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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (25 March) . . Page.. 835 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

" '(4) The Mental Health Tribunal may not give a direction under subsection (1) in relation to the appearance before the Tribunal of a person who is the subject of a proceeding under the Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 if the person objects to the giving of the direction.".

I did traverse the basis of the Labor Party's reasons for moving these amendments in my previous comments, Mr Speaker. I will just reiterate them very quickly. As I said, we are supportive of this legislation. We think that it is sensible and good legislation. I acknowledge the point the Attorney makes about the link between the Belconnen Remand Centre or any remand centre that we might have in the future and the courts. It is sensible that that link be made. It is sensible that remandees who may, for whatever reason, be seeking a review of their bail conditions have available to them an opportunity to appear in those circumstances as required from time to time by video link. We are simply putting the proposition that a person held in custody, for whatever reason, who has a lawful right to have the terms of his incarceration reviewed by the court, has a right in those circumstances to appear in person before a magistrate to plead whatever that person wishes to plead.

I think it should be a fundamental principle in the administration of justice, particularly in circumstances where somebody has been deprived of their liberty, has not been convicted, and wishes as is their right to take a matter or pursue an issue before a magistrate. The Labor Party is propounding a proposition here that this is a matter of fundamental principle and liberty and that we wish to see this legislation, this good legislation, improved by ensuring that a person in those circumstances is under no misapprehension about their right to appear in person if they wish.

As I said, the advice given to me is that most remandees, because of the technical nature of many of the reviews that are required, would not bother. That is the advice that I have been given. This is not something that I have any direct insight into, but I have been advised that they would not bother to travel to the court for these short technical hearings, where they would probably be held in the holding cells under the police station in circumstances less desirable and less salubrious than they enjoy at the Remand Centre. It has been suggested to me that a remandee would not choose to swap a wait at the Remand Centre for a wait in the holding cells at the police station, so it is not something that people in those positions are actually going to rush out to embrace.

Our position is that people in that circumstance, people deprived of their liberty, people wishing to make representation of some sort, should be allowed to do so in person. It is an axiom that everybody deserves their day in court, their moment in court. Everybody deserves the right to appear in person before a court, to look the magistrate in the eye and make whatever case they wish to make as judged against judge.

We think in those circumstances that the exact same principle must apply to a person required to make representations before the Mental Health Tribunal in respect of their particular circumstances as a person with a mental illness in relation to whom certain orders may or may not be made. The principle is exactly the same. A person with a mental illness against whom the Mental Health Tribunal is conducting some hearing or

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