Division
Jenny Macklin I am speaking today on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. This bill will take income support payments away from people in psychiatric confinement who are charged with a serious offence and who are undergoing a course of rehabilitation. Since 1986, legislation has provided that a person undergoing psychiatric confinement who is undertaking a course of rehabilitation can receive income support payments. They are people who have been found to be suffering very serious mental health issues like schizophrenia; bipolar disorder; intellectual disabilities; acquired brain injuries from a car, sporting accident or a stroke; and other conditions that impair mental functioning. The people impacted by this measure will have been charged with serious offences, which is why any change to the arrangements for people in psychiatric confinement needs to be properly considered. Any change should be based on extensive consultation and debated sensitively. Unfortunately, the government has not consulted on the changes in this bill prior to its announcement. The government did not speak to the patients who may be impacted by these measures, to their families or to their carers. They did not speak to the mental health advocacy organisations or to state and territory governments. They did not speak to the psychiatric institutions that provide the care. Little has changed since the announcement. No genuine effort has been made to communicate this decision to make sure that those impacted by the measure are aware of the change and can prepare accordingly. The government has left mental health services to communicate with patients, families and carers. This is just not good enough. A proper process of consultation is needed for such a complex, sensitive and serious matter. Today's consideration of the bill pre-empts the findings of a Senate inquiry. A public hearing as part of that inquiry was held only last week. There have been 26 written submissions to the
House of Representatives, 2015-05-28. affirmative: ayes 79, noes 44.
Question
Jenny Macklin I am speaking today on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. This bill will take income support payments away from people in psychiatric confinement who are charged with a serious offence and who are undergoing a course of rehabilitation. Since 1986, legislation has provided that a person undergoing psychiatric confinement who is undertaking a course of rehabilitation can receive income support payments. They are people who have been found to be suffering very serious mental health issues like schizophrenia; bipolar disorder; intellectual disabilities; acquired brain injuries from a car, sporting accident or a stroke; and other conditions that impair mental functioning. The people impacted by this measure will have been charged with serious offences, which is why any change to the arrangements for people in psychiatric confinement needs to be properly considered. Any change should be based on extensive consultation and debated sensitively. Unfortunately, the government has not consulted on the changes in this bill prior to its announcement. The government did not speak to the patients who may be impacted by these measures, to their families or to their carers. They did not speak to the mental health advocacy organisations or to state and territory governments. They did not speak to the psychiatric institutions that provide the care. Little has changed since the announcement. No genuine effort has been made to communicate this decision to make sure that those impacted by the measure are aware of the change and can prepare accordingly. The government has left mental health services to communicate with patients, families and carers. This is just not good enough. A proper process of consultation is needed for such a complex, sensitive and serious matter. Today's consideration of the bill pre-empts the findings of a Senate inquiry. A public hearing as part of that inquiry was held only last week. There have been 26 written submissions to the
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.