<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2016-07-05" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="4411" />
  <endPage num="4465" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Mental Health (Review) Amendment Bill</name>
      <bills>
        <bill id="s3946">
          <name>Mental Health (Review) Amendment Bill</name>
        </bill>
      </bills>
      <page num="4435" />
      <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000561">
        <heading>Mental Health (Review) Amendment Bill</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Committee Stage</name>
        <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000562">
          <heading>Committee Stage</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000563">In committee.</text>
        <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000564">Clause 1.</text>
        <talker role="member" id="3164">
          <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000565">
            <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE:</by>  If I could, I would just like to indicate that the opposition appreciates the responses we received from the government in relation to the queries of the Aboriginal Health Council. We have had the opportunity to consult the council, and they appreciated the advice. The opposition will not be proposing any amendments as a result.</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000566">Clause passed.</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000567">Clauses 2 to 20 passed.</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000568">Clause 21.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000569">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  I move:</text>
          <text continued="true" id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000570">
            <inserted>Amendment No 1 [Police–1]—</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000571">
            <inserted>Page 13, lines 2 to 4 [clause 21(5), inserted subsection (7)]—</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000572">
            <item sublevel="2">
              <inserted>Delete 'A psychiatrist or authorised medical practitioner who has examined a patient to whom a level 2 inpatient treatment order applies may, once only, extend the order' and substitute:</inserted>
            </item>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000573">
            <item sublevel="2">
              <inserted>A level 2 inpatient treatment order may, once only, be extended by a psychiatrist or authorised medical practitioner (other than the psychiatrist or authorised medical practitioner who made the order) who has examined the patient to whom the order applies</inserted>
            </item>
          </text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="3164">
          <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000574">
            <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE:</by>  It would be useful for the committee to have an explanation as to why the amendment is necessary.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker kind="speech" role="office">
          <name>The Chair</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000575">
            <by role="office">The CHAIR:</by>  You should have said, 'We support the amendment with explanation.' Minister, would you like to give an explanation for the amendment?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000576">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  The remarks I have available to me at this point—I am happy to get more if the honourable member would like it—are that a number of amendments to section 25 are consequential. The clause includes an amendment that corresponds to the earlier amendments relating to the making of treatment orders and the impaired decision-making capacity of a person with mental illness. The clause amends section 25 to enable a psychiatrist or authorised medical practitioner to extend a level 2 inpatient treatment order for a further maximum period of 42 days. Does that suffice?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="3164">
          <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000577">
            <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE:</by>  Considering this bill has been well consulted and well received, I do not intend to push the issue, but I indicate that my expectation as a member of this council is that, if the government feels it necessary to amend its own bill, it might do us the courtesy of telling us why.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000578">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  My understanding is that the principle objective of the amendment is to provide the patient with additional rights by ensuring that they get access to a second psychiatrist rather than just the initial one.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="3164">
          <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000579">
            <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE:</by>  I thank the minister for his advice.</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000580">Amendment carried; clause passed.</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000581">Clauses 22 to 24 passed.</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000582">Clause 25.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000583">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  I move:</text>
          <text continued="true" id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000584">
            <inserted>Amendment No 2 [Police–1]—</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000585">
            <inserted>Page 13, after line 34—Insert:</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000586">
            <item sublevel="2">
              <inserted>(3)&amp;#x9;Section 29(3)—after 'to whom a' insert 'level 1,'</inserted>
            </item>
          </text>
          <page num="4436" />
          <text continued="true" id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000587">I understand that this clause makes amendments to section 29 of the principal act that correspond to earlier amendments. It is a consequential amendment.</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000588">Amendment carried; clause passed.</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000589">Clauses 26 to 67 passed.</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000590">New clauses 67A and 67B.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000591">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  I move:</text>
          <text continued="true" id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000592">
            <inserted>Amendment No 3 [Police–1]—</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000593">
            <inserted>Page 34, after line 34—Insert:</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000594">
            <inserted>67A—Amendment of section 79—Reviews of treatment orders and other matters</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000595">
            <item sublevel="2">
              <inserted>(1)&amp;#x9;Section 79(1)(a)—delete paragraph (a)</inserted>
            </item>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000596">
            <item sublevel="2">
              <inserted>(2)&amp;#x9;Section 79(1)—after paragraph (c) insert:</inserted>
            </item>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000597">
            <item sublevel="3">
              <inserted>(ca)&amp;#x9;a review of the circumstances involved in the making of an order to extend a level 2 inpatient treatment order (which review must be conducted as soon as practicable after the making of the order to extend a level 2 inpatient treatment order);</inserted>
            </item>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000598">
            <inserted>67B—Amendment of section 81—Reviews of orders (other than Tribunal orders)</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000599">
            <item sublevel="2">
              <inserted>(1)&amp;#x9;Section 81(1)—after 'review of the order by the Tribunal' insert:</inserted>
            </item>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000600">
            <item sublevel="3">
              <inserted>under section 34 of the <term>South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013</term></inserted>
            </item>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000601">
            <item sublevel="2">
              <inserted>(2)&amp;#x9;Section 81(1a)—delete subsection (1a)</inserted>
            </item>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000602">
            <item sublevel="2">
              <inserted>(3)&amp;#x9;Section 81(2a)—delete 'not be constituted by a medical practitioner sitting alone' and substitute 'be constituted of at least 1 medical practitioner and 1 legal practitioner'</inserted>
            </item>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000603">
            <item sublevel="2">
              <inserted>(4)&amp;#x9;Section 81(4) and (5)—delete subsections (4) and (5)</inserted>
            </item>
          </text>
          <text continued="true" id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000604">These new clauses amend section 79 to remove the requirement of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to automatically review all level 1 community treatment orders and adds the requirement for the tribunal to automatically review all level 2 inpatient treatment order extensions. I understand that this is also a consequential amendment.</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000605">In regard to new clause 67B, this amends section 81 to clarify and streamline the protocols for the review of community treatment orders and inpatient treatment orders by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="3164">
          <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000606">
            <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE:</by>  I wonder what 'streamline' means in that context.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000607">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  Can you repeat that?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="3164">
          <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000608">
            <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE:</by>  I ask the minister to clarify what he meant by 'streamlining' in that context—'streamline the consideration by the tribunal'. What is the effect of the clause in terms of 'streamline'?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000609">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  I understand that 'streamlining' refers to streamlining in respect of speeding up of procedure; it is a procedural issue. The changes to section 81 ensure that reviews of community treatment orders and inpatient treatment orders made by health professionals are held within the more appropriate review jurisdiction of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. As such, review tribunals must consist of at least one medical practitioner and one legal practitioner. In addition, the changes remove provisions from the Mental Health Act 2009 that duplicate the review provisions from division 3 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="3164">
          <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000610">
            <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE:</by>  Considering this bill had been under consideration for so long, why did the government think it was important to add a legal practitioner in that review role?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000611">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  I have been advised that SACAT has a number of legal practitioners who operate within it, obviously, and they made a request that this take place. This accommodates that request.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="3164">
          <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <page num="4437" />
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000612">
            <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE:</by>  So SACAT requested the insertion of a legal practitioner?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000613">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  Yes.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="3164">
          <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000614">
            <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE:</by>  Could we clarify why we are deleting subsections (4) and (5)? The tribunal has to do something, and it seems to me that:</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000615">
            <inserted>(4)&amp;#x9;On hearing a review of an order, the Tribunal must revoke the order, with immediate effect, if the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are proper grounds for it to remain in operation—</inserted>
          </text>
          <text continued="true" id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000616">is actually almost a statement of principle. We assume that the least restrictive means are used, and if it is not required then it should not be there. I am a bit concerned to see subsections (4) and (5) deleted at such a late stage.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5084">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000617">
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS:</by>  I understand that this was the advice that was received from parliamentary counsel about how best to go about drafting the provision.</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000618">New clauses inserted.</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000619">Remaining clauses (68 to 82), schedule and title passed.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Third Reading</name>
        <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000620">
          <heading>Third Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <talker role="member" id="5084" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <electorate id="">Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety</electorate>
          <startTime time="2016-07-05T16:09:09" />
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000621">
            <timeStamp time="2016-07-05T16:09:09" />
            <by role="member" id="5084">The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (16:09):</by>  I move:</text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000622">
            <inserted>That this bill be now read a third time.</inserted>
          </text>
          <text id="2016070526b82a344b71406e80000623">Bill read a third time and passed.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>