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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 674 ..

am not sure that they should be the first response if a quicker response can be achieved by using a marked car and I am not sure that we should be taking the risk of putting the mentally ill person or the community—in this case, the person’s family, friends or those in the neighbourhood who are close to the person—at further risk.

It was relayed to me by a friend who is aware of some of these cases that the outcome of having the police there sometimes is of dire consequence to those with a mental illness. I have been told of one instance where a gentleman was having an episode, a call was placed for assistance, a marked police car responded and when the officers arrived in uniform, in full kit, the gentleman became even more agitated, saying, “What are you doing here; I am not violent?” He resisted their attempts to help him. The officers were then forced to handcuff this individual, who became even more agitated. On the way to the hospital his episode became worse and it actually ended with very sad and quite awful consequences for the individual.

Sometimes the arrival of the police is not the best outcome, but sometimes it is the only thing that we can do as a community. As this discussion with the community evolves, we will really have to search our souls to determine what to do with those with mental illness and how to help them as best we can. That said and with all that in mind, I thank Ms Dundas for the motion. I think that it is a very good motion. It certainly brings to mind how we must work continuously to improve things for those with mental illness.

I think the amendments I have put make quite clear that the desirable outcome, if operationally possible, is to send an unmarked car with a plain-clothes officer. At the same time, we should not compromise the safety of the person involved or the community; hence my first amendment. The second amendment seeks to remove the use of the words “wherever possible” a second time to make the motion read better. I commend Ms Dundas for bringing forward the motion and hope that the Assembly will approve of my amendments.

MS TUCKER (4.24): I will speak briefly to the amendments and the motion. The Greens will support Mr Smyth’s amendments to Ms Dundas’ motion. We support the intent of the original motion, but also support the qualifications brought in by Mr Smyth. The issue is complex for lots of reasons. It is complex because you have to do as much as possible to achieve best practice from the policing perspective as well as from the mental health perspective.

I have to put on the record again my concern about the resourcing of the CAT team and mental health services generally. I think that this debate has to be seen in that context. It is true, I agree, that the attendance of police officers in uniform can be distressing, but so can the attendance of police officers not in uniform. As to the example that Mr Smyth just gave, I do not necessarily think that it would have been any different if there had been people not in uniform coming in and saying, “We think you’ve got a problem.” That person obviously was not of the view that he did have a problem and did not want to be taken away.

I think that it is a reasonable question to put. I know that it is a problem; it is an issue, because people feel that the stigma around mental health is already significant, given all the recent media about the violence related to mental health. I know that it is coming from a desire to get good facilities, but it is causing a really negative spin-off as well, one

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