Mr BURKE - 1994-10-13
Is the minister aware of the comments by the member for Barkly on ABC radio this morning in which she criticised the construction of the new mental health facility? What benefits will Territorians receive when the new facility is opened later this year?
Page 253
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I listened with some interest to the remarks by the member for Barkly when she spoke as opposition health spokesperson on ABC radio this morning. She was critical of the new mental health facility that is nearing completion on the campus of Royal Darwin Hospital. I suspect that her remarks were triggered by comments made by a Mr Tyler on the ABC's Drive Time program yesterday afternoon to which I responded. That is clearly illustrative of the modus operandi of the member for Barkly in that she and her colleagues are followers. They are not pro-active and, if an issue is raised by someone else, they may take the opportunistic approach and pursue it themselves. In recent times, the opposition has shown no interest in, no knowledge of and indeed no concern about the mental health facility that has been under construction and is now nearing completion at Royal Darwin Hospital.
Mrs Hickey: I sent you a letter last week asking you for a briefing.
Mr REED: Yesterday, because there was criticism of it by a third party, the member for Barkly took the opportunity to jump on the band wagon and be critical of what the government is doing. Not only is the member for Barkly showing herself to be a follower, but she is showing herself and her boss to be bewildered followers. It is interesting to consult the Parliamentary Record in relation to comments that have been made previously by members opposite on this mental health facility.
I will quote first from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Stuart who, in reference to this particular facility said, on Wednesday 30 September 1992 - and it is reported at page 6378 - that treatment for serious offenders should be 'preferably in the new secure mental health facility'. This reveals the Leader of the Opposition as a proponent of the facility which the member for Barkly was critical of on ABC radio this morning.
Let us have a look at what the member for Barkly herself has said in the past.
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, the member for Barkly was critical of this facility this morning. You cannot weasel out of it. You have no weasel clauses. You were quite definite in your criticism of it.
Mrs Hickey: I do not intend to. I stand by what I said.
Mr REED: You will be reminded of your past words. I quote the member for Barkly from Thursday 7 February 1991, in her response to a statement made on mental health in which she took credit for the construction of a new mental health facility. We
Page 254
have an amazing about-face. I quote the honourable member's words on that occasion:
While I welcome the development of the purpose-built facility for the region, I believe that, in many ways, the government
is acting too late and responding only after sustained and persistent action by residents, magistrates, and the Labor opposition.
That was only a couple of years ago.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: Now that this government has been pro-active and has spent some $6.5m on providing a facility to care for people who need that level of treatment ...
Mr Bailey: But you have done it wrong.
Mr REED: ... the member for Barkly is trying to retreat from her previous commitments. We will not wear it.
In relation to the interjection from the member for Wanguri that we have 'done it wrong' and with reference to the National Mental Health strategy, I must say that I have a great deal of respect for the strategy. There has been a need for the treatment of people who are behaviourally disturbed. There has been a need to revise the treatment facilities that are provided around the country. That has occurred. Institutions have been closed around the country. The difference between the Northern Territory and the states is that we have had no long-established, low standard facilities as have existed in the states. The difference between this government and members opposite is this. We recognise that there is a need to provide secure facilities for those people who are behaviourally disturbed. I am speaking here of a small number of people, nonetheless their needs must be recognised. They have to be protected for their own personal safety.
In considering these issues, another very important factor is the safety of the community. Unfortunately, members opposite fail to recognise that governments have a community responsibility and that we need to have adequate facilities to enable us to care for those people who may be a threat to the community.
Mr Bailey: By far the greatest number do not require secure facilities. That is where you have put all your money. You have neglected 90% of the mental health clients in what you are doing.
Mr Coulter: You are only feathering your own nest for your retirement.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: The third obligation we have, and it was overlooked by the Burdekins, and the Mr Tylers of the world on the radio yesterday, is the obligation to consider the cost of providing alternative community-based services for seriously disturbed people. Whilst there is the opportunity for us to base many clients of this kind in the community, we must bear in mind that that may well go well. Everything may be safe if these people remain on
Page 255
their medication and if the levels of supervision are adequate to ensure that they do not become a danger either to themselves or to the community.
Recommendations come to me on a regular basis indicating that $160 000 per annum is required to look after a single patient. Over 10 years, we are looking at a $1.6m cost per client. Given the current approach, it is not unusual to expect that I may have 10 or 12 clients of that nature whose future I will have to consider in the next year or so. We will be looking at in excess of $10m for the provision of treatment of those people in those terms. Therefore, we have to consider the implications financially to the community too, and where it is most appropriate for severely behaviourally disturbed people to be housed. The accommodation has to be appropriate. In some cases, it might be community-based but, in some cases, we have to recognise unfortunately that it might be in a facility of the kind that the honourable member was previously taking credit for and was quite supportive of and, as of today, is critical of. It is a great shame.
Page 256
Page 253
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I listened with some interest to the remarks by the member for Barkly when she spoke as opposition health spokesperson on ABC radio this morning. She was critical of the new mental health facility that is nearing completion on the campus of Royal Darwin Hospital. I suspect that her remarks were triggered by comments made by a Mr Tyler on the ABC's Drive Time program yesterday afternoon to which I responded. That is clearly illustrative of the modus operandi of the member for Barkly in that she and her colleagues are followers. They are not pro-active and, if an issue is raised by someone else, they may take the opportunistic approach and pursue it themselves. In recent times, the opposition has shown no interest in, no knowledge of and indeed no concern about the mental health facility that has been under construction and is now nearing completion at Royal Darwin Hospital.
Mrs Hickey: I sent you a letter last week asking you for a briefing.
Mr REED: Yesterday, because there was criticism of it by a third party, the member for Barkly took the opportunity to jump on the band wagon and be critical of what the government is doing. Not only is the member for Barkly showing herself to be a follower, but she is showing herself and her boss to be bewildered followers. It is interesting to consult the Parliamentary Record in relation to comments that have been made previously by members opposite on this mental health facility.
I will quote first from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Stuart who, in reference to this particular facility said, on Wednesday 30 September 1992 - and it is reported at page 6378 - that treatment for serious offenders should be 'preferably in the new secure mental health facility'. This reveals the Leader of the Opposition as a proponent of the facility which the member for Barkly was critical of on ABC radio this morning.
Let us have a look at what the member for Barkly herself has said in the past.
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, the member for Barkly was critical of this facility this morning. You cannot weasel out of it. You have no weasel clauses. You were quite definite in your criticism of it.
Mrs Hickey: I do not intend to. I stand by what I said.
Mr REED: You will be reminded of your past words. I quote the member for Barkly from Thursday 7 February 1991, in her response to a statement made on mental health in which she took credit for the construction of a new mental health facility. We
Page 254
have an amazing about-face. I quote the honourable member's words on that occasion:
While I welcome the development of the purpose-built facility for the region, I believe that, in many ways, the government
is acting too late and responding only after sustained and persistent action by residents, magistrates, and the Labor opposition.
That was only a couple of years ago.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: Now that this government has been pro-active and has spent some $6.5m on providing a facility to care for people who need that level of treatment ...
Mr Bailey: But you have done it wrong.
Mr REED: ... the member for Barkly is trying to retreat from her previous commitments. We will not wear it.
In relation to the interjection from the member for Wanguri that we have 'done it wrong' and with reference to the National Mental Health strategy, I must say that I have a great deal of respect for the strategy. There has been a need for the treatment of people who are behaviourally disturbed. There has been a need to revise the treatment facilities that are provided around the country. That has occurred. Institutions have been closed around the country. The difference between the Northern Territory and the states is that we have had no long-established, low standard facilities as have existed in the states. The difference between this government and members opposite is this. We recognise that there is a need to provide secure facilities for those people who are behaviourally disturbed. I am speaking here of a small number of people, nonetheless their needs must be recognised. They have to be protected for their own personal safety.
In considering these issues, another very important factor is the safety of the community. Unfortunately, members opposite fail to recognise that governments have a community responsibility and that we need to have adequate facilities to enable us to care for those people who may be a threat to the community.
Mr Bailey: By far the greatest number do not require secure facilities. That is where you have put all your money. You have neglected 90% of the mental health clients in what you are doing.
Mr Coulter: You are only feathering your own nest for your retirement.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: The third obligation we have, and it was overlooked by the Burdekins, and the Mr Tylers of the world on the radio yesterday, is the obligation to consider the cost of providing alternative community-based services for seriously disturbed people. Whilst there is the opportunity for us to base many clients of this kind in the community, we must bear in mind that that may well go well. Everything may be safe if these people remain on
Page 255
their medication and if the levels of supervision are adequate to ensure that they do not become a danger either to themselves or to the community.
Recommendations come to me on a regular basis indicating that $160 000 per annum is required to look after a single patient. Over 10 years, we are looking at a $1.6m cost per client. Given the current approach, it is not unusual to expect that I may have 10 or 12 clients of that nature whose future I will have to consider in the next year or so. We will be looking at in excess of $10m for the provision of treatment of those people in those terms. Therefore, we have to consider the implications financially to the community too, and where it is most appropriate for severely behaviourally disturbed people to be housed. The accommodation has to be appropriate. In some cases, it might be community-based but, in some cases, we have to recognise unfortunately that it might be in a facility of the kind that the honourable member was previously taking credit for and was quite supportive of and, as of today, is critical of. It is a great shame.
Page 256
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016