Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak briefly to the first report from the Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, A national approach to mental health: from crisis to community. It is widely acknowledged across the political spectrum that this report is a very valuable one. It has helped to move things further along the continuum away from crisis, but I do not think that any of us can say that we have got there yet. There is still a crisis in mental health around Australia and we need to do more in regard to that.

Occasionally, there is besmirching afoot in regard to Senate committees by some in the community, by some in the media and—may I suggest—by some in the government. It is said that Senate committees are all a waste of time, that they are politicised and that they chew up money, and so the process is discredited. Not every committee inquiry is worthwhile and valuable but I suggest that the evidence shows that the vast majority are. I should also say that a significant number of them, this one included, are non-partisan and genuine inquiries in the proper sense of the word. They get evidence, get the facts, get different views from the community and pull together ideas about how to move things forward in a positive direction in regards to an issue of public importance.

I am pleased to see what, in my view anyway, is starting to become a genuine recognition of the importance of mental health as an issue within the broader health portfolio and a slow removing—there is a long way to go—of some of the stigma attached to mental health issues. We need to do a lot more in that respect. It is an issue that was addressed to some extent in the committee inquiry. In some ways, how we deal with the stigma that arises from mental health issues and being seen to be afflicted by a mental health problem is a very fraught issue. It is a very difficult issue, but it is one that we need to confront a lot more honestly and openly. I support moves to do that. I support those bodies in the community—and there are quite a number of them—that work tirelessly to try and reduce stigma. A key part of that is increasing awareness and understanding and reducing fear. Mental illness is something that is hard to put your finger on, mysterious, hard to understand, difficult to measure and difficult to define precisely, and all these things add to the fear and apprehension people have about it.

Certainly there are things about mental illness worth being apprehensive about, but—as with many disabilities—these things are not 100 per cent bad. As with many disabilities, having a mental health disability can actually bring other characteristics to light. It can provide opportunities for people to get different experiences in life and different perspectives on life. I am not suggesting that we should all just grin and bear it—or frown and bear it—and see suffering from a mental illness as a character-building experience, but we need to recognise that, as with many disabilities, dealing with mental illness should not be a matter of looking ceaselessly for a 100 per cent cure and assuming things are terrible if it cannot be found. What I am trying to say is that part of the struggle is looking for ways for people to be able to live more fully and effectively even when they do not have 100 per cent perfect mental health.

I want to note in speaking to this report that this was a Senate select committee; it was initiated by the Democrats and chaired by my colleague Senator Allison. It is worth noting—indeed, it is a bit of an anomaly at the moment—that there is not a single Senate select committee in operation and, as far as I understand it, this was the last one. I do not think we have had a Senate select committee since this committee wound up, and it only operated for a year or so. I have not looked at the statistics, but I suspect it would be some time since we have had the Senate operating without any select committee at all—certainly for this length of time. At many times in the past we have had two, three or four on the boil at any one time, in addition to the standing committees and the joint parliamentary committees.

For those who are not fully aware, under the Senate committee system we have a range of committees that are there all the time—they are called ‘standing committees’. They look at areas like the environment and legal issues. The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs would normally deal with health issues, but the Senate also has the ability and has made it the practice for a long time to form select committees specifically to examine in depth a particular matter so as not to be distracted by the myriad issues that a standing committee can cover. It is very valuable to have a committee established that does nothing but look at the one issue and is not distracted by a whole range of other items of business. I am not saying we should form committees for the sake of them, but it is of concern to me that we have this gap at the moment in the Senate, where there are not any select committees operating. I know there are many opportunities for more forensically examining issues of significance to the community: important public policy matters. It is another sign—perhaps a small sign, but nonetheless another example—of the consequences of the government having the majority in the Senate.

I think the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Mental Health was established just after the government got control of the Senate, so in that sense it is a tick for the government, as it supported this inquiry going ahead and the committee being established. But it is also important to note that there is now a gap there. There are ongoing issues flowing out of the work of this select committee into mental health issues that still need addressing. A lot of the findings of the select committee’s work have flowed through and been picked up by governments at the state and federal levels, as well as contributed to community understanding and maintained momentum among community service organisations. That is very welcome and is an important part of the wider value of Senate committees, but I think there is more to be done and, frankly, we need to look at ensuring that the taxpayer is getting maximum value out of the Senate, with all the opportunities and resources we have for conducting valuable, constructive, non-partisan, unanimous Senate committee inquiries. This report is a perfect example of how valuable that process can be and it is a reminder that we should always look for more opportunities to continue to do the same.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.