Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4623 ..

MS REILLY (continuing):

I feel some caution about this type of legislation. In relation to this Bill, I still see some of the issues that I raised when we discussed a similar type of Bill in relation to the Children's Services Act, because we are looking at transferring people from the ACT. I recognise the utility of an Act such as this because it does allow certain actions to take place; but we have to ensure that we do not end up with the ACT reneging on some of its responsibilities to its own citizens and to other people who have connections with people who are under orders, and that we do not get caught up with taking punitive action on behalf of other jurisdictions. Obviously, consideration has to be given to the types of corresponding laws within the other jurisdictions, but these may not always sit as well with the manner in which the ACT deals with people with a mental illness.

One of the other concerns that I have about this legislation is to ensure that we do not end up taking stronger and more punitive action in relation to people in the ACT who come from interstate than we would for our own citizens who are within the ACT as ACT residents. I think that is one of the concerns that we have to watch out for - that we do not end up doing the dirty business for some of the other States.

I think our legislation in the ACT is based on strong principles which recognise citizens' rights, social justice and fairness. I think some of the interstate legislation is not as well thought through, not as well developed, and that is one of the concerns I have with this Bill. This is one of the aspects that we are going to have to look at very closely. I would mention at this point as well that there is nothing in this part of the amending legislation to say whether there will be any follow-up in terms of people who are apprehended. Obviously, they would appear before the Mental Health Tribunal, but we do not seem to have any method of overseeing the apprehension of people from interstate.

We are talking about apprehending people who may be currently within the ACT boundaries but who in fact have not committed a crime. We are talking about them being picked up by police officers and various other people, but these people in fact have not committed a crime. They are, for various reasons, under orders because of concerns for their safety, their need for various types of treatment or the safety of the community. These, obviously, are important issues. There is no way in the world anybody would condone people who are a danger, to themselves or to other people within the community, being allowed to wander around. However, we have to treat this with some caution, to ensure that mistakes are not being made about the people who are being apprehended in this way. Mistakes are made, and there is no way in the world that the ACT community wants to get caught up with mistakes or difficulties from interstate.

That aside, it is important that we have this type of legislation to allow for cooperation between the ACT and the other States and Territories. We are a small area surrounded by New South Wales and we cannot operate completely on our own and in isolation from others. It is important that we address this with some caution, because we are talking about serious orders that have been made for the protection of those people and we are talking about serious action that can be taken by those who are being apprehended.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .