Page 2686 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
when we are not. There has to be something about that model. It is not about the quality of the professionals, as they are excellent. It is about giving them the opportunity to do their job and do it properly, and that is the problem with the approach of this government.
In terms of mental health, I am a little disturbed at one of the answers from the minister in the government’s response. She says that growth will be maintained in mental health at something like six per cent. Six per cent is not enough to maintain the situation. Overall, seven per cent is spent on mental health out of the existing health budget. If you are only increasing it by six per cent, it will decline, which would be a bad thing. I would ask the minister to review that. What you need to do very quickly is to get it up to somewhere between 11 per cent and 14 per cent. If you are genuinely interested in prevention and early intervention, the area to start in is mental health, because the effect that it has on the individual—on their physical health, on other illnesses that they then contract through things to do with dual diagnosis, whether they are using alcohol and drugs to self-medicate, and the effect on their families and their workplace—is enormous. I do not know anyone who does not understand that. If we are going to raise mental health funding only by six per cent per annum, we are going to lose, we are going to fall behind, and that would be a shame.
The minister has, I think, taken note of the suggestion of two of the groups that appeared before the committee, two community groups, that we genuinely need a mapping exercise. The government has agreed to the recommendation that the minister undertake a mapping exercise of existing services and need. That will be used to develop the mental health services plan in early 2007; so well done on that score. But overall, in all of these issues, I do not think that we have a genuine handle on what is going on.
At 6.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, there is concern over the mental health issue. It will be interesting to see the results of the mapping exercise. I note Dr Foskey’s concerns about the new facility. It is a shame that it has been put off. Again, I think that is being short-sighted. People in custody from the ACT deserve appropriate care, and those with mental health problems, I suspect, are a significant proportion of those in custody. The web site of the New South Wales corrections service says that something like 40 per cent of the people in the New South Wales system have mental health problems. Perhaps we should get our priorities right and actually build a new mental health facility before we build the prison. There are always competing needs on budgets. Let’s not get caught up in personal icons. Let’s get caught up in building what the people need.
The other interesting thing is the need for a time-out facility, which Dr Foskey called a step-up, step-down facility. There is an overwhelming need for a different approach; you are either in or out of the system. The PSU has a limited number of beds and people are regularly turned away. I would bring to the minister’s attention a system put up by the Shepparton area health service. They have a number of units that operate as a time-out facility. They have reduced readmission to the mental health facilities and the local hospital by about 51 per cent. They are getting people early, stabilising them, feeding them, giving them intensive counselling and getting them back onto their medication regimes so that they do not have to go into the lock-up that is the PSU.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .