❓ Question regarding the inclusion of sterilisation procedures in the draft Mental Health Bill 2011, specifically seeking justification and recommendations for its inclusion. The Minister deflects blame to the previous Labor government.
AnsweredQoN 28Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MENTAL
HEALTH BILL 2011 — STERILISATION PROCEDURES
28. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Mental
Health:
I refer to part 12 of the draft mental health bill 2011,
which sets out the process for the authorisation and sterilisation procedures
and non-psychiatric medical treatment of involuntary patients and mentally
impaired accused.
(1) Which
individuals or organisations specifically recommended including permanent
sterilisation of boys, girls, adolescents and adults as a treatment for mental
illness?
(2) When did they make the recommendation to the minister?
(3) Will the
minister table all submissions that supported permanent sterilisation as a
treatment for mental illness; and, if not, why not?
HEALTH BILL 2011 — STERILISATION PROCEDURES
28. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Mental
Health:
I refer to part 12 of the draft mental health bill 2011,
which sets out the process for the authorisation and sterilisation procedures
and non-psychiatric medical treatment of involuntary patients and mentally
impaired accused.
(1) Which
individuals or organisations specifically recommended including permanent
sterilisation of boys, girls, adolescents and adults as a treatment for mental
illness?
(2) When did they make the recommendation to the minister?
(3) Will the
minister table all submissions that supported permanent sterilisation as a
treatment for mental illness; and, if not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this
question.
(1)–(3)
I was rather hoping that the member would ask this question. I had planned to
talk about it at members' statements time, but if people would like me
to talk about it now, I am happy to.
Hon Ken Travers : As long as it is relevant and
concise.
Hon HELEN MORTON : Absolutely—relevant and
concise!
Several members interjected.
The PRESIDENT :
Order! Let the minister get on with her answer and then it might have a better
chance of being concise.
Hon HELEN MORTON : The work on the mental health bill
review started in 2003. That was when the first lot of recommendations about
including something to do with sterilisation came into being. That was on the
basis that Professor D'Arcy Holman recommended that as part of his
recommendations. The cabinet at the time would have approved that drafting
instruction, and I believe that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich was a member of cabinet
at that time. The drafting instructions were commenced —
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : This is your bill!
Hon HELEN MORTON : I know that it is my bill, so I am
very pleased to be looking after it. Nevertheless, when I saw it in the bill, I
thought to myself, ''This is not a mental health treatment. No-one is
suggesting that it is a mental health treatment, so why is it in the mental
health bill?'' I questioned it and found out that, once again, the
instructions were given by the Labor government while Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich was
a member of cabinet. The objective was to remove and make absolutely clear that
the Chief Psychiatrist would not approve sterilisation for anything—in
particular, non-therapeutic sterilisation. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich had great
difficulty understanding that concept yesterday, but non-therapeutic
sterilisation means for reasons other than cancer or something like that. When
someone makes a conscious decision to become sterile, that is a non-therapeutic
sterilisation. Whatever applies to someone who does not have a mental illness
applies to someone who has a mental illness if they contemplate having
sterilisation. If they are a competent person, they can give their own consent.
If they are not a competent person, their guardian, as permitted under the
auspices of the State Administrative Tribunal, can give that consent. The
issues Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich went on to talk about after that were about how a surgical procedure could
accidentally result in infertility. Of course, there are many different reasons
why that could happen. For example, if someone had a major car accident that
required significant reconstruction of the pelvis, they may have surgical
procedures that could accidentally result in infertility. Of course, there are
other non-surgical examples such as radiation for cancer treatment.
The issue around children is more complex. There is an issue
called ''competent minor'' that currently applies in common law
across all health services. It currently applies in circumstances involving a
young person under 18 years of age who fully understands the procedure and its
consequences, and can provide informed consent. Again, we believe that it
should probably also apply to people in the mental health area. Significant
safeguards have been put in place. The Family Court would need to approve that,
unless it was a competent minor who was able to provide informed consent
themselves. I would ask members, particularly Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, to perhaps not go around using words like ''electroshock''
and ''psychosurgery'', and promulgating inadvertently, I expect,
the work of the Church of Scientology. That is the work she is referring to. It
is the only document in which I have read the word ''electroshock''.
I think it would do Hon Ljiljanna
Ravlich and others a great service if they recognised that that is the
work of the Church of Scientology, and that that church has a longstanding
disregard for psychiatry and the profession of psychiatry. It does not believe
it in any way. It believes that people should be able to rise above mental
illness. It believes, for example, just by fixing up a person's
nutrition and some of the other physical things that a person has, all their
mental illness will go away.
Point of Order
Hon
MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM : I
note new standing order 105 states, ''An answer shall be concise and
relevant.'' A lot of material the minister is introducing is certainly
extraneous. It has little relevance when she makes allusions to a member of the
opposition. I ask you to seek the minister to return to the answer and to do it
expeditiously, please.
The
PRESIDENT : In framing n ew
standing order 105, the committee deliberately left it open to some
interpretation and discretion on behalf of the Chair. When the member stood to
make his point of order, I was about to draw that to the attention of the
minister. I believe that the minister herself was about to wind up her answer.
Inadvertently, we have probably established some parameters through this
answer. Minister, were you about to wind up your answer?
Questions without Notice Resumed
Hon HELEN MORTON : Mr President, I had my very final
couple of dot points to make. To finalise: who put the drafting instructions in
place? It was Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich and members of the cabinet of the day. Who drafted it? It was the parliamentary
drafters, with input from the Department of Health. How can they get
assistance? Will all of the submissions be tabled? I do not have the
submissions at this stage from way back in 2004 or 2005, but any submissions
that come in —
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : I think you're being a bit
cute!
The PRESIDENT : Minister, I think that just about exhausts
the answer.
Hon HELEN MORTON : Any submissions that come in as a
result of this process will be put on the website.
question.
(1)–(3)
I was rather hoping that the member would ask this question. I had planned to
talk about it at members' statements time, but if people would like me
to talk about it now, I am happy to.
Hon Ken Travers : As long as it is relevant and
concise.
Hon HELEN MORTON : Absolutely—relevant and
concise!
Several members interjected.
The PRESIDENT :
Order! Let the minister get on with her answer and then it might have a better
chance of being concise.
Hon HELEN MORTON : The work on the mental health bill
review started in 2003. That was when the first lot of recommendations about
including something to do with sterilisation came into being. That was on the
basis that Professor D'Arcy Holman recommended that as part of his
recommendations. The cabinet at the time would have approved that drafting
instruction, and I believe that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich was a member of cabinet
at that time. The drafting instructions were commenced —
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : This is your bill!
Hon HELEN MORTON : I know that it is my bill, so I am
very pleased to be looking after it. Nevertheless, when I saw it in the bill, I
thought to myself, ''This is not a mental health treatment. No-one is
suggesting that it is a mental health treatment, so why is it in the mental
health bill?'' I questioned it and found out that, once again, the
instructions were given by the Labor government while Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich was
a member of cabinet. The objective was to remove and make absolutely clear that
the Chief Psychiatrist would not approve sterilisation for anything—in
particular, non-therapeutic sterilisation. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich had great
difficulty understanding that concept yesterday, but non-therapeutic
sterilisation means for reasons other than cancer or something like that. When
someone makes a conscious decision to become sterile, that is a non-therapeutic
sterilisation. Whatever applies to someone who does not have a mental illness
applies to someone who has a mental illness if they contemplate having
sterilisation. If they are a competent person, they can give their own consent.
If they are not a competent person, their guardian, as permitted under the
auspices of the State Administrative Tribunal, can give that consent. The
issues Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich went on to talk about after that were about how a surgical procedure could
accidentally result in infertility. Of course, there are many different reasons
why that could happen. For example, if someone had a major car accident that
required significant reconstruction of the pelvis, they may have surgical
procedures that could accidentally result in infertility. Of course, there are
other non-surgical examples such as radiation for cancer treatment.
The issue around children is more complex. There is an issue
called ''competent minor'' that currently applies in common law
across all health services. It currently applies in circumstances involving a
young person under 18 years of age who fully understands the procedure and its
consequences, and can provide informed consent. Again, we believe that it
should probably also apply to people in the mental health area. Significant
safeguards have been put in place. The Family Court would need to approve that,
unless it was a competent minor who was able to provide informed consent
themselves. I would ask members, particularly Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, to perhaps not go around using words like ''electroshock''
and ''psychosurgery'', and promulgating inadvertently, I expect,
the work of the Church of Scientology. That is the work she is referring to. It
is the only document in which I have read the word ''electroshock''.
I think it would do Hon Ljiljanna
Ravlich and others a great service if they recognised that that is the
work of the Church of Scientology, and that that church has a longstanding
disregard for psychiatry and the profession of psychiatry. It does not believe
it in any way. It believes that people should be able to rise above mental
illness. It believes, for example, just by fixing up a person's
nutrition and some of the other physical things that a person has, all their
mental illness will go away.
Point of Order
Hon
MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM : I
note new standing order 105 states, ''An answer shall be concise and
relevant.'' A lot of material the minister is introducing is certainly
extraneous. It has little relevance when she makes allusions to a member of the
opposition. I ask you to seek the minister to return to the answer and to do it
expeditiously, please.
The
PRESIDENT : In framing n ew
standing order 105, the committee deliberately left it open to some
interpretation and discretion on behalf of the Chair. When the member stood to
make his point of order, I was about to draw that to the attention of the
minister. I believe that the minister herself was about to wind up her answer.
Inadvertently, we have probably established some parameters through this
answer. Minister, were you about to wind up your answer?
Questions without Notice Resumed
Hon HELEN MORTON : Mr President, I had my very final
couple of dot points to make. To finalise: who put the drafting instructions in
place? It was Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich and members of the cabinet of the day. Who drafted it? It was the parliamentary
drafters, with input from the Department of Health. How can they get
assistance? Will all of the submissions be tabled? I do not have the
submissions at this stage from way back in 2004 or 2005, but any submissions
that come in —
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : I think you're being a bit
cute!
The PRESIDENT : Minister, I think that just about exhausts
the answer.
Hon HELEN MORTON : Any submissions that come in as a
result of this process will be put on the website.
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.