Page 2735 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We also believe that keeping an eye on this whole thing - with ongoing monitoring of the Bill, how it is working, how the resourcing is working and where the people who come before the tribunal actually end up - is very important and a really big step forward for this legislation. The problems that have been put to us and, I suspect, to everybody else are that the powers of the Mental Health Tribunal are very sweeping. That is of great concern to all of us. It is essential that we have - and I believe that we do with this Bill - a non-partisan approach, to ensure that the rights of not one person will be infringed by our passing this legislation today. I think that is going to require all of us to be part of that ongoing monitoring of this important piece of legislation. I know that Mr Moore and I and the other members of the Social Policy Committee will be keeping a keen eye on where this legislation goes and seeing that the Government's undertakings to ensure adequate resourcing and adequate services eventuate. I know that Mr Connolly needs to leave; so I will not continue.
MR MOORE (4.48): Madam Speaker, in rising to support this legislation, I would like to draw attention to a couple of matters. First of all, I think that one of the critical things that came out of the committee was a very unusual clause 3 of this Bill. It means that the Bill will last for only two years, with provision for an extension for a further two years by a disallowable instrument. I think that expresses the concern of the committee about dealing with the series of issues involved in this Bill.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to address two prime issues that have been the subject of quite a number of letters to me and, I presume, to other members. One was from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, which is a part of the Church of Scientology. The first issue that they dealt with was the involuntary referral, as they perceived it, of a person under clause 14 of this Bill. I am supporting this legislation because the very allegations they make about the Bill are actually dealt with in it. Under previous legislation, a couple of doctors could ensure that a person was deprived of their liberty for some time. What happens under clause 14 of this Bill is that there is a mental health order organised by somebody other than the person himself or herself, and that is of such great concern that this legislation provides that that, therefore, goes to a tribunal. Under this Bill, the decision of the tribunal is appealable to the Supreme Court. Therefore, I think that what we have done is to put in place a particularly significant protection compared with what happened before. I can understand that somebody reading clause 14 on its own might think that that was not the case. In the last couple of days I have taken care to ensure that I understand this appropriately. I will ask the Attorney-General, in responding, to verify that I have read it correctly.
The second issue relates to clauses 54 and 55 of the Bill, which deal with electroconvulsive therapy. Madam Speaker, I must say that I have grave doubts, as I imagine most people do, about the use of electroconvulsive therapy. However, I have been informed by people who have seen it and by people who have been depressed and who have voluntarily been through the process of electroconvulsive therapy that it is a very successful treatment for depression. There are doubts about that. I think we all share those doubts. The chance to review it is provided; but I believe that, in clauses 54 and 55, we have been particularly careful to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place, that there is informed consent, and that anybody who accepts that it might be a useful therapy for them understands the full ramifications of what they are doing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .