The Mental Health Act  
It is a Star Chamber

Labor's Laws - All victims must FEAR. 
Under the Labor's Mental Health Act you are mentally ill. You can be imprisoned and tortured without trial when no crime has been committed. Just because you show some distress and anger towards the Perpetrator. A malicious person can tell an invented malicious story against you and you will be imprisoned and tortured.

This law has turned Psychiatrists into star chamber judges. Psychiatrists have a duty of care to the community like judges do. Any mistake is a political & media disaster so they cannot take chances. Any disagreement or dispute situation might lead to vengeance. The person must be diagnosed as mentally ill, just in case. Psychiatrists have the job of investigating, judging, then punishing the suspect. Psychiatrists untrained in law will accept malice and hearsay as fact so can be influenced to abuse their power and make improper decisions and then punish their victim. Psychiatrists can aid and abet malicious people taking what is not theirs by locking up and treating (punishing with drugs) the victim. Psychiatrists should not be placed into this type of position. It is unsafe and is causing great harm to good people.

Definition Of Mental Illness      Read the stories of abuse Read the Mental health Act

In the Opinion of a Psychiatrist a patient is mentally ill. (They only have to say it)
From the Mental Health Act.12 (1) Mental illness is a condition characterised by a clinically significant disturbance of thought, mood, perception or memory. 
13 What are the assessment criteria?
(1) The assessment criteria for a person, are all of the following, based on available information-
(a) The person appears to have a mental illness;
(b) The person requires immediate assessment;
(c) The assessment can properly be made at an authorised mental health service;
(d) There is a risk that the person may- 
(i) cause harm to himself or herself or someone else;
or (ii) suffer serious mental or physical deterioration;
(e) There is no less restrictive way of ensuring the person is assessed. The Diagnosis is not scientific and cannot be proven or tested. After consultation with malicious people the decision is influenced improperly. 

How the process is initiated: 
Division 2 Request for assessment 
17 Who may make request for assessment
A request for assessment for a person must be made by someone who—
(a) is an adult; and
(b) reasonably believes the person has a mental illness of a nature, or to an extent, that involuntary assessment is necessary; and
(c) has observed the person within 3 days before making the request.

Division 2 Involuntary assessment 44 
Detention for assessment
(1) The person may be detained in an authorised mental health service for assessment for the assessment period (ie imprisoned)
(4) On the production or making of the assessment documents for  the person under subsection (2), the person becomes an involuntary patient.

The Police can be sent to arrest a person and take them to be imprisoned (detained) ready for assessment next morning by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist has read the Request for Assessment so has already made up his mind and the person is then questioned about something that is distressing for him. The Psychiatrist collects information from the patient and information from others in making his assessment.

The patient can be imprisoned and forcibly Tortured and controlled with drugs - treated.
108 Making of involuntary treatment order
109 Category of order 
(1) In making the involuntary treatment order, the authorised doctor must decide the category of the order. 
(2) The category of the order must be—
(a) if the patient needs to be treated as an in-patient of an authorised mental health service or the patient is a classified patient—in-patient; or 
114 Detention under in-patient order 
If the category of the involuntary treatment order is in-patient, the patient may be detained in the patient’s treating health service. (imprisoned)
115 Treatment under treatment plan
The administrator of the treating health service must ensure the patient is treated as required under the patient’s treatment plan. (tortured with drugs that kill brain tissue)

Note: Arguing that you are not mentally ill is the psychiatrist’s word against yours and you lose. So this does not work. I tried this approach three times and failed. You have show there is something improper in how the psychiatrist has conducted his diagnosis and arrived at his diagnosis. Then show that you are not mentally ill. This worked for me.

Psychiatrists run a star chamber when they make an opinion.

Psychiatrists opinions do not provide facts and reasons used to form their opinion. Without facts and reasons there is no way of contesting their opinion. They do not provide the information they used to form their opinion (hearsay and malice included) so the "evidence" cannot be contested. They run a star chamber and there is no procedural fairness or due process. They convict of mental illness and imprison and torture at their discretion. A true star chamber of the worse type. Their opinion cannot be tested as there is no way of confirming that their opinion is correct. There are no scientific tests etc. They falsely claim they are the experts so their opinion is fact and that they just know because they have so much training.

Psychiatrists have a duty of care to the community and must act in the best interests of the community like judges. This means that if a patient could harm themselves or others they must be stopped. The risk of making a mistake and having someone harmed for the psychiatrist is enormous, the risk from being wrong and harming the patient is low. It is safest to err against the patient. Psychiatrists have the star chamber duty to collect the information from sources and consider it. There are no rules of evidence so lies, hearsay, manipulation and malice can and will be considered. Since a mistake that could lead to someone getting hurt would be a political and media disaster he must find that the prisoner is guilty of mental illness and treat him to prevent any such disaster. He cannot afford to take the chance in today's political climate. 

There is no presumption of “innocent until proven guilty”. The patient does not get due process.

The Psychiatrist must find a diagnosis to confirm the decision of mental illness. The Psychiatrist interviews the patient who would have just had six Police arrest him and take him to the Prison the night before and he is distressed, has been told he is a dangerous person who is mad. From the patient and the request for assessment form he gets information about the antagonists in the dispute and talks to them and collects information (hearsay and malice) from them. Thus persuaded by the antagonists that he must do something he makes the conviction of mental illness. In this distressed state the Prisoner has difficulty remaining calm and, so, the psychiatrist can say, demonstrates "a clinically significant disturbance of thought, mood, perception or memory", i.e. is mentally ill. In Criminal and Civil trials this would be called "surprise" and would not be allowed. The prisoner would be given the case against them and allowed to prepare a defence. In the mental health system they suffer ambush. 

The Punishment / Treatment: - (star chamber justice)
No Crime has been committed. No charges have been laid. No trial has been had. No defence has been allowed. 

The punishment (treatment) is unlimited and has not been defined. There is supposed to be treatment plan prepared but the prisoner is not told of this or had it explained to him. The prisoner is told of the verdict but not given the written verdict. Only on appeal does the prisoner get a written verdict / opinion.

After considerable study and the realisation that I was up against a star chamber I was able to prove I was not mentally ill. I was able to show that I was not listened to, that I had been convicted on malice and hearsay from my antagonist, that the psychiatrist did not give me procedural fairness, that I was not mentally ill. 

In total I was imprisoned for 38 days and under the control of a powerful drug for nine months. A drug that killed my ability to think and kills brain cells and had many other horrific symptoms. I had tried while under this drug to defend myself in the Mental Health Tribunal and Court and failed as I was significantly impaired. I was disabled by the drug. If I had not been able to bring influence onto the Psychiatrist to stop him forcible having the drug administered I would still be in the system as mentally ill.

It took another four months to get back to being close to normal and my short term memory is still impaired. It was worse that being dead. The psychiatrist treating me decided that if I liked my sister the problem would be solved and set about implementing a mind control thought control procedure that I later heard had a very low success rate. They decided to cure me of my delusion (one of the many mental diseases I was initially diagnosed with. The drug was forcibly administered by injection and was designed to stop my ability to think and make me very vulnerable to their suggestion. The Psychiatrist then set about weakening my conviction in the conclusions I had drawn against my sister, conclusions drawn from the many harmful events I had suffered initiated by her. They were trying to have my past rewritten in my memory. I was threatened with being locked up for years in the long term mental Hospital if I didn't comply with the psychiatrists. The bullying, the torture with drugs was extreme.

It was worse than being dead. It was an abuse that the Nazi war crimes tribunal was set up to investigate. When I protested I had to be put down and controlled thus the extreme of 38days imprisonment and the high dose drugging with mind control. The Stanford Prison Experiment all over again on me. Control over me had to be absolute.

You might think a psychiatrist would know better? Well they don't. Because of what someone said I was accused of having drugs and interrogated over drugs. Luckily I was not taken and locked up and I was already being heavily drugged at the time. Because of something else that someone said my house was searched by Police for guns.


Conclusion:
The process is that of a star chamber. There is not a proper hearing of the facts, no reasons given, surprise, no defence afforded and ill defined punishment. There is no proper appeal from the conviction / diagnosis and sentence / treatment under the Mental Health Act. It is a kangaroo court, a sham, an abuse, an insult, a star chamber. The Stanford Prison Experiment proved what does happen when a star chamber is established. I submit that because I protested my innocence I suffered much worse than I would have if I had agreed with the Psychiatrist that I was mentally ill. The Psychiatrist is always right and when he is wrong he is right. His diagnosis cannot be questioned. I tried to get another Psychiatrist's opinion and she refused to contradict the first psychiatrist.

The Mental Health Act is full of legal mistakes that deny the citizen justice, it is a star chamber:-

Mistake 1:
The Psychiatrist has the role of investigating and collecting "evidence" from all available sources and does not understand any rules of evidence so accepts malicious comments and hearsay as evidence. In fact legally nothing they use to make their diagnosis with is evidence.
Mistake 2:
Because the Patient may not like what has been said about him this evidence must be kept from him. Thus the patient does not get an opportunity to contest the hearsay and malice or know the case against him.
Mistake 3:
Because the patient is locked up and distressed by the imprisonment the patient does not get an opportunity to organise his evidence to demonstrate his innocence and show he had no intention to harm anyone. That his distress was caused by the fact that he is the victim and has been distressed by what was done to him it is assumed he my take vengeance. The Psychiatrist is taking a victim of a crime and punishing him for being a victim. The evidence is never contested.
Mistake 4:
When the Psychiatrist makes his diagnosis he does not provide any facts in his diagnosis to support his diagnosis. This means the diagnosis cannot be contested on the facts.
Mistake 5:
The Psychiatrist does not provide any reasons in his written diagnosis to support his diagnosis. This means the diagnosis cannot be contested on the reasons. The diagnosis is just an opinion formed from uncontested hearsay, malice and statements none of which are evidence. The diagnosis is not even a professional opinion; it is just an opinion of a professional. A professional opinion is capable of standing on its facts and reasons alone. The opinion of a psychiatrist has no facts or reasons in it so cannot stand on its own.
Mistake 6:
There is no limit on the punishment. The punishment is what ever it takes to subdue and control the patient. This means an indeterminate period of imprisonment and a drugging extreme enough to disable the patient so they cannot think or do anything. That brain cells are killed and a personality change is inconsequential. If the belief system can be changed and the new belief system will make the person "safe" then this must be tried no matter that the success rate is very low and the harm done to the patient is extreme. If the patient dies so be it, sometimes a patient can not be made safe (cured of their diagnosis).
Mistake 7:
The Mental Health Tribunal appeals process is a sham because the Psychiatrist's opinion is accepted as fact and not questioned. The decision is based on that opinion so the outcome is designed by the star chamber judge and his decision is supported by the Tribunal.
Mistake 8:
The Mental Health Court is a sham because the Psychiatrist's decision / diagnosis is not contested nor is it contestable because there are no facts or reasons and the patient does not have access to the hearsay, malice and statements that were used to form the opinion.
Mistake 9:
Mental patients are so stigmatized in society that no one will take any notice of them. Protest will bring the conclusion: So I have a mental patient unhappy with me? So what? No one will take any notice anyway. But when people realise that all it takes is a malicious statement to a psychiatrist and they could also become a mental patient and be locked up, drugged etc then they have real fear and will not vote Labor.
Mistake 10:
A diagnosis is not scientifically provable. There is no way of knowing if the diagnosis is accurate or even exists. It is just an opinion and I would suggest that psychiatry is so primitive and has no tests available to it to confirm its diagnosis that they really do not properly know what they are doing.
Mistake 11:
The file is created for the use of other psychiatrists so the first diagnosis is followed by other psychiatrists that look at the patient. This means that there is no further independent diagnosis available to the patient. Once diagnosed always diagnosed.

Conclusion: 
Labor created a star chamber where anyone can find themselves when they are spoken against with malice. Police can take people they do not like to this star chamber and have them punished. The nature of this star chamber is so horrific that when the public become aware of it they will never vote labor again.

Is this really what society wants for the victims of crime, distress, epilepsy, harassment, dispute or just not liking anyone? The abuse of imprisonment without trial at the whim of a star chamber judge with drugging and mind control etc is the sort of thing the Nazi war crime tribunal was set up to investigate. It is so bad that people are dying.