You are right, it is outrageous that someone can be detained involuntarily without a review for a month. And to compound the offence, the government pleads the inefficiency of their own processes as a reason!

In Daniel Defoe's Moll Flanders, someone was accused of shop-lifting and they called a Justice of Peace there and then, who conducted a summary committal hearing on the spot: hearing the accusation, the witnesses, and the accused, and making a decision without delay. Why couldn't we do something like that? There are loads of people with sufficient qualifications. They could be on call and summoned ad hoc. In metropolitan areas, they could have a squad of such justices to do nothing but such cases.

As I understand it, the Tribunal may not hear some cases for 2-3 months; and will do so in many cases by video conference. This will bring NSW in line with practices in other states, which have not had magistrate's reviews.

The Tribunal's members are not independent of the mental health system, unlike the magistrates.

The changes are indeed a matter for concern.

Jardine K's squad idea is a good one. These matters need to be dealt with quickly and fairly. They have to be efficient. I use the term 'efficient' to mean actually getting the job done properly as opposed to the bureacratic meaning of cost cutting to the detriment of actual services.

It is a difficult area as oftentimes authorities hands are tied by stringent human rights laws knowing full well that dire consequences may occur due to lack of speedy intervention.

Human rights laws have to be considered and supported by a fully functioning legal system that can act and move swiftly to deal with cases as they arise.

So in the near future,political dissidents could be classified as mentally ill and incarcerated for long periods without legal representation? Russia is looking like a nice place to emigrate.

Help! Not yet. Whistleblowers, perhaps. But think of Janet Frame.

I am a little confused about this problem.
Why would we treat mentally ill people who have been committed involuntarily to a psychiatric institution the same as criminals?

Why would we need a magistrate to decide if they are being detained correctly or not?
Surely the patient's Doctors, and the psychiatric staff where they are being treated, should decide that?

Most people who are committed to involuntary psychiatric care are committed for very good reasons- usually their own safety, or the safety of others.

I can see why a Magistrate 'reviewing' their situation after only one week could be considered a waste of time and resources.
Most very ill mental health patients are not going to be well that quickly anyway.

Are we going to have the same outcry about patient's 'human rights' when these people are 'freed' too early because their human rights are supposedly being breached. only to have them commit suicide or kill someone?