Page 2424 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 30 July 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
maximum period of further involuntary detention permissible under the act. I am tabling this report in accordance with my obligations under the act.
The Mental Health Act 2015 is the result of considerable stakeholder engagement and public consultation. It promotes a recovery-oriented approach to people’s mental health and mental health service delivery. It also aligns with the ACT government’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 2004.
It is a fundamental principle of our health system in Australia that people have the right to choose if, and when, they receive medical treatment. This principle applies equally to people with mental illness, and any limitations on this right must be carefully considered.
Consistent with this principle, mental health care provided on an involuntary basis is utilised as a measure of last resort when a person is believed to be at risk of harm to themselves or others. The act provides a mechanism for a person to be apprehended for initial assessment and, if adequate grounds exist, detained for a maximum of three days, for the purpose of further assessment. An additional period of up to 11 days can be sought if a person requires immediate treatment which has been refused but is necessary for the person’s wellbeing or the safety of the community and, crucially, that treatment cannot be provided in a less restrictive environment.
I understand that increasing the period for involuntary detention from seven to 11 days seems counterintuitive to keeping the least restrictive ethos of the Mental Health Act. However, the policy intent for the change was to reduce the number of people subject to emergency detention orders moving onto longer term orders, by allowing more time for comprehensive assessments and allowing people to become less acutely unwell.
The review indicates that the policy intent of the act has been delivered. Since the commencement of the act, we have seen a decrease in the number of people transferring from emergency detention orders to long-term orders. The finding of the review recommends that this section of the act is operating as intended and that no legislative changes are required in this respect.
In addition to the review of emergency detention orders, I am obligated to undertake community consultation to review whether mental health orders and forensic mental health orders are working as intended. Public consultation on these matters recently closed and we are currently considering the feedback provided. I will present the outcome of that review in the coming months.
As part of this consultation, the community was invited to provide general feedback on the operation of the act. Information obtained from both consultation processes is invaluable in considering where, how and if the act should be amended. It also plays an important role in how we approach service delivery as we continue to develop our mental health services.
In accordance with my obligations under the act, I commend the review report to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video