Page 899 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
bear them in mind next time they think a tough-on-crime response is the best way to deal with problem behaviours.
These figures and most other available data suggest that such policies do not work because the root cause of these behaviours is not criminal intention but, rather, damaged self-esteem and mental illness. They also suggest that merely increasing penalties will in many cases make the problem worse, as criminal incarceration facilities often create or exacerbate mental health problems. It does not suit the prevention-punishment perspective so beloved of right-wing commentators but a health and rehabilitation perspective on many behaviours, although not all behaviours, which are presently treated as purely criminal behaviours is likely to be more effective in protecting public safety and property. It is also likely to be economically efficient, as preventative health-based interventions are much cheaper than waiting for the criminal justice system to act as some kind of safety net for system treatment or service failures.
The moral dimension sometimes gets lost in these kinds of discussions. The moral worth of a society can be gauged by how it treats its weakest members. Our first priority should be to care for those members of our community who have not enjoyed the benefits of free market economics and who have not coped so well with the competitive individualism engendered by capitalist economics. Again, in the wider context of a reformed Mental Health Tribunal and better oversight of current and future accommodation and treatment facilities, this bill is a welcome development.
One concern I have about this bill is the treatment received by those who receive a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment. While a guilty verdict has not been delivered, with the associated stigma of a criminal offence, there is a danger that they can be detained involuntarily in a mental health facility for even longer than the period they would have been detained if they had been found guilty.
I have heard anecdotal evidence of people who have been certified as healthy by their treating doctors not being released by the Mental Health Tribunal and Legal Aid being reluctant to represent them. Their plight is compounded by the fact that the Mental Health Tribunal is not bound by the same standards of procedural fairness that apply in a criminal context. Whilst this can facilitate a fairer hearing, it sometimes means that the interests of the detainee are not given sufficient weight. The only avenue of appeal from the tribunal is the Supreme Court, which is inappropriate and prohibitively expensive.
In discussing this bill with community groups it has become apparent that there is a desperate need for sustainable funding to the organisations that are willing to represent the interests of people who are suffering mental health problems who are caught up in the criminal justice system. The people who work in these organisations deserve our support and gratitude. They perform an invaluable service for their clients and put a phenomenal effort into what must be an extremely difficult and often thankless environment. With those provisos, I support the bill.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (5.18): On behalf of Mr Stanhope, I will close the debate on this bill in the in-principle stage. The government’s Criminal Code (Mental Impairment) Amendment Bill 2006 is just a small component of reforms to improve the interaction between the mental health and criminal
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .