HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APY LANDS, SUBSTANCE MISUSE FACILITY

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (16:31): I rise to speak on the Amata substance misuse facility, which was the subject of minister Hill's ministerial statement in parliament earlier today. This statement is, of course, a long awaited statement, and what an incredible disappointment it is to the people on the APY lands and the wider population of South Australia.

The Amata substance misuse facility was established using federal government funds and it receives recurrent funding, which the minister provided today, of $1.077 million from the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet and $250,000 from Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia. It is primarily a residential rehabilitation facility for those people suffering drug and alcohol addiction on the APY lands.

Unfortunately, it is a completely underutilised facility and it has been since the very day that it was opened. In fact, in the last parliamentary sitting week, it was reported to this parliament that in an 18-month period only 11 patients were treated with an overnight stay—11 in an 18-month period! This is an eight-bed residential facility. What an absolute disgrace!

I first started raising questions regarding this in estimates of October 2010, when I asked the Minister for Health about the underutilisation of this facility. This, of course, was not denied whatsoever. In fact, members from the health department who were at that estimates committee said that it was definitely an underutilised facility.

We know that FaHCSIA, the federal department, commissioned a report into the underutilisation of this facility more than a year ago. They spent $47,000 on a very expensive report, which was given to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation back in November last year. What happened to that report? It sat on their desks. I again raised this issue in estimates this year, both with the Minister for Health and with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. No progress to report.

Contrasting with that, we have a massive need for remote renal dialysis on the lands. Chronic renal disease is a problem which affects our Indigenous populations completely disproportionately to the wider average Australian population. This government's response over the 9½ years that they have been in power here in South Australia has been slow, it has been under-resourced, and ultimately it has been extremely disappointing to the Anangu and, of course, to all of us who care for social justice here in South Australia.

This is not a new problem; it goes back many years. In fact, it goes back to a crisis which occurred in early 2009 when the Northern Territory government decided that they would no longer support renal dialysis in central Australia coming from the APY lands. It was then required that minister Nicola Roxon step in to set up the April 2010 agreement, where emergency renal dialysis would be provided to people on the APY lands in Alice Springs.

Earlier this year, we know that the Central Australian Renal Study was tabled, a study that was commissioned, again, by the federal government, looking into this problem. In fact, it was tabled on 27 June, and amongst its very few recommendations was an immediate requirement to look into the suitability of the substance misuse centre in Amata and the Nganampa health service renal ready room for conversion to a community haemodialysis facility—but again this has been completely and utterly ignored.

Today, the minister comes in with a half-baked, very shallow, very flimsy statement on what he is going to do. He says, 'Other services could include a procedure room, diabetes program, allied health services.' He lists a number of things that this facility could actually be used for, but in this statement he has made no commitment to additional funds—not a cent more. There is no clear indication of what programs were going to be offered, who would be doing that scoping, when it would actually be delivered and, most importantly, no mention whatsoever of remote renal dialysis.

Kidney disease remains a critical issue on the lands and the minister's flimsy statement today completely shirks his responsibility—a responsibility which is just so obvious to anybody who visits the lands. The minister's comment about diabetes services does not deal at all with the issue of remote dialysis on the lands. He has hinted in the past at a mobile service. This is not enough of a response after so many years of this minister shirking his responsibilities.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT