Page 734 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 24 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Paragraph (2) of the motion, which seeks to impose a two-months deadline, is merely silly politicking from the Liberal Party. Those members of the Liberal Party who have been in office know the difficulties and the sometimes intractable legal and administrative difficulties that can be confronted when attempting major reform of this type. To impose a two-month deadline is merely playing stunt politics. The Government is committed to pursuing this matter. (Extension of time granted)
Mr Kaine: I did not want to see him cut off in his prime. It suits me.
MR CONNOLLY: I was cut off twice, Mr Kaine. Mr Howard suffered that fate. Dr Hewson has been cut off only once, but his second time is coming.
Madam Speaker, the Government is already committed, and has stated publicly in this place that it is committed, to paragraphs (1) and (3) of the motion. Paragraph (2), the Government would say, is simply stunt politics. Therefore, I move the following amendment to the motion before the Assembly:
Omit paragraph (2).
The Government would have no difficulty in supporting paragraph (1) and paragraph (3), which will be renumbered paragraph (2). We would have no difficulty in supporting the first and last paragraphs of the motion, because they state government policy as put forward in this place by the Minister for Health on 17 February.
MS SZUTY (11.57): I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the need for changes to mental health legislation in the ACT. Madam Speaker, in her motion, Mrs Carnell has called on the Government to produce a Bill for a new Mental Health Act which should be based on the report Balancing Rights of November 1990. The Government has now given its response to that report, as Mr Connolly has outlined. Madam Speaker, my first point of unease about that response is that it comes more than two years after the report was presented to government, and nearly 12 months after the Burdekin inquiry into the rights of people with mental illness. This area of social need is more urgent than is suggested by the response.
I fully understand the problems of the First Assembly and the impact of changing government on such processes. However, it is incumbent on this Government, when it has before it reports which propose to bring areas such as mental health legislation into line with current thinking on social justice issues, to remember that we are talking about people - people who have special needs because of mental dysfunction. I urge the Government to give the implementation of the recommendations it has accepted a very high priority. I also ask that in drafting legislation we do not repeat the errors of the past and refer to "mentally dysfunctional people" but we emphasise the fact that these are people first and their mental dysfunction is of secondary consideration.
Madam Speaker, I found the substance of the Government's response to the report heartening. The Government has accepted most of the recommendations of Balancing Rights, and where it has declined to accept a recommendation an alternative process is proposed or is being followed - for example, where the report recommended:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .