Page 3971 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Collaery described the addition of these words in paragraph (m) to the Bill as an accelerant to reformists. He said, "I think it would provide for speedy consideration of the issues arising out of 'Balancing Rights'". I have to say, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, that I see it in a quite different way.
I think the addition of those words would, in fact, potentially retard the pace of consideration of "Balancing Rights". There is an argument canvassed extensively in "Balancing Rights" that there should be a separate mental health advocate provided for in the Territory. That is an argument which we have to take extremely seriously, and I, for one, do not wish to pre-empt it by anything which is discussed or confirmed in this debate.
I do, however, wish to leave the door open and I believe that it is better left open by providing that paragraph (m) be deleted. I say that because I believe that the extension, expressly in legislation, of the community advocate's powers to deal with mental health and mental health advocacy would create an assumption that that was to be the status quo for some time to come.
That, I think, would not be a desirable outcome from the point of view of any of us here. I am sure we would all welcome, as Mr Connolly has indicated, a consideration by government soon of the balance of that report, and I do not think it is best served by making stopgap measures in this sense.
There is no problem, as the Attorney has indicated, with not having that particular provision in this Bill. Community groups to which I spoke certainly preferred not to have that stopgap measure there. I therefore support Mr Stefaniak's amendment and urge that we consider the broader question of advocacy for mental health patients in the full context, without any status quo that might retard the speedy consideration of those issues.
MR STEFANIAK (4.57): I do not think there is anything further to be said. I would commend this amendment for the reasons I have given, Mr Humphries has given, and I think even the Attorney, on balance, has given to the house.
MR COLLAERY (4.57), by leave: I wish to add some more comments, if I may. I think it would be unfortunate if we pushed anything to a vote in what is clearly a bipartisan debate today, so I will not press the issue.
Amendment agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .