❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding the discharge and subsequent suicide of a patient from the Alma Street Clinic. The Minister declines to answer citing patient confidentiality laws, leading to a point of order regarding parliamentary privilege.
AnsweredQoN 792Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ALMA STREET CLINIC — PATIENT SUICIDE
792. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Mental
Health:
I refer to the Fremantle
Herald article dated 6 October 2012 by Carmelo Amalfi titled ''My
Best Mate'' about Mr Ian Edwards, whose son Anthony sent a family member
a text message on 20 March this year before stepping off a high-rise building
in Fremantle—Johnson Court flats—which is notorious for
suicides.
(1) When
Anthony presented with his father at Alma Street clinic triage in March, why
was he admitted as an involuntary patient at that time?
(2) Does the
hospital have a record of Anthony ''freely'' walking out of the
hospital during his involuntary stay; and, if so, is this common practice and
is there also a record of him returning voluntarily with a family member?
(3) How did
Anthony come to be discharged from the hospital, and was the family consulted
or their opinion sought on the proposed discharge?
(4) What
evidence was there to support Anthony being well enough to be discharged, and
can the minister provide a schedule showing the hospital's discharge
plan; and, if not, why not?
(5) Has the
minister or the minister's office at any time been in contact with
Anthony's family; and, if not, why not?
Mr President, I have a signed authorisation form from Mr Ian
Edwards in relation to this question, including a photograph of his son, which
he has requested that I seek leave to table in this place.
Leave granted. [See paper 5213.]
792. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Mental
Health:
I refer to the Fremantle
Herald article dated 6 October 2012 by Carmelo Amalfi titled ''My
Best Mate'' about Mr Ian Edwards, whose son Anthony sent a family member
a text message on 20 March this year before stepping off a high-rise building
in Fremantle—Johnson Court flats—which is notorious for
suicides.
(1) When
Anthony presented with his father at Alma Street clinic triage in March, why
was he admitted as an involuntary patient at that time?
(2) Does the
hospital have a record of Anthony ''freely'' walking out of the
hospital during his involuntary stay; and, if so, is this common practice and
is there also a record of him returning voluntarily with a family member?
(3) How did
Anthony come to be discharged from the hospital, and was the family consulted
or their opinion sought on the proposed discharge?
(4) What
evidence was there to support Anthony being well enough to be discharged, and
can the minister provide a schedule showing the hospital's discharge
plan; and, if not, why not?
(5) Has the
minister or the minister's office at any time been in contact with
Anthony's family; and, if not, why not?
Mr President, I have a signed authorisation form from Mr Ian
Edwards in relation to this question, including a photograph of his son, which
he has requested that I seek leave to table in this place.
Leave granted. [See paper 5213.]
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of the question.
(1)–(5)
It is a really very tragic event that we are referring to here. I appreciate
that the member has tabled a signed authorisation from the family to ask these
questions in Parliament. However, section 206(1) of the Mental Health Act 1996
states that it is a criminal offence —
for a person to directly or
indirectly divulge any information obtained by reason of any function that
person has, —
That includes me as the minister —
or any time had in the
administration of the Mental Health Act.
I have not actually seen the
permission but I am assuming it is a signed authorisation, which normally comes
from a person to release their private, personal and confidential information.
But in this case it is an authorisation to ask the question. It does not give
me permission to provide personal information of that type about a patient in
any particular way.
It was explained to the member at
the time of the Chief Psychiatrist's report when we were going through
the rigmarole of trying to provide information to family members about people
who had died. It is a requirement that we take the clinical notes of these
people to the State Solicitor's Office so that the State Solicitor can
be satisfied that we can do that without the patient's consent—because
it is the patient's consent, not the father's consent we are
talking about. Therefore, through the clinical notes, or through some other
mechanism, it needed to be ascertained that the patient was giving consent for
the parent or family member to have access to that level of detail, or in fact
for a person like me to provide that information to people in a public way. For
those reasons, it became quite difficult for us to provide the array of
information that people were seeking. Further advice, therefore, needs to be
obtained to ensure that the disclosure of information requested does not
constitute a breach of confidentiality provisions in the act. For that reason —
Point of Order
Hon
JON FORD : Mr President, the
minister keeps on referring to some restriction that some act has on her
delivering some information to the Parliament, and she implies some
criminality. I seek your ruling on what has primacy: the Parliament and
privilege, or the act that the minister refers to. I make the point so that I
can understand that there is validity in her argument.
The
PRESIDENT : Members, it is a
very pertinent point of order in terms of the debates over a couple of pieces
of legislation with which this chamber has been involved in recent months. The
minister can choose to answer the question in whichever way she likes. She is
not bound by the criminality aspects of it if she chooses to answer questions
in Parliament containing information, because Parliament provides the minister
and any other member with that privilege within the parliamentary precincts. If
a member is absolutely determined to obtain that information, it would have to be
done via a motion in this house to require the minister to provide that
information to Parliament.
Minister, had you
finished your answer?
Hon
HELEN MORTON : No, Mr
President, I had not; if I may continue.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Hon HELEN MORTON : I have actually previously had State
Solicitor's advice regarding my ability to provide information in this
house in that way, and the advice I have been given is consistent with what I
have already mentioned.
I have made it
absolutely clear that through State Solicitor's advice I will certainly
make available whatever information can be made available; there are no qualms
about that. But I also make the comment generally that the imputations and
assertions that have been made in this question do not accord with the briefing
notes that I have had over a period of time on this particular matter.
(1)–(5)
It is a really very tragic event that we are referring to here. I appreciate
that the member has tabled a signed authorisation from the family to ask these
questions in Parliament. However, section 206(1) of the Mental Health Act 1996
states that it is a criminal offence —
for a person to directly or
indirectly divulge any information obtained by reason of any function that
person has, —
That includes me as the minister —
or any time had in the
administration of the Mental Health Act.
I have not actually seen the
permission but I am assuming it is a signed authorisation, which normally comes
from a person to release their private, personal and confidential information.
But in this case it is an authorisation to ask the question. It does not give
me permission to provide personal information of that type about a patient in
any particular way.
It was explained to the member at
the time of the Chief Psychiatrist's report when we were going through
the rigmarole of trying to provide information to family members about people
who had died. It is a requirement that we take the clinical notes of these
people to the State Solicitor's Office so that the State Solicitor can
be satisfied that we can do that without the patient's consent—because
it is the patient's consent, not the father's consent we are
talking about. Therefore, through the clinical notes, or through some other
mechanism, it needed to be ascertained that the patient was giving consent for
the parent or family member to have access to that level of detail, or in fact
for a person like me to provide that information to people in a public way. For
those reasons, it became quite difficult for us to provide the array of
information that people were seeking. Further advice, therefore, needs to be
obtained to ensure that the disclosure of information requested does not
constitute a breach of confidentiality provisions in the act. For that reason —
Point of Order
Hon
JON FORD : Mr President, the
minister keeps on referring to some restriction that some act has on her
delivering some information to the Parliament, and she implies some
criminality. I seek your ruling on what has primacy: the Parliament and
privilege, or the act that the minister refers to. I make the point so that I
can understand that there is validity in her argument.
The
PRESIDENT : Members, it is a
very pertinent point of order in terms of the debates over a couple of pieces
of legislation with which this chamber has been involved in recent months. The
minister can choose to answer the question in whichever way she likes. She is
not bound by the criminality aspects of it if she chooses to answer questions
in Parliament containing information, because Parliament provides the minister
and any other member with that privilege within the parliamentary precincts. If
a member is absolutely determined to obtain that information, it would have to be
done via a motion in this house to require the minister to provide that
information to Parliament.
Minister, had you
finished your answer?
Hon
HELEN MORTON : No, Mr
President, I had not; if I may continue.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Hon HELEN MORTON : I have actually previously had State
Solicitor's advice regarding my ability to provide information in this
house in that way, and the advice I have been given is consistent with what I
have already mentioned.
I have made it
absolutely clear that through State Solicitor's advice I will certainly
make available whatever information can be made available; there are no qualms
about that. But I also make the comment generally that the imputations and
assertions that have been made in this question do not accord with the briefing
notes that I have had over a period of time on this particular matter.
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.