Does New Mental Health Legislation in Victoria, Australia, Advance Human Rights?
Overview
This paper analyzes Victoria's Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022, examining whether it delivers on the government's claim of being "rights-based." The author argues that while the legislation includes some improvements, it fails to comply with international human rights law, particularly the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Developed by La Trobe University
Key insights
Key Insights:
-
Victoria's new mental health act isn't actually rights-based despite government claims
-
Forced treatment and detention based on disability violates international human rights law
-
The act retains coercive practices like involuntary electroconvulsive therapy against patients' will
-
People with mental health diagnoses have fewer rights than other disability groups
-
No meaningful decision-making capacity criterion exists, unlike other Australian disability legislation
-
Advance directives remain non-binding, allowing psychiatrists to override patient preferences completely
-
New professional advocates provide some support but don't eliminate fundamental rights violations
-
Legislative principles lack enforcement mechanisms, making compliance unlikely in daily practice
Did this resource draw on transformative evidence?
The document was not based on experiential expertise. Maylea used "doctrinal analysis" (legal/academic methodology) rather than lived experience. While he acknowledges this limitation and notes the importance of including people subject to mental health laws, none of the royal commissioners who influenced the legislation had been subject to such laws themselves.
The document shows limited practice wisdom. While Maylea was on the expert advisory group drafting the legislation, his analysis is primarily legal/academic rather than practice-based. He notes widespread noncompliance with mental health legislation in daily practice but doesn't draw extensively from frontline clinical or service delivery experience.
The document demonstrates strong research and evaluation foundations. Maylea conducts systematic doctrinal analysis using international human rights frameworks (CRPD, WHO guidance), compares multiple jurisdictions' legislation, references empirical studies on legislative compliance, and cites extensive academic literature on mental health law reform and human rights implementation.
Feedback
Let us know if you found this resource useful.
Categories
Resource type
Literature Review