Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill

Part 2 of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill deals mostly with issues pertaining to the office of members of the commission.

One of the things we learnt quite clearly in the Health Committee was that there are many differing approaches to mental health issues. Some of those were represented in the select committee hearing, and we heard many different philosophies. It is always a very contentious issue as to how mental health treatment is delivered: who delivers it, how it is carried out, where mental health clients or patients live, and how much influence and say they have in their own treatment and management. Of course, things have moved on over the years, and we live in a much more informed society now. I think that is reflected in society’s treatment of and approach to people with mental health issues.

But when we look at the issue of who is on the Mental Health Commission, one of the things we need to ensure is that the officers represent a balanced approach to mental health issues. We cannot have the commission philosophically dominated by anyone who is wedded to one particular mode of treatment or philosophical approach.

In getting back to this issue that Sue Moroney mentioned about a 3-yearly review, I know that the idea of a 3-yearly review is probably something the Labour Party members are extremely sensitive about at the moment—because, of course, those members are facing their 3-yearly reviews, and there are several in the House who, frankly, may as well not turn up, because they have failed already. Indeed, some of them have faced that situation in the past and have been rejected as members by their electorates, but have sort of scooted in on the coat-tails of various retirements, or been well camouflaged so far down the party list that they have actually managed to get in there. I can imagine that Ms Moroney is very averse to that concept of the 3-yearly review.

But when we think about it, the Labour Party thinks that 3-yearly reviews are a good idea. The electorate thinks 3-yearly reviews are a good idea. So why would we not want to have a 3-yearly review of another body that spends a lot of public money—the Mental Health Commission? Ms Moroney was quite misleading and wrong when she said that National would cut spending in mental health. That is wrong. The point she does not appreciate is that with this massive increase in spending under this reckless Labour Government, the public need to know that the money is being well spent, and that the Government is actually delivering the services people need. Even Ms Moroney, if she really looks at the facts, would be hard-pressed to say this Government has delivered on mental health. She knows that the Government has not done that. Writing a huge stack of reports is not delivering on mental health. Delivering on mental health—the definition of that—is more people getting access to services, and Ms Moroney knows that is not the case. The spending has gone up; it has gone up to $1 billion a year. The spending is $1 billion a year on mental health. That is a huge proportion of the Government’s expenditure, and for that money people would expect that the Government would actually be delivering something.

We also have this ridiculous situation where district health boards are not even managing to spend the allocated money in the correct way. So although there is no money for services for young women with eating disorders, we still have $18 million across all the district health boards ring-fenced for acute mental health problems that the district health boards are just not managing to spend.

A National Government would want to free that money up and put it in areas where it is needed. We would make sure that there are services for young people, and services for children. We would make sure that people in deprived groups in society would actually be able to access mental health services in the same way that some of the more mainstream groups are doing.

Really, what this idea of a review of the Mental Health Commission comes back to is making sure that it is delivering on what it should be doing. What it should be doing is holding this Government to account, because what has been happening is that the spending has gone up and up, but the mental health statistics are not improving—in fact, they are getting worse. We know that over the course of a year, one New Zealander in five will suffer symptoms of a mental illness. That is a fact and we cannot dispute that. We know that is the case and that the situation is not improving in any way. National members say we have to have accountability.

Dr Coleman has once again got it wrong. He is wrong on mental health again. He is using Part 2 of this bill, which after all, I say to Jonathan, is the transitional provisions, to have a go at the Government. So I say to him: “Get a life!” Dr Coleman has got it wrong again. He has tried to use Part 2 of the bill—the transitional provisions—to have a go at the Government. The fact is that this Government has actually got it right in mental health and Dr Coleman does not like that.

All that the National Party can talk about is tax cuts, and tax cuts are not going to deliver to mental health users or their families, or to the professionals in mental health in the way that the current Government is delivering to mental health through the ring-fenced funding. Dr Coleman does not seem to have grasped that tax cuts are not going to do it in mental health, just as they are not going to do it anywhere else.

💬 Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There is nothing in this bill to do with tax cuts.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The current speaker is actually more relevant to this section than the one before her.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson. That was exactly the point I was making—that Dr Coleman was using Part 2 of this bill inappropriately to get in what he felt like talking about rather than actually talking about Part 2.

We all know that one of the commissioners’ key contributions has been to express the needs and wishes of mental health users. Now Dr Coleman might not believe that, and that might not have been what his speech was about, but the fact is that Part 2 is about bringing the commissioners’ terms of office into line with the Crown Entities Act 2004 and that seems an eminently reasonable thing for Part 2 to do.

Under the provisions of this bill, the Mental Health Commission is retaining its role in addressing the stigma associated with mental illness. It has a new role to stimulate research and service development and this Part 2 is very sensibly saying: “Let’s bring the commissioners’ terms of office into line with the Crown Entities Act.” It is a very sensible provision. All Dr Coleman could manage to get up to say was that the Government had somehow got it wrong. Well, Dr Coleman has got it wrong. The whole bill will do far more for mental health than the tax cuts that the National Party keeps endlessly talking about.

The innovative things that are going on in mental health, and that health boards will continue to bring into place when they have managed to repair the damage in mental health done by the National cuts of the 1990s, can be done best under the provisions of this bill. That is what Part 2 is about, I say to Dr Coleman; that is why it is part of a good bill and why we on this side of the Chamber support its passing.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 135 in the name of Hon Pete Hodgson to clause 9 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3