that he did not see a psychiatrist is disgusting and insulting.
We know that the adult mental health unit is often in high demand. For the past few years, the adult mental health unit has been running at well over 100 per cent capacity,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video