Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

This report is into the Commonwealth funding and administration of mental health services. This report is quite wide-ranging. Indeed, very few Senate inquiries receive as many submissions as this one did. Over 1,000 submissions were made. The fact that one in five Australians has a mental health problem was certainly evident in this inquiry, and it just goes to show that mental health is a very serious issue. Judging not only by the number but also by the nature of the submissions to the inquiry, a lot needs to be done on mental health.

Tonight I focus on yet another backflip on mental health. The backflip by Mark Butler, the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, on 1 February was not entirely unexpected given the criticism that the coalition had directed towards the government for its decision to cut access to extra sessions under the Better Access program. The minister's backflip on Better Access vindicates the coalition's criticisms that the government's changes to the Better Access program were made on the basis of inadequate consulta­tions with key stakeholders and that there was very little attempt to assess the impact of the changes—most importantly, the changes affecting patients.

The dissenting report of the coalition senators to the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs into the Commonwealth's funding and administration of mental health services was very critical of the government's changes. We believe that these changes caused a lot of stress to patients, to their families and to the practitioners treating them. But these changes are typical of a government which cannot get anything right. Of course, backflips on mental health are not new. On 19 May 2010, then health minister Roxon was forced to perform the first budget backflip of 2010—and this less than a week after the budget was delivered—by deferring changes which would have prevented social workers and occupational therapists provid­ing mental health services. The latest back­flip was the same old story—no consultation, no heeding the advice of the experts and little consideration of the impact on those suffering from serious mental health issues.

I now refresh the Senate's memory of the report. I go to some of the coalition senators' criticisms which are included in this report and which, with the benefit of hindsight, have well and truly been vindicated. We were very critical of the evaluation of Better Access. Among the aspects we criticised were the lack of measurement of key object­ives of the Better Access program and how the performance over time of the program has been measured. Moreover, I have asked questions on these matters in the Senate. In our dissenting report, we picked up where criticisms had been made in the submissions. The methodology of the evaluation was the target of particular criticisms, which held that the evaluation had not proceeded 'according to scientifically accepted methods, the latter crucial for establishing the most accurate results'.

In the 2011-12 budget statement, the government stated that Better Access was an increasingly costly program and that it had not, allegedly, been fully effective in addressing the mental health needs of all target groups. What the government then did was ineffectively shift money from one program to another. Rather than reforming mental health, the government was simply robbing Peter to pay Paul: by rationalising its services, the government was simply redirecting funds from one program to another. It was unclear whether, in so doing, the government had any plans to monitor the impact on the quality of the care which was going to be available to people as a result.

Had this government not wasted so much money on pink batts, had it not wasted $16 billion on the Julia Gillard memorial halls and had it not wasted so much money on a whole litany of other programs, it would not have been picking on the most vulnerable in our society—the mentally ill—and cutting programs, which was in effect just a budget saving measure. It did these things because it had squandered so much money on other things, and then the government thought: 'Why don't we go out there and pick on the mentally ill? There won't be too many advocates for them.' And that is what the government did.

We were most critical of the government in this instance for its failure to consult with the key stakeholders and, most importantly, to assess the impact that its cuts were going to have on the patients. Consultation on mental health has not, of course, been a strong point of the Rudd-Gillard govern­ment. I take the Senate back to 2008, when the government established the National Advisory Council on Mental Health. In June 2010, we saw the rather spectacular resigna­tion of Professor John Mendoza, who had been appointed the council's chairman. He resigned while heavily criticising the Rudd government for its lack of action on mental health. In an interview he gave on 21 June 2010 he gave his reasons for his resignation. He said:

Well it’s a frustration … When I took this role on I genuinely believed that the Government was going to take a different approach to mental health reform. They’d certainly made clear in opposition that they were determined to address the long standing problems in this area.

He also said:

… after two years … it was pretty clear we were getting nowhere.

With the chairmanship vacated, what does Minister Butler do but appoint himself as the chairman. Either he could not find anyone to replace Professor John Mendoza or he wanted to take a more hands-on approach and give himself advice. How can you be the minister and appoint yourself as the chair of a ministerial advisory council? This, of course, also led to some criticisms.

And then, over and above this, we also had foggy evidence given at estimates about this other group which emerged whereby the minister established a new little group, a sort of 'kitchen cabinet', to advise him on some budget changes. The process was again criticised. It certainly was not handled well and it appears to have raised real doubts among stakeholders not only about the effectiveness of the national advisory council but it also reinforced the credibility of those participating and giving advice to the minister and raised real questions about the transparency and objectivity of its deliberat­ions. This then led to criticism because some of the participants in those deliberations were subsequently the recipients of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In our report we were very critical and in our concluding remarks we criticised the way the government had undertaken the changes and its scant consultation with key stakeholders, instead relying heavily on what had been a heavily criticised Better Access evaluation. It is not surprising to see that the government backflipped. It should have listened to the coalition and followed our advice. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.