Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to draw to the attention of the House the plight of the mentally ill in this country. According to SANE Australia, 20 per cent of Australian adults are affected by some form of mental disorder every year. While anxiety disorders and depression are the most common mental illnesses, the remainder are psychotic conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Around 20 per cent of Australians will suffer from depression and around 10 per cent of Australians will suffer from anxiety disorders at some time in their life. Schizophrenia is a persistent form of mental illness that affects approximately one per cent of Australians at some stage in their lives, while bipolar disorder will affect around two per cent of Australians. Even more concerning is that up to 12 per cent of Australians seriously affected by mental illness will eventually kill themselves, compared to an average of one per cent for the whole population.

While these figures are a great worry, there is some hope. According to SANE, most people with mental illness recover well and are able to lead fulfilling lives in the community when they receive appropriate ongoing treatment and support. However—and this is a very important factor—only about half of those affected with a mental illness actually receive treatment. This may be because there is a lack of services in the community. This may be because those suffering from a mental illness are not sure where to go to get help. But, nonetheless, only half of those affected with a mental illness actually receive treatment.

It is for these reasons that I am deeply concerned about the South Australian government’s proposed sale and redevelopment of Glenside Hospital. Members of the House would by now be familiar with the current situation regarding Glenside Hospital—a mental health facility in my electorate and a stone’s throw from the member for Boothby’s. The state government apparently has a $100 million master plan for Glenside Hospital which will see a cut in mental health services, while 42 per cent of the current site will be sold off to private developers to make way for a shopping centre and housing development. My constituents and I know that mental health services will be cut due to the proposed Glenside sale and redevelopment because the current Glenside Hospital will be closed and reopened with fewer beds.

This is essentially a loss of services. This loss of mental health beds will be compounded by the state government grouping mental health, drug and alcohol, and rural, regional and state-wide services into the same building site. This will see patients, professionals and visitors confined to a smaller space without the current advantage of therapeutic, established open space. This will be a disadvantage for the patients, their families and the healthcare workers. If only half of Australians affected by mental illness actually receive treatment, what hope is there for the mentally ill in South Australia, with the state government cutting the number of mental health beds at Glenside Hospital?

As I mentioned before, the South Australian government wants to sell off 42 per cent of the Glenside campus, important public land which was willed to the people of South Australia in the earliest days of the colony by their ancestors, to be handed down for future generations to enjoy. This land has been used by the Glenside Hospital patients to aid their rehabilitation. It provides a pleasant space for patients’ visiting families and friends. It is strongly argued by me that the carving up of this land would damage irreparably the local character of the area, the flora and fauna which will be immediately destroyed by this action and the future amenity of the residents of the local area and the citizens of Adelaide who use the campus more generally. I mean here specifically, but not exclusively, those members of the general public who use the site for sporting activities.

The sale of this land will lead to widespread destruction of significant trees and other flora and fauna. Much of this biodiverse environment has been established over more than 100 years. Its replacement with modern wetlands and a sculptured garden is no compensation for the loss of this environment. To suggest that it is insults the intelligence of local residents and others concerned with this redevelopment.

To lose this land which has served the South Australian community so well over the years to a housing development, as well as retail and commercial tenancies, would be an irreversible loss. There are already important, thriving retail and commercial tenancies in the surrounding district. They exist at the Burnside Village, Glen Osmond Road, Conyngham Street, the Parade, Fullarton Road and smaller businesses and shopping centre areas. There is no obvious demand for an expansion of these kinds of facilities and office space in the area. This is a clear attempt by the government to find interested buyers of the land, to raise funds and, along with the proposed wetlands, disguise what is essentially an urban infill project as something quite different.

The introduction of a major new housing development in the area will change the character of the suburbs of Glenside, Frewville and Eastwood in particular and Glenunga and Dulwich. What studies has the government undertaken as to the impact on the infrastructure, services and character of the existing area with the introduction of new housing, roads and residents? Existing residents of the area are highly concerned about the impact of this new housing. They have not been salved by the flaccid assurances of the relevant minister, the Hon. Gail Gago, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse. The local community is not at all happy about this redevelopment. What makes matters worse is the fact that the state government is ignoring the local community and is not engaging in any legitimate form of consultation. So far, the only consultation that I have seen from the state government is to hold community meetings, which the mental health minister, Gail Gago, has refused to attend. I have attended these meetings, yet Minister Gago has snubbed them completely and has instead forced her public servants to face the music. This is unacceptable. As the minister responsible for mental health, Minister Gago should be front and centre of the consultation process. Instead, she is nowhere to be seen.

In a letter to the editor of the Eastern Courier, a local paper, which was published in December last year, a concerned resident summarised Minister Gago’s appalling attitude to the consultation process quite well:

I was one of the local residents who accepted Minister Gail Gago’s recent invitation to discuss the Rann Government’s decision to sell off forty two per cent of the Glenside Hospital open space land.

Despite the intimidation and red tape of actually getting into her office, I persisted, as I wanted to hear the Minister speak on the subject.

Thus far, she has refused to front any of the three recent public meetings held to discuss this matter.

I was disappointed that all we heard at this Ministerial meeting were “sound bites”, and that the decision was “non-negotiable”. Whenever questions got tough, the Minister’s minders, or Health Department officials took over the talking. It was a most unsatisfactory meeting.

I urge residents to register a protest at this forced removal of long term patients of Glenside Hospital and the distress this has caused their families and of the loss of our open space land for yet another shopping centre and land division.

Remember, once the forty two per cent of open space is gone, we can never get it back.

This lack of consultation was repeated yet again by the state government in February this year, when it announced its updated master plan for Glenside Hospital. Essentially, the only change which appeared on the updated plan was that the locations of where the new hospital and residential development would be built were swapped. Massada College is located right next door to the Glenside campus. This updated plan was released without even consulting the school community, even though this change will impact on the school. Massada College is on Flemington Street. This street is usually very busy, with parents dropping off and picking up their children from school. With the new Glenside Hospital now being proposed to be built right next door to the school, Flemington Street will become even more congested, with an influx of hospital traffic. This extra traffic poses a danger to the schoolchildren trying to cross the road. Yet again, without any consultation, the state government has gone ahead and just made its decision.

Finally, only last month the state government released the final master plan for the Glenside redevelopment. Hopefully Minister Gago will now consult with the public and personally answer their concerns. But I am not holding my breath. It is disappointing, to say the least, that mental health services in South Australia will be cut under the proposed Glenside sale and redevelopment. To the patients and families who rely on the services provided by Glenside Hospital, it is a slap in the face. The state government pretend that they are improving mental health services. They are building a new hospital but it will have fewer beds in it. Where will the mentally ill go? It appears that there will be nowhere for them to go because the land that was once used for their rehabilitation is up for sale. I, along with many local residents, want to see Glenside Hospital kept open, because the Glenside campus should be used to rehabilitate the mentally ill, not used for shoppers to buy the latest items. I believe the entire redevelopment should be postponed pending the satisfactory resolution of the concerns of local residents and their representatives. In the alternative, my hope and that of many residents is that while the redevelopment of mental health services proceeds there is no diminution— (Time expired)

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is extraordinary to have heard from the member for Sturt—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What would you know about it?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

who is still not prepared to sit down and is saying, ‘What would you know?’ If the member for Sturt would listen in silence, he might just learn something.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I doubt it from you, Mr QC.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is extraordinary that the member for Sturt, who was representative of the low priority given to mental health by the former government—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a lie!

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt will stop interjecting. You have had your time.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is lying.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask you to refrain from interjecting.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the member for Sturt to withdraw the remark that he just made about the member for Isaacs lying.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt will withdraw that word.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was responsible for mental health when we established a $1.9 billion mental health—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt will withdraw the comment that was made earlier about lying.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw unreservedly.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is extraordinary to hear from the member for Sturt anything about mental health given the very low priority given to that area of government policy by the former government, represented by the fact that the former Minister for Health and Ageing was not prepared to take up ministerial responsibility for mental health but, rather, delegated it to the member for Sturt in his junior capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing. The one thing that is consistent with the position taken by the member for Sturt in his capacity as parliamentary secretary with some responsibility for mental health is that he spent most of his time when undertaking that role attacking state governments. We hear from him today yet another attack, this time on the South Australian state government, because he is not interested in putting forward any policies at the federal level; he is interested simply in doing what he did as parliamentary secretary for health, which is to attack state governments. I will quote something that the member for Sturt, in his capacity as parliamentary secretary for health, said on the Insiders program in October 2005:

We have a national mental health strategy, which is a cooperative arrangement between the Commonwealth and all the states, so the Commonwealth certainly does have a role. In terms of more money, money is not the only issue. The most important issue is for people to take responsibility for what they’re responsible for and the states are responsible for mental health. Now if more money is needed I’m sure that’s something that can be considered down the track.

Of course it was not considered down the track. Unlike the former government, the Rudd Labor government understands the importance of mental health. The Rudd Labor government understands that one in five Australians will experience some form of mental illness during their life. All we got from the Howard government—and that is why it is an extraordinary irony to hear the member for Sturt putting forward a motion about mental health—was broken promises. We had broken promises in the 2004 election, particularly the election promise of an additional $30 million for the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care program. That promise was broken like so many other promises of the Howard government. Perhaps it was one of those non-core promises. The approach of the former government was to attack state governments. When the member for Sturt was parliamentary secretary that is what he did, and we have more of the same. I will not mention of course what happened when the member for Sturt finally became a minister—he has not had the good grace to stay. When he finally became a minister, the Minister for Ageing, he did not want to be there. He told a group of aged-care providers that his real interest was in foreign affairs.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Isaacs willing to give way?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. When the member for Sturt finally made it to the ministry, he did not even want to be there. I have mentioned what he said about his real interest being in foreign affairs. He told the aged-care providers that he did not want to open aged-care facilities or attend meetings about aged-care facilities because he was ‘young’. Of course, in his very first period as Minister for Ageing, he was missing in action entirely in being unprepared to comment on disastrous events in a Victorian nursing home.

But to return to the subject matter of this motion: I expected to hear from the member for Sturt something about mental health, not comments about damaging the local character of the area. The three sentences of this motion are concerned with state-of-the-art mental health care and helping the mentally ill rehabilitate from their illness, and they contain an attack on the redevelopment of the Glenside campus by the South Australian state government. The member for Sturt and, regrettably, members of the state Liberal opposition in South Australia have been engaged in spreading misinformation and false rumours at a number of levels about the redevelopment of the Glenside campus.

It needs to be pointed out that the Liberal Party, while in government in South Australia from 1993 to 2002, had a very long time to do something about the Glenside campus but did nothing. They had a very long time to do something about mental health but did nothing. We did not hear from the member for Sturt while the Liberal Party were in power in the state of South Australia from 1993 to 2002 and, indeed, it might be said that the Liberal Party had 11½ years while in federal government to do something about mental health. Instead, what we have heard today is an entirely misplaced and false attack on a well thought out, thorough and careful policy of the Rann Labor government in South Australia.

There is one further irony in the comments that have been made by the member for Sturt, and that is that the member for Sturt seems to have forgotten that the former Liberal government in South Australia had already agreed to sell some of the Glenside land to the owners of the nearby shopping centre. There is more than a little hypocrisy in the attack that is now being made.

It is not true that there has been no consultation about the reforms involved here and the redevelopment of the Glenside campus. It is also not true that the redevelopment of the Glenside campus will result in a reduction in the number of adult mental health beds. A close examination of the policies that have been announced by the South Australian state government shows that there will not be a reduction in adult mental health beds. In fact, the reform of the mental health system, using the new stepped care model that has been adopted in South Australia, will deliver an estimated 86 additional adult beds across all levels of care, bringing the state total to 516 adult mental health beds.

It appears that, when the state government takes action to reform what, on any view, is an outmoded Victorian era lunatic asylum—not to put too fine a point on it—the response of the member for Sturt and the response of the Liberal opposition in South Australia has been to argue for its retention. All of this attack entirely ignores the work that has been done by the Rann Labor government in the area of mental health since 2002. We have visible in South Australia a mental health reform agenda which involves the devolution of mental health beds from central institutions to general hospitals and community settings where the care is most needed. It is a function of this policy that the institutional asylums of the past are no longer required, and that is why the Glenside campus is undergoing redevelopment.

We heard nothing from the member for Sturt of a very important report by the Social Inclusion Board called the Stepping up report, which was released in 2007. It seems entirely possible, given his failure to refer to it, that the member for Sturt has simply not read the report and, following on from his failure to refer to this very important report, which has been acted on in two successive budgets by the South Australian state government, that the member for Sturt is unaware of both the recommendations of the report and the implementation of those recommendations by the South Australian government.

The last part of this motion claims:

... mental health services in South Australia are under threat from the State Government with the proposed sale and redevelopment of the Glenside Campus.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that most of the Glenside site is underused, some of the land is surplus to requirements, more care is going to be provided in future in the community or in hospitals close to where people live. The motion is wholly misconceived. (Time expired)

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation and Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first part of the motion moved by the member for Sturt deals with:

... the importance of providing state-of-the-art mental health care for the mentally ill;

When we look at mental health, we note that with the introduction of newer antipsychotics there was a move towards deinstitutionalisation. This really began about 20 years ago. If I remember correctly, Glenside Hospital previously used to have a high wall around it and the attitudes towards mental health were very different. We have seen a period of deinstitutionalisation, but one of the problems has been that the state and territory governments did not put the resources into mental health that were required while they were taking people out of institutions and putting them into the community.

One of the things in the previous speaker’s contribution that I really need to address is this. He seemed to be blissfully unaware that anything has happened in the area of mental health since 2005. He seemed to be unaware that in the 2006 budget there was an extra $1.9 billion spent on mental health services. He should go back to his research and do a bit more work next time because it is incumbent on all members not to mislead the chamber and to actually come armed with the facts and not just empty rhetoric.

It was actually the member for Sturt who played a role in getting the government to commit an extra $1.9 billion over five years—and we might want to have a look at what the Mental Health Council of Australia and all the mental health lobby groups said at the time. I note this was a result of the Mental Health Council’s landmark report in 2005, which recommended an increased investment by the Commonwealth government in mental health services and recommended such things as getting GPs, specialist mental health nurses and psychiatrists more involved in Medicare to improve the detection, treatment and management of mental illness. There was also other money to provide an extra 900 new personal helpers and mentors to assist over 50,000 people with a mental illness. This is money that will be spent over the five years up to 2010.

I am sure that the new government, just as we have heard with the tax cuts and just as we have heard with water-harvesting projects in the member for Kingston’s electorate, will rebadge some of these things and they will now become their initiatives—but there is the fact: $1.9 billion over five years announced in the 2006 budget. When we look at the specific area of Glenside Hospital, what we find is the big announcement in respect of the hospital in recent times has been that $43 million will be spent on a film studio in the grounds of the hospital. What we see is a loss of 51 beds at the hospital while at the same time $43 million will be spent on a film studio in the grounds.

In South Australia, since 2000, more than 400 beds in privately run supported residences or boarding houses have closed. As a result, many people with mental illness have simply nowhere to go and are adding to the ranks of homeless. Dr Marco Giardini, Chairman of the South Australian branch of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, has said:

We question whether this is the right time in the evolution of this State’s mental health services to sell off land which will forever be lost to mental health consumers and services.

The State is in dire need of a substantial increase in appropriately run, high quality supported accommodation options for those with serious, chronic mental illness.

Do not take my word for it. That statement is from the chairman of the South Australian branch of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Community consultation has been a joke. The minister has never fronted it, and it has not resulted in any response from the government. (Time expired)

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Treating mental health effectively is critical to ensure a happy, healthy and productive society. Governments need to consider not only the resources they provide for mental health services but also the framework that ensures that these services are effective in addressing both treatment and prevention. Governments need to start considering mental health on a continuum from healthy to acute illness, not as a dichotomy between illness and health. Not treating mental health on a continuum has led to the evolution of the current mental health system that offers effectively two options of care: care in acute mental health beds or care in the community. Working as a psychologist in primary mental health, I saw these two options fail a number of people on a continuing basis. I saw many people who have had a life challenge or a crisis which has exacerbated their mental illness and led to a relapse of symptoms. For many of these clients, their symptoms were not serious enough for them to be considered in need of acute hospitalisation. However, they did require more mental health assistance than was offered by community care. I often had to sit by and watch the mental health of my clients deteriorate until their symptoms were serious enough to be considered for acute hospitalisation.

For this reason I was very pleased to see the innovative approach of the South Australian government, contained in the Stepping up report. The report endorses a stepped care model, which seeks to fill the current gap between community care and acute hospital care by providing different levels of care, including 24-hour supported accommodation, community recovery centres and intermediate care beds. This approach is designed to match the appropriate level of care with the client’s needs at any one time. This approach also allows for the level of care to be changed, depending on how healthy a client is at any one time. We can no longer just see illness and health;  we need to look at symptoms and how we best can match the level of care we give to these clients.

In addition, I am very pleased to see the South Australian government is providing mental health beds in hospitals and in general community settings, ensuring that services are provided where clients are. When I was working as a psychologist in a community setting I saw a number of clients who required much more intensive multidiscipline routine treatment, much more complex than the treatment that I and the local GP were able to provide. However, I had to continue treating these clients because the specialised services were located on the other side of the metropolitan area of Adelaide. These clients were not in a position to be able to travel 40 to 60 kilometres to access services. The barriers to travel by these clients included age, financial constraints and the seriousness of their symptoms. Without services in their local area, they did not get the adequate treatment they required.

Those with mental illness are very vulnerable and they need the support of their family. In my experience, positive family support has immense benefit for a client’s recovery. This means having the family close by, even when the client is hospitalised. Once again, I support the state government’s initiative to not only increase the number of beds available to mental health patients but also locate these beds close to where clients and their families live.

I was very pleased when I saw the announcement of new mental health facilities being built at the Flinders Medical Centre and a community recovery centre at Noarlunga which will be able to provide more inpatient services to those suffering mental health difficulties in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. In contrast to what the member for Sturt is suggesting, the state government’s redevelopment of the Glenside site is about providing state-of-the-art services in line with best practice for mental health. I would particularly like to draw the House’s attention to the consolidation of drug and alcohol services and mental health services. This integration is long overdue. It was extremely frustrating working as a psychologist trying to— (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.