Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 before us today is not quite as simple as has been portrayed. This legislation seeks to amend the Social Security Act 1991 to cease social security payments to people who are in psychiatric confinement because they have been charged with a serious offence. The reason they are there is that they have been found unfit to stand trial and so have been found not guilty of the charge because of their mental impairment. The new arrangements in this legislation will take place from July 2015. Currently, social security payments may not be paid to people in prison. However, payments are still paid to people who are in psychiatric confinement as a result of their being charged with a serious criminal offence and who are undertaking a course of rehabilitation.

This bill seeks to have people who are in psychiatric confinement and who have been charged with a serious crime treated in the same way as a person in jail who has been convicted of a crime. There are many in the community who would say people who have committed an offence such as murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or attempted rape should not receive any benefits. However, the difference between a person in psychiatric confinement and a person in jail is that, in the former case, that person has been found unfit because of their mental illness. The important issue here is that these people are undertaking rehabilitation. These people, we hope, can be rehabilitated to the extent that, one day, they may be able to be charged or to re-enter our society. It is imperative that they undertake this rehabilitation. But rehabilitation comes with some associated costs. It involves working with people who are in psychiatric facilities to try and connect them to community—and that entails going out into the community in a way that somebody in a prison does not.

The government is probably rushing this legislation through a bit quickly. They did not consult adequately with stakeholders before this bill was introduced into the House. The bill is currently being looked at by a Senate committee. I would like to see the report from the Senate committee. In addition, I do not think the government has looked at the issue of people who are in confinement in a psychiatric institution. It is not like jail. It can be compared to a hospital setting. People there are required to buy their own toothpaste, their own toiletries and their own clothes; unlike prisoners, they are not provided with clothes. They need to attend to many of their own personal needs. As previous speakers have mentioned, some states levy an accommodation charge. This will have an impact on the states because it will shift costs of about $50 million to the states.

This is one of those pieces of legislation that could get popular support. The question that we as members of parliament need to ask is: are there going to be any perverse implications from the introduction of this bill? Is our society going to be in a worse position because of this legislation, or in a better position? It will save money. It will remove the disability support pension from people with severe psychiatric illness. It could lead to a situation that will exacerbate their condition and, in effect, stop them from ever re-entering our society—or, if they do, they will not have gone through a rehabilitation program that is as strong as it currently is. I urge the government to wait until they get the report from the Senate committee and then talk a bit more with the stakeholders, the people who are in this space. After they have done that, they should think very carefully about this legislation.

See this speech in context