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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4624 ..

MS REILLY (continuing):

I am hoping that this legislation will be handled carefully, and that people who should not be picked up will not be picked up. In most cases we are not talking about people who have committed a crime. The thing that would have added to this legislation - it may be in the major part of the principal Act - is the review process for people from interstate who are apprehended in the ACT. That is one of the parts that I could not see within this legislation, and that is of some concern.

Obviously, the ACT people who are under orders and who may be interstate and have to be returned do come under the auspices of our Mental Health Tribunal. I am not suggesting that there are issues around some of the practices within the Mental Health Tribunal. We can talk only of what happens with people who are under orders in the ACT. We cannot make any suggestions about what happens to people from interstate and the types of orders that they may be under. There should be some review mechanism within this Act in relation to what happens with people from interstate in the ACT and what happens with the return of some people under orders from the ACT who are found to be interstate.

Apart from that, I recognise the need for this type of Bill to enable certain action to happen. I recognise the need for cooperation between us and the other States and Territories because it is beneficial for both jurisdictions. It is also a benefit for those who are under the various orders. These orders are not made lightly. They are made because people need certain types of treatment or need protection from themselves or from others. On that basis, we are not putting up any amendments and are supporting the Bill.

MS TUCKER (5.45): The Greens will be supporting this Bill. The legislation ensures that there is the potential to transfer any mentally ill patient who requires the services of a New South Wales facility, regardless of whether they are referred through the criminal justice system or the health system. It will also enable authorities in the ACT to detain persons who are the subject of warrants, orders, or other documents for apprehension issues under the mental health laws of another State or Territory. While I was not prepared to support legislation to allow juvenile offenders to be sent interstate, I do feel more comfortable with this legislation. This is a two-way arrangement. It is not just flicking people over the border.

The current situation, where the only way a mentally ill person can be transferred to a New South Wales psychiatric facility and remain subject to the jurisdiction of the ACT Mental Health Tribunal is if that person is transferred as a prisoner, is inappropriate. I note that there will be the power to seek to vary any orders made by the tribunal if a New South Wales facility proves to be inappropriate. I sincerely hope that there will not be inappropriate placements and that any transfers interstate will be only to the benefit of the mental health patient. There are facilities in New South Wales that would be of benefit to some people in the ACT. While we may not have many best practice models in place now, I hope that will change; that the ACT may develop expertise in some particular areas and we may see people coming from out of State into the ACT to take advantage of that.

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