Blog Archives for November 2010

Comprehensive, constructive approach to mental health reform needed

Blog Post | Blog of Rachel Siewert
Thursday 4th November 2010, 1:50pm
by RachelSiewert in

I was concerned by the article in Crikey last Friday where Professor Patrick McGorry accused the Greens of not caring about mental health funding simply because we'd failed to back a Coalition motion in the Senate.

Since then Get Up have responded with a campaign to get their members to contact The Greens and urge us to support the Coalition. Why anyone who had compared our policies would want us to drop our comprehensive mental health reform strategy in exchange for the grab-bag offerings of the Coalition is beyond me.

Professor McGorry has done a fantastic job as a mental health practitioner and advocate, and his appointment as Australian of the Year was a fitting and well-deserved accolade. Despite of the impression his article may have conveyed, I do not believe there is a difference of opinion between Professor McGorry and the Greens on the need for a better-resourced and more-effective national mental-health strategy. Where it seems we differ is on what we consider are likely to be the most effective means of securing that outcome. In supporting the Coalition’s motion as it was our concern was that funding for some would come at the expense of others.

The Greens believe that what is needed is a joined-up and comprehensive approach that better integrates the funding and support of mental health services into the wider health system. Early intervention programs (such as Headspace and EPPIC) are an essential part of that solution -- but early intervention programs alone will not solve the problem of ensuring there are joined-up services to meet the needs of the many Australians already within (and being failed by) our mental-health system.

The Headspace program is a world leader on early identification and intervention and delivers great results in reducing the intensity and longer-term impact of mental illness in people younger than 25. However, for those people who will have a mental illness that will stay with them for the rest of their lives, there are simply not enough services and support to deal with their needs when they are older than 25 and living with a long-term, low-prevalence mental illnesses.

The end result for many of these people is homelessness, unemployment and poverty and their families and carers are often left to struggle for decades on their own because their needs are not met within our current health system.

We recognise that health resources are tight, and are concerned that committing all our additional resources into the "front end" of the mental-health system, while neglecting other parts is unlikely to fix the systemic problems with our mental-health system -- and people will keep falling through the cracks. There are also equity and justice issues involved in ensuring that those with the greatest problems, who have to date been so badly let down by the system, receive the care and attention they deserve after so much neglect.

The Coalition motion, calling for more Headspace and EPPIC centres, was simply asking for the Government to implement the Coalition's election policy. There were no costings attached to the motion and it would not have obliged (and certainly not persuaded) the Government to do anything.

We remain concerned that the Coalition policy simply focused on a couple of high-profile programs, but in-and-of-itself did not add up to a realistic approach to fixing Australia's current crisis in mental-health services.

The Coalition proposed to fund their mental health commitments by pulling resources out of the current health reform process. We believe that an additional commitment of resources of at least $350 million per annum is needed to solve these problems, and that this money needs to be carefully allocated to mental-health services to deliver a comprehensive mental-health system.

I again encourage the Coalition to work with the Greens on a motion that reflects the need for a comprehensive approach to mental health.
While the Coalition were not prepared to consider amendments to their motion last sitting, the Greens remain open to negotiations with them to ensure the Government deliver on the real reform needed across the mental health sector.

I recently chaired the Senate Inquiry into suicide and have since spoken to a wide range of stakeholders about mental-health reform. I'm convinced that a comprehensive and joined-up approach is essential (together with a specific strategy for rural and regional Australia). This was the policy we took to the election, and it remains the approach that we are focusing our efforts on within the Parliament.

The Greens plan calls for additional mental health funding of $350 million per year for the next four years:

• $150 million per year for early intervention mental health programs including "Headspace" and early psychosis prevention services,
• $100 million per year for incentives at the primary-care level to target those in need, the vulnerable and long-term clientele working with the community and non-government organisation sector, and
• $100 million per year for alternatives to emergency department treatment such as multidisciplinary community-based sub-acute services that supports "stepped" (two-staged) prevention and recovery care.

I am also pleased to see that for the first time Australia has a Minister for Mental Health. This was a Greens policy, which we believe demonstrates that we are more focused on delivering meaningful mental health reform outcomes than playing politics with this issue.

Originally published by Crikey on 4 November, 2010

A Fair Go For All

Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 23rd November 2010, 7:26am

The Howard government's response in 2001 to the arrival of the MV Tampa by cynically cutting parts of Australia out of our legal framework to deny asylum seekers legal rights was the catalyst that led me to enter politics through the Greens.

Nine years on, I, like many others, gave a sigh of relief as the High Court ruled that asylum seekers detained on Christmas Island must have the same right to legal review of decisions relating to their cases as asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by plane.

The decision was a rare, unanimous signal from the highest court in the land telling governments of different political persuasions that they had got it terribly wrong on detention for close to a decade.

And while the seven justices did not strike down mandatory detention, or the overall concept of offshore processing, they did something very important - they wrote the word ‘‘fairness'' in metaphorical red ink, underlined it a few times and said to our political leaders that this has to be the guiding principle for any system of immigration detention.

Human rights lawyer Julian Burnside has estimated that as many as 40 per cent of cases of asylum seekers who are initially rejected in their claims for protection are found to have a genuine fear of persecution if they have a chance to appeal.

This is precisely why we need a fairer system that gives people the chance to challenge bad decisions. For those needing protection, it is a matter of life and death.

The tragic reality of the system has been brought home to everyone in the past fortnight, however, amid increasing reports of asylum seekers self-harming in detention facilities by sewing their lips together.

Many Australians would remember from 2002 the images of desperate people taking desperate measures of self-mutilation in a call for help and compassion. We hoped we would never see these scenes again in Australia, but sadly history is repeating itself.

Of course people must have asylum claims assessed to determine their genuine need for protection, but it is the process that is creating this untenable situation and dehumanising vulnerable people.

The truth is that long-term, indefinite detention makes people sick. The combination of mandatory detention, indefinite detention and suspensions of asylum claims has led to backlogs in the system and increasing pressure on people in detention.

Vulnerable people who have fled torture and persecution are suffering under a system that is meant to protect them. We need action to resolve this.

It's unclear exactly what direction Immigration Minister Chris Bowen will take from here, but it's crystal clear that the Coalition is only interested in punishing vulnerable asylum seekers through TPVs and the notorious Pacific Solution on Nauru.

The answer is clear: bring people to the mainland and process them quickly. We must also eliminate the dangerous and damaging backlog in the system by housing asylum seekers in the community once their initial checks are completed.

Mandatory detention has never been a deterrent. The only practical solution is one that recognises that asylum seekers are people too, people who like anyone else deserve fairness, compassion and to be treated with dignity.

This blog post was originally published on the National Times website. Click here to view the article.

Taking action to prevent assistance for whaling

Blog Post | Blog of Rachel Siewert
Tuesday 23rd November 2010, 4:50pm
by ChrisRedman in

The Senate has referred the Australian Greens' Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Support for Whaling) Bill 2010 to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report, which would make it a crime to provide support to whaling operations.

The Committee will now examine the Bill, which was introduced by the Greens in response to the use of air services based in Australia to assist whalers in their annual slaughter last summer.

We were disturbed to learn that assistance was provided allowing the whalers to track the main protest vessel of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and hinder their work. There is no doubt that this made it easier for whales to be killed.

Each summer, Australians are appalled by the slaughter of whales in the Southern Ocean. This Bill is designed to stop support from Australia facilitating the killing of these magnificent animals.

It is currently an offence to kill whales but not an offence to provide services, support, or resources that assist in the killing of whales. We regard this as a serious omission, which our Bill seeks to rectify through an amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The amendment makes it illegal to provide any assistance to a whaling venture, including surveillance information, communication, financial and material support.

It important to not that the amendments will not make it unlawful to provide assistance to vessels in an emergency or where human life is at risk.

Currently the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides for a series of offences related to whaling.

Division 3 of Part 13 creates the offences of:
• killing or injuring a cetacean,
• intentionally taking, trading, keeping, moving or interfering with a cetacean, and
• treating or possessing a cetacean that has been killed contrary to the Act or unlawfully imported.

The above offences are punishable by 2 years imprisonment or a maximum fine of $110 000.

The Bill creates a new offence of providing any service, support or resources to an organisation engaged in whaling.
Whaling is subsequently defined broadly to mean any activity undertaken as part of a venture, the intention of which is to kill, injure, take, trade, or treat whales for commercial purposes or other purposes.

The definition includes the intention to contravene the offences already in the EPBC Act mentioned above and any activity undertaken by or on board a foreign whaling vessel.

The penalty for the new offence is consistent with the other penalties in the Division, that is, 2 years imprisonment or a maximum fine of $110 000.

I look forward to the committee examining this bill to ensure that the provisions will accomplish the aim, that is preventing assistance to whaling activity with the ultimate objective of stopping whaling in our Oceans.

Vale: Professor Frank Fenner

Blog Post | Blog of Rachel Siewert
Friday 26th November 2010, 1:56pm
by ChrisRedman in

It was both sad and inspiring this week to look back on the life and achievements of Professor Frank Fenner, who passed away at the age of 95.Professor Fenner will be remembered as a great Australian, who made a significant contribution to public health on a national and international level.

Professor Fenner’s work with the World Health Organisation in eradicating small pox esnures he will long be remembered. The virus is estimated to have led to 500 million deaths before Fenner made a declaration of its eradication to the World Health Assembly on May 8th 1980.

Fenner was regarded as one of the world's greatest experts in virology, playing a key role in forwarding our understanding of the relationship between a host and a pathogen, and how this could lead to better treatment of disease.

In Australia, he will also be remembered for injecting himself with the myxomatosis virus, to prove its safety to humans. The myxomatosis virus helped to end the decimation of our natural resources which was seen during the rabbit plagues of the 1940s and 1950s.

While serving in Egypt and Papua New Guinea during World War Two, Fenner saw the devastating impact of malaria on troops and began research into managing the disease.

In 1949 he was appointed Professor of Microbiology at the new John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University, becoming its director from 1967 to 1973.

In 1973, Professor Fenner was appointed to establish the new Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, and was the centre’s director until his retirement in 1979. The Centre was renamed the Fenner School of Environment and Society in 2007.

Fenner’s contribution to medical science, to public health and to the environment was recognised in 1989 when he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia.

His awareness and understanding of the importance of Australia having a ecologically, socially sustainable population was no doubt ahead of its time.

Fenner’s legacy will clearly be his contribution to vaccination and the elimination of infectious disease.  His application of scientific knowledge and research, both at home and overseas is commendable, and his legacy will continue for many years.

A Lesson For The Majors

Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 30th November 2010, 10:05am

Right now I am on an eight-hour road trip to the Thai-Burma border, which gives me time to reflect on the amazing parliamentary year that is finally drawing to a close.

It has been a big year for the Greens - our support has been on the rise, punctuated by a record performance for a third party in both Houses at the federal election in August. More importantly, on a federal level, we are starting to achieve real outcomes, both in terms of expanding the range of political debate and in working to secure improvements to legislation that affects people's lives.

By leading the debate on reform of Australia's outdated marriage laws, by outlining legislation to provide real protection for Australian consumers from the excesses of the banking sector, by negotiating safeguards to prevent the automatic privatisation of the national broadband network and by securing a climate change committee to drive real action on the most vital question facing Australia this century, the Greens are trying to take a long-term view on policy.

We have remained positive in this political year where the old parties have chosen to define themselves by what they are against rather than what they are for, leaving the Australian public hard-pressed to decide between the two. The Coalition has been particularly guilty in this regard, with its relentlessly negative approach.

At the weekend, the last major political set-piece of this extraordinary year has come and gone with the Victorian election. It has seen voters likely to usher in a change of government after 11 years of Labor.

In the state election it was Labor rather than the Coalition that chose an overwhelmingly negative campaign focus, and the party has paid for that approach with one of the biggest swings against a sitting Victorian government in 50 years.

There is always a need to review and reflect on campaigns once they are completed and acknowledge areas where things could be improved. Just as Labor would be no doubt re-assessing its choice to go negative, the Greens must question the decision to opt into the perennial auction over preferences by doing a deal with Labor.

The Greens are an independent political force, and we are neither a faction of nor a preference machine for Labor or any other party.The Greens should not have directed preferences to the Labor Party. We should have gone open ticket, allowing Victorian voters to make up their own minds. We should also move to make open tickets the default position for all elections, including federal polls.

Despite a decisive swing to the conservative side of politics, the Greens still managed to increase their vote in both Houses, even if it is unlikely to result in extra seats. If preferences had flowed similarly to 2006, the Greens would have won the Lower House seats of Melbourne, Richmond and Brunswick.

Only the foolhardy would try and predict what 2011 has in store, but if Labor and the Coalition refuse to learn the lessons of this past year, then the voting public may well continue to opt for a change from politics as usual - and that means more opportunities for the Greens.

This blog post was originally published on the National Times website. Click here to view the article.