Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to touch upon a couple of issues that have significant impact in my electorate in relation to decisions by the government to provide particular services. In particular, I want to raise the issue of the headspace centres, which has been, in the main, a bipartisan approach. The former minister, the member for Port Adelaide, is at the table and was someone who, on behalf of the former government, enhanced—indeed, multiplied—headspace locations around the country to the point where we reached about 90 headspace centres, providing really important services for young people who are in need of such services. Providing services, whether it be in large urban centres or in regions, has to happen over time, but the concern I have as a local member is that there has been a very credible and compelling submission made by organisations in my electorate, in the municipality of Melton and, indeed, the municipality of Moorabool. Unfortunately, there was a response from the government to not provide support for the construction of a centre.

As a result of the engagements by those organisations with the government and, indeed, my own letter to the former Minister for Health, the honourable Peter Dutton, we believe we had a very good chance to see a positive response from the government. The reasons we put forward included that other headspace centres were quite far away from the growing community of Melton. The closest was in Werribee or Sunshine in Melbourne or they would have to go to Ballarat in the case of Moorabool, and we believe that this is just too far for many young people to travel, particularly those in need of headspace services. Like other areas of the country, there is a pressing need for a headspace located in Melton as the area, as I said, is rapidly increasing in population and is one of the fastest growing areas in the country. Unfortunately, with this expansion, the area is also seeing increasingly high levels of social disadvantage and its young people are experiencing significant mental health distress. We certainly made submissions to the minister and to the government. Some of that information substantiated the fact that Melton was also, on top of the things I have just raised, an area of low socioeconomic status. Young people in Melton are less likely to finish school than in other areas of the country. Youth unemployment is relatively high. There is an above-average rate of alcohol and substance abuse among young people. All of these factors contribute to mental health issues in young people of the area. We put our case to the government, to the former Minister for Health.

On top of that, we also indicated that Melton is a prime place for headspace because there was already the fiscal space and established services ready to proceed with a headspace centre. In other words, in terms of co-contribution or being able to quickly establish a centre, we thought Melton and the organisations that were making submissions to create a centre were providing the groundwork, if you like, for such a centre. Key local service providers and two local councils have joined together in a consortium with a view to providing an integrated response to the issue and working cohesively together. A lot of work was done locally. So it was disappointing to see the response by the incoming Minister for Health, the Honourable Sussan Ley, indicating that, in reply to my letter to Minister Dutton, there would not be a centre established. I will quote some of the letter: 'The Australian government is committed to improving the lives of Australians with a mental illness and their families. On 8 October 2014 Minister Dutton announced the locations of the final 15 headspace centres, bringing the total number of announced headspace locations to 100 across Australia.' The previous Labor government increased it to 90. It doubled the budget of the centres and, in the main, we would say that these matters were done in a bipartisan way. The minister went on to say:

Young people in communities that do not have a headspace centre are encouraged to use eheadspace, which provides free, confidential and anonymous telephone and web-based support services to young people between the ages of 12-25 …

The response was very disappointing from my constituency and the organisations that had made very comprehensive submissions and very compelling arguments. Through their actions and their words, they showed why Melton was an appropriate place. It would be fair to say that disappointment turned to anger and frustration with the government when it was disclosed in Senate estimates that 15 locations were determined by the minister and only one of those 15 sites was within an electorate not held by a coalition MP.

I want to make it very clear that I am not suggesting that those 15 sites do not have a reason to have a centre, though it does seem very odd that only one site was identified in a non-government seat. It beggars belief that it was purely down to the meritorious submissions made by local communities. We would like to get an answer on why Melton was not considered good enough and why the government could not provide resources to Melton, to the two councils involved and to the organisations which provide services to the community. We would like to examine the reasoning behind the government's decision. If there is even a perception that something as important as providing such services to young people is done in a partisan manner—given the history of Headspace and given the historical bipartisan approach—I think it sets a very low bar and it taints what has been a great initiative.

It is fair to say that the inception of Headspace occurred under a coalition government and we continued that work. We are happy to see an extension of Headspace into 100 localities; and we would like to think that all young people have access such services. To think that, since the election, 15 sites have been identified and only one of those is in an electorate not held by the government does call into question the integrity of the decision making of the minister and the government. It is a very disappointing outcome. I do think that my constituency deserves an explanation as to why they were not sufficiently placed and why they do not have a compelling case just have resources provided to them—given all the things we outlined in our submission. Melton is an area that faces significant challenges and where youth unemployment is relatively high. It has an increasing population—it is one of the fastest-growing municipalities in the nation, not just Victoria. Given all that and given that it does not receive any support and then to learn that only one of 15 sites is in a non-government constituency, then the government should review its decision.

The incoming health minister has taken a different tack on the significant issue of the GP tax. There are probably many reasons for that. Given that there has been a change of minister and given that the government is seeking to re-engage, or perhaps engage, with the Australian people, this may be the opportunity for the incoming minister to review the decision of allocating the sites made by her predecessor. Was due diligence done in determining the sites? Was that decision based on merit? Are there sufficient resources within the portfolio spend either to increase the allocations to include a Headspace centre from Melton or to give some undertaking that the proposed centre for Melton might happen sometime soon? These are some of the things that the incoming minister might contemplate. I would ask her to do so because there is a very disappointed community that feels it has been ignored by this government. It is a community that deserves support; it is a great community to represent; it has great people. All they are asking for is a centre that will enable young people to get mental health support when it is needed.

At this point I cannot accept the reasoning of the government in denying Melton this very important resource, for all the reasons I have outlined,. I do not believe there is anything more important than providing support for young people who might be dealing with such challenges. As the shadow minister for employment, I would also make the point that there is a correlation on occasion between marginalisation, disengagement and not earning or learning and compounding problems that young men and women might face. It is very disappointing that we have not been able to convince the government. I will write again to the incoming minister outlining my concerns about the way in which these decisions have been made, raising the questions about the efficacy of the decision making of the previous minister in relation to the 15 new sites for Headspace centres. I would hope to get full and frank answer. Hopefully, upon examination of this issue, a rethink by the incoming minister on what she might be able to do to provide services and support to young people in this great part of Melbourne. If indeed the minister is not in a position to do that, then I think it is incumbent upon the opposition to continue to pursue the basis for the decision making of establishing these centres when it was so skewed towards government constituencies vis-a-vis those held by opposition, or independent members of parliament. Because the last thing anybody would want—I would hope—is that something as important as providing mental health services to young people in need will be tainted by the notion that it is determined by who holds the seat—not on who needs such care, how many might need such care and why they are deprived of such services.

See this speech in context