Law reform, politics and mental health.

A major problem of democratic government is to get lawmakers to address controversial and sensitive subjects such as mental health law reform. By reference to current and past projects in the Australian Law Reform Commission, its Chairman outlines the way in which permanent law reform agencies can mobilise expert and community opinion to help the lawmaking process address sufficiently the needs of law reform. After outlining briefly the history of mental health law reform in English-speaking countries, the author suggests that moves for reform tend to come in 'cycles' or 'waves'. This is especially so in federations such as Australia. Reforms introduced in South Australia in 1976 are now working their way into the laws of other jurisdictions of Australia, where mental health law is basically a state concern. The reforms deal with such matters as legal representation for persons involuntarily committed and stricter definitions of circumstances for and objectives of hospitalisation of the mentally ill. Some comments are offered on new approaches to the defence of insanity in criminal trials following the jury verdict in the Hinkley case arising out of an attempt on the life of a President of the United States. The implications of this and other cases for the 'anti-psychiatry' movement are referred to and discussed. The author concludes with comments on the implications of mental health law reform for democracies. He suggests a law for law reform agencies in reconciling needs for law reform and community tolerance of change.