Page 3973 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I believe that the word means what it says - to represent forensic patients. People who go before industrial and arbitration hearings where there is no express right of appearance by lawyers also have the same injunction on them to represent issues. I think "represent" should be given its normal and natural meaning, which is that the advocate has to ensure that there is representation of a sort which is appropriate, of a nature which is correct in the circumstances.
So, I do not support the amendment moved by Mr Stefaniak. I can see where the reasoning comes from, but I think it would in fact narrow the rights of forensic patients. I think you have to do more than just protect them sometimes; you have to be pro-active, and representing gives a much broader role to the advocate.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (5.01): On this issue, of some fine balance, the Government is inclined not to support this amendment, and for very much the reasons outlined by Mr Collaery. To represent a patient is, as we see it, a fairly broad charter rather than a narrow one.
Insofar as there is a community concern, which I have heard expressed, that this will bog down the resources of the community advocate, because the community advocate will be personally required to be appearing in court proceedings all over the place, there will be an amendment moved later on which makes it abundantly clear, although probably it was unnecessary because the power was probably there generally anyway, that the community advocate can go to outside assistance or counsel if needs be.
So, I cannot accept that it overly burdens the community advocate. I think the phrase "to represent" encompasses a fairly broad range of activities which are appropriate. The alternative proposal of "protecting the rights" does have something of that flavour that Mr Collaery referred to, almost of paternalism. I am sure that Mr Stefaniak does not intend it to operate in that way or to have that flavour; but I think, on balance, the existing provision is better. Therefore, the Government cannot support this amendment.
MR STEFANIAK (5.03): I just reiterate the community concerns. I tend to think that, rather than restricting it, "protecting" gives a much broader scope. Obviously, Mr Collaery and Mr Connolly do not agree with that. We will see who is right as time progresses, if I go down on this amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .