Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I want to make it very clear that the opposition was not consulted about the creation of this committee. This committee is not necessary. This motion comes after a two-year Productivity Commission inquiry looking into mental health, and the government's response is to create another talkfest. Mental health is one of the most urgent crises facing this country. Mental health is meant to be a national priority. This government commissioned a Productivity Commission review of mental health in October 2018. The draft report was finalised on 31 October 2019. The final report was given to the government on 30 June 2020. The government had said they would respond in next year's budget, in May. The final report was released to the public, after the government had had it for five months, on 16 November. And now we have, without a word of explanation from the government, this motion to create a committee to consider the implementation of the Productivity Commission report. This is kicking mental health into the long grass. This is saying, 'We won't have a response in the May budget.' This is saying: 'It's all too hard. What we're going to do is have another inquiry.'

Do you know how many inquiries there have been into mental health in Australia since 2013? The number is 58. There have been 58 inquiries into mental health in Australia since 2013. And what is this government's answer? Another inquiry—a parliamentary inquiry to look at what the Productivity Commission found. This is deeply disappointing. There were a thousand submissions to the Productivity Commission's inquiry. Organisations and individuals spent a lot of time on their submissions to the Productivity Commission. What are we going to say to them now? 'Write another submission. Come and give evidence to the politicians. Come and give evidence to the parliament, because what you said to the Productivity Commission, to the Victorian government's royal commission and to the 58 other reviews is not enough. We need to hear more.'

We don't need more talk about mental health; we need some action. We are meant to all agree about what happens with mental health. I wrote to the Minister for Health last year, and I did so at the suggestion of the shadow assistant minister, the member for Dobell. She gave me an excellent suggestion, saying, 'Why don't we treat mental health as our predecessors treated HIV/AIDS and say, "This is a big national crisis; let's work on it together"?' Now the government says, 14 months later: 'Let's have a parliamentary inquiry so we can work on it together. Let's kick it down the road, beyond the budget, to late next year.'

We have said, time and time again—I think our bona fides are clear—that we will give bipartisan support to the government on any substantial measure relating to mental health. But what I won't support and what I won't be silent about is this last act of this last sitting day of parliament, at half past five on a Thursday. The minister at the table can't even be bothered to give a speech to explain the government's decision. The Prime Minister, whose personal decision this was, as I understand it, can't be bothered to come into the chamber. It's left to the minister on duty. I don't blame the minister on duty; he's doing what he's told. He's not been given any speaking notes to explain why, two years after the Productivity Commission inquiry was commissioned and after it has reported and its report has been released to the public, we're now going to need a parliamentary inquiry to consider how to handle the recommendations of the Productivity Commission review and the 58 other reviews of mental health in Australia.

I said to the minister last year, 3,000 Australians a year take their own lives. This epidemic of entirely avoidable deaths is arguably the greatest health challenge Australia has faced since the emergence of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s. I went on to say that there are many health policy areas in which we disagree, but I believe it would be possible to set aside our disagreements to work together on this urgent national priority. We said this 14 months ago.

Not everybody will agree with the Productivity Commission review. Maybe we don't agree with every element of it, but, if the government just got on with it and responded to it and started implementing the bits that at least they'd agree with, they would have no stronger supporters on this side of the House. But instead, with not a word of consultation, the government arrogantly decides we're going to have a committee. They rang us last night and said, 'We're going to have a committee.' They didn't say, 'Do you think we should have a committee?' or 'Do you think this is something that we should work on together?' They just said, 'There's going to be a committee.' We'll turn up at the committee. We'll nominate members on the committee—very well credentialed members when it comes to mental health. But I say this to all those mental health advocates across Australia who've been waiting for action, begging for action—for those individuals who've seen politicians saying all the right things about mental health and thought at last the mental anguish that they've been going through might be recognised by this parliament, those who hoped for better and hoped for more—I'm sorry that this parliament is going to submit you to another process where you have to come and give evidence and submit to yet again another inquiry. I'm sorry your government is letting you down by not implementing the Productivity Commission's review and responding to the Productivity Commission. I'm sorry this government is not doing better for you.

I meet, as the member for Dobell meets, constantly with mental health advocates. They don't have all the answers. Who does? But they've got a lot of the answers. We know what the answers are. The Productivity Commission has laid out the cost. They've laid out a way forward. We can have a discussion about which bits will work and which bits won't. We'll respect the government's right to reject or accept the recommendations as they see fit—they're the elected government. But what I won't cop is a talkfest. What I don't approve of is this arrogant treatment of mental health, which just throws it in and says that it's all too hard, after years of inaction, years of talk and years of saying: 'It's good we're talking about mental health now. It's great we're now talking about these issues.' No, it's not. How about we actually start doing something about these issues? We need a revolution, not an evolution, when it comes to mental health, and we don't have time to wait. We don't have time for more inquiries. It's time for this government. I've always said I accept the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health's findings when it comes to mental health reform, but I'm going to call out inaction when I see it, and this is inaction. It's disappointing inaction. It's inaction for which people will pay a price. It means we're just going to have 12 months more of talk and submissions. It means we're going to have 12 months more of argument and debate. Reform and investment in mental health just won't happen on this government's watch.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context