I support amendment No. 30. The rationale for this extension is far from clear. It is obviously a matter of great concern to those who understand the intricacies of involuntary detention or involuntary treatment, the timeframe and the process surrounding all that. Those who have approached us, and I think everybody in the Opposition, believe there are very significant grounds for inappropriate care of the individual without the necessary safeguards being in place. The other important point is there have been calls to ensure we have an appropriate advocacy and complaints mechanism within the Bill to ensure those who are involuntarily detained or are being treated can get the proper representation. There are two elements to this: a lack of a new capacity assessment if the period is extended and a wholly inadequate or absent advocacy and complaints mechanism for those advocating on behalf of individuals. In that context, it is very difficult to support an extension from 21 to 42 days. We need to go back to the original 21 days, ensure it is kept at that and that the necessary safeguards are in place. We very much support the amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.20

The fundamental reality is there is a misalignment regarding the ages at which children age out of paediatric mental health services and physical health services. It is 16 for mental health services and 18 for physical health accommodation. We need to put in place safeguards for children who are admitted to an adult psychiatric facility. That is why we propose in amendment No. 63 that the District Court has to play a critical role. We have spent some time talking about this and are disappointed the Minister of State will not support either amendment No. 60 or amendment No. 63, which is an important compromise regarding the misalignment and the unacceptable situation whereby children are treated in an adult centre. We very much support amendment No. 60 and I note amendment No. 63, which we will not have time to get to.

Sentiment score: -0.12