❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the deaths of mental health patients after discharge, with the Minister's response focusing on the questioner's alleged lack of engagement with the portfolio and potential breaches of patient privacy.
AnsweredQoN 388Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS — HOSPITAL
DEATHS
388. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Mental Health:
I refer to the minister's answer to question on
notice 5361, which did not include those patients who ''were patients at
the Fremantle Hospital up to one month before their deaths''. Western
Australian Health operational directive OD 0242/09 states —
The Chief Psychiatrist is to be
informed as a matter of priority, of any death of a patient while under the
care of any mental health service and any death that may implicate or involve
mental health services or stakeholders. This applies to voluntary and involuntary
inpatients and patients cared for in the community. Reporting is to include
people in the community whose death may be related to an untreated mental
illness.
(1) Given that
that operational directive states that, why did the minister not answer the
second part of the two questions?
(2) Given the
minister's response, is it not now abundantly clear that when mental
health patients leave hospital, there is virtually no follow-up for them, let
alone any wraparound services?
(3) Is the
minister's handling of this matter not yet another example of her not
being across her portfolio?
DEATHS
388. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Mental Health:
I refer to the minister's answer to question on
notice 5361, which did not include those patients who ''were patients at
the Fremantle Hospital up to one month before their deaths''. Western
Australian Health operational directive OD 0242/09 states —
The Chief Psychiatrist is to be
informed as a matter of priority, of any death of a patient while under the
care of any mental health service and any death that may implicate or involve
mental health services or stakeholders. This applies to voluntary and involuntary
inpatients and patients cared for in the community. Reporting is to include
people in the community whose death may be related to an untreated mental
illness.
(1) Given that
that operational directive states that, why did the minister not answer the
second part of the two questions?
(2) Given the
minister's response, is it not now abundantly clear that when mental
health patients leave hospital, there is virtually no follow-up for them, let
alone any wraparound services?
(3) Is the
minister's handling of this matter not yet another example of her not
being across her portfolio?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3)
If it is possible, I might answer these questions in reverse because I think
that the last question is probably the question that is going to be the most
telling. That question was about me not being across my portfolio or something.
The member has a condition that is normally referred to as projection. She
projects onto another person the problem that she is unable to accept is her
own problem. I will give an example of why this is so.
Hon
Michael Mischin : Is it
treatable?
Hon HELEN MORTON : I do not know whether it is treatable. For
some people it is not possible. However, let me just give an example of this.
Last week we had the Asia Pacific Conference on Mental Health in Western
Australia. Over 700 people were there. There was a wonderful array of speakers
over three days. I had the pleasure of opening that conference, and I had the
pleasure of identifying and acknowledging two Nationals members, Hon Wendy
Duncan and Hon Mia Davies. I had the pleasure of acknowledging the Greens
opposition spokesperson on mental health. I had the pleasure of acknowledging
Labor's Martin Whitely, the member for Bassendean, who was there.
Somehow or other I do not think that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich even knew that the
conference was on. I do not think she attended one single area of that
conference, at which there were 700 people from across the entire Asia–Pacific
region. There were 70 people from interstate and overseas, and I do not think
that member went to the conference for one day. By the way, the federal
Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Hon Mark Butler, flew over for the
conference and to undertake a few other duties with me. I made the casual
comment to this member, ''I suppose you're meeting up with Mark
Butler while he's here'', and she said, ''Oh, when is he
coming?'' She did not know that the federal minister from her own party
was even in Western Australia and had been here for two days.
Hon Simon O'Brien : I hope you didn't let her know he
was here.
Hon HELEN MORTON : In fact I did.
Hon Simon O'Brien : What a rotten thing to do!
Hon HELEN MORTON : Just so that I can put it absolutely
clearly on the record that this member is not interested in the issues and is
interested only in the shock-jock tactics that I talked about in my member's
statement last time, please let me reiterate the worst of these offences. The
worst of these offences —
Point of Order
Hon
KATE DOUST : I think the
minister is deviating and needs to be relevant and answer the question. I do
not think she is being relevant at the moment.
Several members interjected.
The
PRESIDENT : Order, members! A point of order has been raised. It is a
relevant point of order because the minister has to confine her answer in terms
of conciseness and relevance. However, the question asked was a rather
broad-ranging question rather than a question that was referring to information
on one specific aspect. Therefore, an answer to this question can contain some
broadly relevant material, but it cannot go on forever.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Hon HELEN MORTON : Thank you, Mr President.
I will finalise
point 3 with this comment, because point 3 was a question about whether I was
across my portfolio. I can tell you, Mr President, that I am across my
portfolio. I have actually read the Mental Health Act and I do know what is
contained in section 206 of the act, which basically says that if a person
divulges information about a patient, it is an offence. It states —
A person must not directly or
indirectly divulge any personal information obtained by reason of any function
that person has, or at any time had, in the administration of this Act or the Mental
Health Act 1962 .
Penalty: $2 000.
Consequently, the
issue that is of great concern to me is that I have a briefing note in my hand
that states that this member has sought that members of staff of two separate
hospitals divulge private patient information. So I am across the portfolio. I know what is in the act. This person
does not know what is in the act.
If it is possible, I might answer these questions in reverse because I think
that the last question is probably the question that is going to be the most
telling. That question was about me not being across my portfolio or something.
The member has a condition that is normally referred to as projection. She
projects onto another person the problem that she is unable to accept is her
own problem. I will give an example of why this is so.
Hon
Michael Mischin : Is it
treatable?
Hon HELEN MORTON : I do not know whether it is treatable. For
some people it is not possible. However, let me just give an example of this.
Last week we had the Asia Pacific Conference on Mental Health in Western
Australia. Over 700 people were there. There was a wonderful array of speakers
over three days. I had the pleasure of opening that conference, and I had the
pleasure of identifying and acknowledging two Nationals members, Hon Wendy
Duncan and Hon Mia Davies. I had the pleasure of acknowledging the Greens
opposition spokesperson on mental health. I had the pleasure of acknowledging
Labor's Martin Whitely, the member for Bassendean, who was there.
Somehow or other I do not think that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich even knew that the
conference was on. I do not think she attended one single area of that
conference, at which there were 700 people from across the entire Asia–Pacific
region. There were 70 people from interstate and overseas, and I do not think
that member went to the conference for one day. By the way, the federal
Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Hon Mark Butler, flew over for the
conference and to undertake a few other duties with me. I made the casual
comment to this member, ''I suppose you're meeting up with Mark
Butler while he's here'', and she said, ''Oh, when is he
coming?'' She did not know that the federal minister from her own party
was even in Western Australia and had been here for two days.
Hon Simon O'Brien : I hope you didn't let her know he
was here.
Hon HELEN MORTON : In fact I did.
Hon Simon O'Brien : What a rotten thing to do!
Hon HELEN MORTON : Just so that I can put it absolutely
clearly on the record that this member is not interested in the issues and is
interested only in the shock-jock tactics that I talked about in my member's
statement last time, please let me reiterate the worst of these offences. The
worst of these offences —
Point of Order
Hon
KATE DOUST : I think the
minister is deviating and needs to be relevant and answer the question. I do
not think she is being relevant at the moment.
Several members interjected.
The
PRESIDENT : Order, members! A point of order has been raised. It is a
relevant point of order because the minister has to confine her answer in terms
of conciseness and relevance. However, the question asked was a rather
broad-ranging question rather than a question that was referring to information
on one specific aspect. Therefore, an answer to this question can contain some
broadly relevant material, but it cannot go on forever.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Hon HELEN MORTON : Thank you, Mr President.
I will finalise
point 3 with this comment, because point 3 was a question about whether I was
across my portfolio. I can tell you, Mr President, that I am across my
portfolio. I have actually read the Mental Health Act and I do know what is
contained in section 206 of the act, which basically says that if a person
divulges information about a patient, it is an offence. It states —
A person must not directly or
indirectly divulge any personal information obtained by reason of any function
that person has, or at any time had, in the administration of this Act or the Mental
Health Act 1962 .
Penalty: $2 000.
Consequently, the
issue that is of great concern to me is that I have a briefing note in my hand
that states that this member has sought that members of staff of two separate
hospitals divulge private patient information. So I am across the portfolio. I know what is in the act. This person
does not know what is in the act.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.