Family Courts Matters Bill

Part 10 relates to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and, obviously, will become an amendment bill itself after the Hon Rick Barker’s Supplementary Order Paper takes effect. National is glad to support this part. In particular, it deals with restrictions on the publication of reports of proceedings. Undoubtedly, this is absolutely pertinent when it involves individuals who have been committed under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment Act) 1992.

I note that in the submissions there was unanimity between the various submitters that this was the appropriate thing to do. Judge Boshier, speaking for the Family Court judges, did query the competence of a person who is to be the subject of an order to make a rational decision about publication. He says they are concerned about the level of understanding any patient may have about the implications surrounding publication. The judges proposed deleting this provision and dealing with all publication matters under the Family Courts Act. That was very much echoed by the family law section of the New Zealand Law Society and by Professor Bill Atkin.

It is undoubtedly important that the rights of vulnerable people are protected. I guess that is the nub of this legislation, because any change to the openness of the legislation must strike that balance between open justice and the privacy of individuals, of children, and of the family involved, and in that aspect, of course, of people who have a mental disability.

It is pertinent that this week the bill that allowed the ratification of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was unanimously carried in this Parliament—only 2 nights ago. I think there was general celebration both through the sector and through the Parliament that New Zealand had made the benchmark move to have that convention ratified. Again, it was made very clear in that legislation that vulnerable people, such as those with severe mental disorders, do need protection. What was good about that was that it also allowed those who were able to participate in a whole variety of actions, to do so and not be excluded because of their mental illness. So again it struck a very good balance between the two.

But there is one, slightly sinister, area that I thought it was worthwhile bringing up. From time to time when couples are in huge strife and things become very intense and emotional, there have been instances where one partner may attempt to commit the other under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. That, of course, is an awful situation to be in, and it just exemplifies how important, once again, the mediation and counselling processes are if such a condition arises. And of course, once again, publication of that sort of highly intimate detail would be totally inappropriate. There is no doubt that Part 10, which amends the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, is absolutely appropriate.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clause 75 be agreed to:

to omit from section 25(b) “and” and substitute “or”.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 10 as amended agreed to.

Part 11 Property (Relationships) Act 1976