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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 670 ..

reasonable, but it is really not sustainable. The motion falls down because it assumes that the problem is one for the police alone to resolve. That is just not the case.

Problems can emerge, no doubt about that, but the situation is not capable of so simplistic a solution. Indeed, the problem is wider than just that of transporting people from home to hospital, which is the one aspect that Ms Dundas has identified. There are many circumstances in which marked police cars carry people with a mental health problem and that also could well be an issue for consideration. Whilst supportive of the need to address mental health in the ACT, this proposal fails to consider all the difficult issues which need to be addressed effectively to manage people with mental illness and dysfunction and to do so with dignity and respect.

Care is taken by the police in the transportation and management of those with mental dysfunction or illness, as those police may be seen to be associated with criminalising and stigmatising what is essentially a health issue—the point that Ms Dundas raised. The police understand the sensitivity of this issue. They should do because they have to deal quite often with incidents requiring some intervention or some response, frequently taking a great deal of time. Three-quarters of the responses involve some kind of transportation.

The proposal to have plain-clothes members in unmarked cars to respond to such matters would appear to be a step towards addressing those concerns. However, it fails to address policing practicalities. I think there are some circumstances where plain-clothes police are involved, but I am not sure that there would be very many. Plain-clothes police officers in unmarked vehicles are not available for the provision of routine assistance in such incidents due to the specific nature of their commitments. Plain-clothes police officers in unmarked vehicles are not typically allocated to attend routine response incidents, due to their investigative roles.

ACT Policing has delineated tasks to ensure the most efficient and effective response to different types of crime. It is not practicable to have plain-clothes members in unmarked vehicles specifically available for incidents involving either the routine transportation that I think Ms Dundas is talking about or the emergency transportation of people suffering mental dysfunction, as it would severely restricts their capacity to undertake other duties to which this community gives a very high priority. Nor do non-uniform members have access to the safety features incorporated into marked police vehicles, such as the ability—needed from time to time—to isolate and confine a violent person.

ACT Policing patrols respond to incidents involving people suffering from a mental illness or mental dysfunction in accordance with the current policing practice. General duty officers from ACT Policing are called to assist with the transportation of such patients, often with little or no notice. ACT Policing patrols are dispatched under the ACT Policing priority system. The most appropriate patrol is dispatched, given availability and location.

The patrols consist of uniformed police officers in marked vehicles. The patrols are called upon and are allocated when a situation involves violence or self-harm by a mentally ill person. Anyone can call for assistance, including members of the public, as well as health professionals. Uniformed members are sent to attend to such matters as

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