Adjournment Debate

Mount Gambier Mental Health Services

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (16:52): I rise in this adjournment grieve to talk about funding uncertainty and mental health bed reductions in the seat of Mount Gambier. I find it quite perplexing, disturbing and agitating that we have a government and a minister who is prepared to cut 20 mental health beds across the state and, in yesterday's question time, turns around and says, 'No, in one of those places in the state, the seat of Giles, which includes Whyalla, we will reinstate those mental health beds,' but for the other place where those cuts are coming into effect on 1 July, Mount Gambier, 'Sorry, nothing for your community down there.'

I find it hard to believe or comprehend that one part of our state is more deserving than the other. I understand fully the impact of Arrium and the uncertainty in an industry like Arrium's has on a regional community because I have been born, raised, educated and have returned to a regional community, so I know firsthand the need for services, particularly around mental health. I am calling this for what it is: a purely political decision. It is one that I hope, when we are in government, I will stand up for if it shows its ugly head in our party room.

As I said, I understand the need of those in Whyalla and the uncertainty around Arrium; however, contrast that with Mount Gambier and the dairy crisis that we are in, which has been recognised by the Minister for Agriculture by putting in $60,000 for extra counselling of those dairy farmers. Whilst that is welcome, again, it does not go anywhere near the $150,000 which is allocated to Whyalla-based MATES in Construction. I am not here saying they should not get that money; in fact I applaud the government for putting money into that area. What I am saying is that my community is just as deserving, and I would like to see those members opposite supporting the South-East and the reinstatement of these 10 mental health beds because they are vital for our area.

Just to be clear, these are not the acute beds. We have had a hospital upgrade with 10 mental health beds at an acute stage. They are over capacity. They are very expensive. These are the rehabilitation mental health beds for either transitioning people from acute back into their day-to-day lives or, and more importantly, supporting people so that their mental illness does not get to that acute stage. Is that not the best type of health investment? Prevention is better than cure. Whatever you can do earlier on certainly pays dividends down the track.

Again and again in the South-East we see a situation where you are given crumbs off the table. Today in the house, there was $2.95 million for an airport upgrade, which is welcomed gratefully, but $8 million has been taken out of mental health services: 'The loaf of bread has left the table, but we will leave you some crumbs on the table.' That $2.95 million, I remind the house, was allocated to the Forestry Partnerships Program after the sale of the South-East's forests. Of $27 million in all, $2.95 million has not been spent (or let's round up to $3 million), yet the benefit to those living in the CBD of the sale of the South-East forests far outweighs the $27 million allocated in return. I do not need to point much further than to some of the sporting developments up here.

I also want to talk about the Junction and a wonderful lady called Nel Janz. It goes to the heart of what I have been talking about: some investment in prevention is far better than a cure at an acute stage in our Mount Gambier Hospital. The Junction has not been funded for nearly three years now, after previously being funded, but a wonderful lady called Nel Janz now operates the centre in a volunteer capacity because she sees the value and the need of those people who are suffering from mental health issues coming into a space where they are encouraged to take responsibility for their own wellbeing and take an active role in the day-to-day operation of the centre.

The centre gives support to people experiencing mental health issues or recovering from mental health issues. What I have seen over the last two and a bit years that I have been representing the seat of Mount Gambier is a continual reduction in services from Country Health SA. It is to this area that I would direct the government to give some focus. It does not always have to do with money. Country Health SA used to provide a person who would work with Nel at the Junction one day a fortnight, I believe, but I will need to check my facts. It is these types of services that need to be supported.

The Junction is based in Mount Gambier, but it has an outreach service in Millicent and Penola. It is now forced to run fundraisers just to pretty much keep the doors open. If we allow centres like this to close, we are going to see our acute mental health facilities under even more and more burden and stress. This is what I encourage this government to do: we need that $8 million put back into mental health beds before they get to an acute stage.

If it is good enough for Whyalla, I am calling on this government that it is good enough for the people of the South-East, and I would like to see some contribution back to reinstating those facilities. Otherwise, I can tell you now that the overrun will be picked up by the acute mental health facility at Mount Gambier Hospital, and it is a very expensive method of trying to deal with mental health services. With those few words, I am disappointed, but I call on the state government to do the right thing and reinstate those services.

I will just finish on an issue that has been floating around, that is, federal health cuts. When I go and speak to my federal colleagues, they say there is more and more money in health than ever before. There is more money this year than there was last year, there will be more money next year then there is this year. What we have done is untie the money. Kevin Rudd had pet projects—palliative care, mental health, substance abuse—where money was tied from the federal government to those specific causes.

This government has untied those funding agreements, called national agreements or partnerships, so there is more money. It is just how this state government is deciding to spend that money. It concerns me that we have a big black hole in health and that we have a big building that is going to suck the health budget completely dry. We are going to see, particularly in country areas, and in Country Health, a pulling back of resources, which is not going to serve country residents at all well. With those words, I conclude my remarks.