Page 3969 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That rather comprehensive report was commissioned and handed down some time ago. We left this provision in against the day when there is a more comprehensive package.
The objection which Mr Stefaniak has taken to this is one which is shared by the community groups and, for that reason, our inclination is to support it. The community groups do not want this in because, they say, it is an additional burden on the functions of the office. We have, in consultation, said to them that it is really something of an academic point because, until the mental health package is got right, it matters little whether there is a residual power of the community advocate to act or not to act.
In practice, I think it matters little whether this provision is in or out; but, given that we have been wanting to meet the demands of community groups, I am prepared to support Mr Stefaniak's amendment, although what Mr Collaery says is very valid - that one should always aim high. But on this issue it really was a form of guarantee against a future call on the legislative package. Come the day when the future Labor Government after February next year is able to implement and develop fully a package to respond to "Balancing Rights", I would expect that we may be looking at consequential amendments to both the Community Advocate Act and the guardianship Act. So, there will be an opportunity, when we get the legislative package right, to appropriately amend this legislation.
On balance, while it is a fine call and I do not think it would matter if the paragraph remained in, the Government sees no harm in taking it out. It is certainly the express view of the community groups to take it out, although Mr Collaery's point is well made; but, on balance, we would support the removal.
MR COLLAERY (4.50): I should perhaps enlighten the house as to why I originally asked for this paragraph to be in. Mental health legislative reform has taken a long time in this Territory - many, many years. It is not an area that has developed at the pace that it should have. In fact, as someone aptly commented yesterday or the day before, 10 years before this decade closes we are coming into this century. The Lunacy Act is a nineteenth century instrument. It is my view that this should go in to act as an accelerant to those reformists, if there are any, in the mental health area, in the system, so that some pressure is exerted on them. People would commence pressing for adequate representation in the mental health area.
I agree with the comments of the Attorney-General; but I am a little more sanguine than he is as to where we are going to get, considering the fact that the Lunacy Act is still not repealed. The Lunacy Act is still there. We cannot do it yet. Of course, Robin Creyke wishes it to be repealed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .