‘The world has changed’: Jeff Kennett criticises the Victorian Young Liberals’ push to reopen asylums

A proposal to lock up people with mental health issues in asylums has been slammed as a “disgrace” and a return to the dark age.

The former Larundel Mental Asylum in Bundoora.

Former Premier Jeff Kennett and the Allan government have slammed an archaic proposal from the Victorian Young Liberals to reopen asylums and lock up people with mental health issues.

One of the key agenda items set for discussion at Thursday night’s Young Liberal meeting will be to call on the Allan government to “reopen and mandate asylums for mentally ill individuals who pose a threat to themselves and others”.

Before the 1990s, most mental health services in Victoria were delivered through government-operated psychiatric institutions.

But mental asylums were phased out across the state in the late 1980s and 1990s, amid a transformation in the way mental health illnesses were treated.

Former asylum Wilsmere in Kew.

Mr Kennett, who closed some of those mental health institutions during his tenure, said the Young Liberal proposal was “very loose and gives no detail”.

“I think it’s surprising that the younger generation would have such a simplistic motion that does not well reflect society, the advances in medicine and the understanding of mental illnesses,” he said.

“The world has changed since the 1950s and the 1980s. We’re a much more humane society.”

Jeff Kennett criticised the proposal as ‘very loose’. Picture: Glenn Hunt

Another radical agenda item set for discussion is a push to legalise the recreational use of cannabis, while another backs the federal Liberal Party’s split from the Nationals.

One Young Liberal, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said it was a “disgrace” that the youth wing of the party was debating such radical ideas after such a huge election loss.

“Weed and straitjackets – it’s a disgrace,” he said.

“Why are we advocating for legalising cannabis, locking up vulnerable people in asylums, halving corporate tax and blowing up the Coalition when the party image is in tatters.”

Another Young Liberal, also speaking anonymously, said: “Less than three weeks after excluding itself from forming a national government for possibly a decade, it is clear that Liberals have turned their back on the public to focus on their one true love – debating each other.”

Victorian Mental Health Minister Ingrid Stitt slammed the proposal, saying: “While the Liberals want to drag us back to the dark age and continue to show Victorians how out of touch they are, we’re focused on delivering the modern, compassionate mental health care system that Victorians deserve.”

A Victorian Liberal Party spokesman said: “The Liberal Party fundamentally believes in free and robust, but also respectful debate – both inside the Party and in the wider community … however, the Parliamentary Liberal Party will develop our policy platform as we head to the 2026 state election – not the young Liberals.”

Patrick McGorry, executive director of youth mental health charity Orygen, said while there is an urgent need to reform the current system, asylums weren’t the solution.

“When we closed those asylums, which were well past their use-by dates, we were looking to produce a modern 20th century mental health system – but that process has failed,” he said.

“The implementations of the Royal Commission has simply not produced any benefits and in fact in many cases, the indicators show that we are heading in the other direction.

“Now we’ve got a whole bunch of people who are homeless or in prison because their illness hasn’t been treated in a complete way.”

Victorian Young Liberals president Patrick Irwin said the motions were just a “starting point for debate” and did not yet reflect the movement’s view.

President of the Victorian Young Liberals Patrick Irwin. Picture: LinkedIn

“The Young Liberals are an open and democratic movement where we allow young Victorians to freely debate issues of policy and conscience,” he said.

“Motions are simply a starting point for debate and do not express the concluded view of the movement, myself, or any other member.”