MENTAL HEALTH (INPATIENT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 May 2012.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (16:29): I would like to thank all honourable members for their interest and valuable contribution to this important topic, with the united aim of improving perceptions and attitudes towards people who experience mental illness. The Mental Health Act 2009 is a framework for treatment, care and rehabilitation for people with serious mental illness. The bill's primary purpose is to replace the terminology, 'detention and treatment orders' with 'inpatient treatment orders' to remove the stigma associated with the word 'detention'.

As the scheme of the act concerns involuntary treatment provisions, there was no need to label every order as such—it is a given. The emphasis is on the treatment and care aspects and the treatment orders should be titled to keep that focus clear. To make reference in the title of the order to compulsion would be counter to the destigmatisation which is sought to be achieved by this bill.

The title of 'inpatient treatment order' also ensures consistency with the other type of treatment order in the act, a community treatment order, which does not refer to the compulsive element in its title. It is highly unlikely that clinicians will more readily make orders because they are no longer called a detention and treatment order. Clinicians are highly cognisant of the obligations to the people they are entrusted to care for and are aware that the nature of the orders have not changed.

This change in language also seeks to address a common public misconception that a detention and treatment order involves locking up a mentally ill person, much like a criminal is locked up in a correctional facility when, in reality, contemporary mental health care provides for an involuntary inpatient to be treated under supervision in non-secure environments. The common perception that mental illness and criminality somehow go together is damaging and incorrect.

Correcting fear and prejudice will assist those in our families and communities to feel less marginalised and free to seek out and receive the treatment and care they need. Early intervention and treatment are key to a person's chances of recovery and well-being whatever the type of illness. In addition to this language change, there are two other minor administrative changes in the bill which seek to rectify unintended ambiguity in the areas of consent to ECT and in amending administrative errors in orders. These amendments simply clarify the current operation of the act and do not change the rights or powers in any way. Importantly, the checks and balances contained within the Mental Health Act 2009 remain in place for ECT consent.

The President of the Guardianship Board, the Public Advocate and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists do not support the amendment tabled by the Hon. Ann Bressington MLC. The views of these bodies is that it is important that the Guardianship Board maintains its role as an independent arbitrator to ensure that the best interests of the patients are served. In response to a query raised about the proposal for an expanded Community Visitor Scheme—encompassing a broader ambit of mental health facilities as well as disability consumers being placed in the Attorney-General's Department—I advise that the government supports this proposal.

The timing of this bill coincides with SA Health's Let's Think Positive destigmatisation campaign launched in February 2012 which asks people to think about the impact of how they treat others who suffer from mental illness and the words that they choose. The Mental Health Act 2009 is an important part of mental health reform in this state and is due for review in July 2014. Any other amendments which may be considered valuable will be considered at that time.

Bill read a second time.