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

This afternoon in this place Senator Allison, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, with the support of the Labor Party and the Australian Greens, moved a motion recommending the creation of a special Senate select committee, to be known as the Senate select committee on mental health services, to inquire into and monitor ongoing efforts towards improving mental health services in Australia and report by 30 June 2008. The committee recommendation had a number of dot points about the administration of the proposed committee. We were surprised, and greatly disappointed, by the decision of the government to vote down that recommendation. We are as yet to receive any explanation as to why the government decided it was not worth while to look at having an ongoing role for a Senate select committee in this place considering the major issue of mental health.

The issue of mental health has been acknowledged by this Senate as extraordinarily important in our community. The Senate acknowledged and endorsed the role of the original Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, which commenced its work in March 2005, and heralded its work, which was completed in March 2006. There has been strong acknowledgement by all parties involved and all levels of government of the importance of mental health in our community. That gave us hope that there would be an acknowledgement that the work does not end when the committee reports, particularly now when there is such hope in the community because of the action of the Council of Australian Governments to initiate another national action plan for mental health for the years 2006 to 2011. This was launched by all the leaders of government in this country—the Prime Minister and the various state and territory ministers—in July 2006. The action plan says:

The effects of mental illness are felt across our nation. Recent reports from Parliamentary inquiries and independent reviews have presented strong evidence for change in the way governments respond to mental illness.

It goes on to outline what needs to be done. It says that the Council of Australian Governments has agreed to this national action plan on mental health which is:

... a unique opportunity to support people to manage their mental illness and make best use of services that will work for them, their families and carers in a more integrated way.

That is the particular issue. The first national mental health plan that was brought down in 1992 had very simple and clear aims:

• to promote the mental health of the Australian community;
• to, where possible, prevent the development of mental disorder;
• to reduce the impact of mental disorder on individuals, families and the community; and
• to assure the rights of people with mental disorder.

Whilst some of those terms have changed, because language has changed a bit in the period since then, the aims have remained largely unchanged. The real issue is that, whilst the rhetoric and goodwill are there, there is a deep concern about the actual implementation. In 2003, when the second national mental health plan was being assessed, an extremely valuable report that was put out at that time by the Mental Health Council of Australia entitled Out of hospital, out of mind said—and I think this was one of the most worrying things that we heard in all of the evidence to the committee in 2006:

After two 5-year National Mental Health Plans—

that is 10 years of allegedly concerted government work—

this does not represent a failure of policy, but rather a failure of implementation. This includes poor government administration and accountability, lack of ongoing government commitment to genuine reform and failure to support the degree of community development required to achieve high quality mental health care outside institutions.

Evidence was presented to our committee by people on the harrowing experience of working through their own difficult processes of having mental health issues, we heard the very worrying and quite distressing evidence of people who had watched and worked with their family members who were experiencing mental health issues, and we heard of the experiences of mental health providers who work on a daily basis with people who desperately need their support. Our committee heard that evidence for over 12 months. Our committee did not meet every day but I can assure you, Mr President, that we thought about the issues on a daily basis. We were committed to ensuring that, this time, when there was the opportunity for governments to work together, there would be real implementation success.

The government has already agreed in the new national action plan that it will:

... report annually to COAG on implementation of the Plan, and on progress against the agreed outcomes. Governments have also agreed to an independent evaluation and review of the Plan after five years.

We hope that when there is an evaluation this time there will not just be an acknowledgement that people have tried and that there is a commitment to improving the lives of people with mental health issues but that there will not be a failure of implentation and that, this time, with all the experience and knowledge that we have gained, there will be some real change achieved.

That is the background to the recommendation to the Senate that we actually have an ongoing link between the various plans that have been set up across every state and territory of this country and are coordinated by at least five federal government departments. That was why we thought it would be an appropriate action to have an ongoing link involving the Senate group that was involved in the first Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, such that we would have that ongoing link between the Senate and whatever was going on.

This was not something that just a few senators dreamed up because they thought it would be a good idea to continue to have a committee operating, rather it was a result of discussion with the people who came to us. I was fortunate enough to attend the Mental Health Services Conference in Townsville this year where there was enormous interest in the way that the Senate committee operated. There were requests from the floor at the conference to ensure that we, as senators, maintained our immediate interest in the program. This request came not just from people, as I said, who were working with their own issues in mental health but from the medical profession and also from representatives of the Mental Health Council of Australia in attendance. We were genuinely thrilled by the amount of interest that was shown by a range of people in what was happening in parliament. They felt secure and almost buoyed by the fact that the Senate was interested in the issues of mental health, that we had made a commitment to them, that we wanted to stay involved and that there would be a very active, ongoing monitoring role.

Given that kind of background, it is extremely disappointing that the government has decided that there is no need for that link. There may well be some alternative options offered that have not been explained to us. But most particularly, it has not been explained to those people who want to have this parliament involved in these particularly important issues. There is always a need for coordination and monitoring; it does not matter what program is put forward. In fact, consistently through our inquiry during 2005-06 we heard concerns about the lack of coordination. When the Hon. Christopher Pyne was outlining his view of the importance of addressing mental health issues in the National Mental Health Report 2004, he said:

I ... am aware that improving the mental health of the community requires coordination across diverse areas of public policy, both within and external to the health portfolio.

This has been picked up by having shared responsibility across a number of departments in the significant financial commitment that the federal government has made to the issues of mental health. We applaud that commitment. We were very thrilled to see the budgetary announcements made by the federal government through the COAG process—over $1.9 billion being dedicated to issues around mental health—but it is not good enough to just make the promises over a five-year period. What is needed is ongoing involvement, development and monitoring of what is being achieved.

We believe that there is a role for the parliament. We would like to know what the government’s position is on this. We would like to know how it thinks this will be achieved because we think that the establishment of a Senate select committee at no great cost, rather to meet as required, would maintain that commitment to the people who most need the support of their government.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the same issue. Also a member of the former Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, I too was tragically disappointed by the government’s decision in the vote today and, whilst it is not my role to reflect on a decision of this chamber, it is my role to reflect on the decision of this government. This is a government that heralds its commitment to mental health. It heralds it particularly in Mental Health Week with numerous public functions to which only government members are invited. They do not seem to hold out the spirit of bipartisanship to reflect the priority that should be given to mental health by those in the community. Instead the Hon. Christopher Pyne, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, decides usually only to have government members attend select events and functions. He does not decide, anyway, to invite anyone else who may be committed and, in fact, may have an understanding of these issues.

This is a complete contrast to those of us on all sides of this chamber who were involved in the Senate select committee. We all put our partisanship to one side and came up with a unanimous report because we decided as opinion leaders and makers in this country that we needed to actually get onboard with the views of this community and give mental health the priority that the community has given it for a very long time. All of us on that committee still share that view, so it is very sad that the government, rather than individual members of the Liberal Party, decided to ram through this decision. I have been told that it is because we wanted a select committee. This is from the same government that declared they would not use or abuse their majority in this place. Apparently, it is because we wanted a select committee—if only we would agree to refer it to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. This is the same committee that deals with any piece of health, FaCSIA or other legislation that comes before this place. So it would seem to key members of the government rather than key members of this place that mental health should slot in with an increase in, say, the private health insurance rebate, the decision to sell Medibank Private or anything else—it is of the same standing.

I am sorry, but to the community it is not, to state and territory governments it is not, to members of this place it is not, to significant members of the Liberal Party it is not. I find it galling, to say the least, that the government has decided that it is. Those of us who were appointed to the Senate select committee agreed that we would put our partisanship to one side. People like me would cop due criticism of state governments for their failings in the delivery of mental health services just as members of the government would cop due criticism for the federal government’s failings. We would do our best to compromise and come up with a unanimous report.

It is therefore a pity, to say the least, that the spirit of that committee could not continue in this place and maintain the watching brief. I have been in this place before and talked about the challenge of maintaining a watching brief. Indeed, I did not write to all members of the committee when I said that I would, because I was led to believe that the government would actually maintain their commitment and reconvene in some way, be it formal or informal, that watching brief. So it is tragic, that they have decided today to use their numbers, to use their majority in this place, to sell short those who believed in that report, who believed in the government’s commitment and who believed in our commitment to deliver to those who are most in need of our service.

It is a tragedy that the government have decided to sell short the commitment of people like the former Premier of Victoria, Mr Kennett; former minister for health, Mr Rob Knowles, who I know personally is disappointed with this government’s decision; former Premier and my good friend Dr Geoff Gallop; the former Western Australian minister for health and former Chair of the Mental Health Council, Mr Keith Wilson; and, of course, the former Premier of New South Wales, Mr Bob Carr—all of whom are passionately committed to putting aside their partisan beliefs to deliver solutions to this disease burden and to deliver to this need in our community. The government, not the Liberal Party members in this place, have decided to ram through the rule that we can no longer have select committees. Apparently, this should just be another issue that the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs might get around to dealing with at some point, when in fact the chair of the community affairs committee said that he would prefer a select committee because the community affairs committee is too busy to deal with this issue. That is the reason we were given for the referral of the privatisation of Medibank Private. We were told: ‘You cannot send it to community affairs because they are very busy; it should go to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration.’

Well, I am sorry; the government cannot have it both ways. You either agree that this is a priority, that it needs to be bipartisan, that it is a community priority and that we are going to find a solution to this incredibly important issue or you are going to play partisan politics and you do not care. That is the decision we made today: you do not care. You do not care about the people who suffer from chronic depression and other mental illnesses. You just want to make it a side issue that will go to a Senate committee amongst every other issue. You do not think it is a significant issue, and that is a tragedy for the 20 per cent of our population who suffer from mental illness.