Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. We come first to clause 1. This is the debate on clause 1, the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I had planned to speak to this by, really, prefacing my remarks in a contribution and then having some questions for the member Katie Nimon. I don’t want to dwell on this too long, because the committee will be aware that we do support the member’s bill, but I’m really just wanting to get a sense from her how it will work in relation to other processes involving mental health strategy and also in the current context. What I’m hoping to do is to preface my questions with some remarks and then to keep this fairly brief.

First of all, I’d like to congratulate the member Katie Nimon on shepherding this member’s bill, which she inherited from the now Minister Matt Doocey, and for getting the support of the House. We do support the bill. When I look at the title, which I will come to, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill—just to preface my question around that title with the context that this sits and will sit alongside a number of other strategies under the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act, including population groups; so New Zealanders, Māori, Pacific, disabled communities, women’s communities, and rural.

When I look at the title, “Mental Health Outcomes”, it immediately stands out that this is not a strategy that sits with a population group. It is something different and distinct. This is why Labour didn’t actually have a mental health strategy in the first place. We did consider it seriously when we were in Government and decided that because the first strategy applies to all New Zealanders—that is, a New Zealand health strategy—it would deviate somewhat to have a health strategy for mental health, which we feel cuts across the whole of the health sector.

Then I look at the principles, which are around equity, access, cohesion, and being people-centred, sustainable, and responsive to needs. The changes that we made in the Health Committee certainly try to achieve that. Members will be aware that there are changes, to the word “wellbeing” rather than to “addiction”, and various other changes that we suggested.

All in all, we do think this is in a good shape and we do congratulate the member and we do want to work constructively. What we would like to seek from the member out of today’s short session really is an understanding of, well, three things. The first one is related to the independence of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. Originally, as the bill was drafted, the commission would not have been independent and it would have been considered a health entity, which would have required it to be a Government entity. What I’m asking the member, really, is: can she provide whatever assurance she can as a member, even though she is not the Minister, first, that that was unintended in her drafting, and, secondly, around her commitment and her Government’s commitment to the independence of that entity?

My second question relates to the ability of the Government—given that the Government policy statement (GPS) is required to take into account these health strategies. How does the member see this particular strategy—the mental health outcomes, as it is in the title—fitting into the Government policy statement, given that that statement has already been articulated, and, in her opinion, how does it render the usefulness of this bill?

Then my final comment—which will really save us having to jump up and down; I know that this is a wide interpretation of the title—is: how does the member see the mental health outcomes of the strategy being able to be fulfilled in an environment where there are workforce freezes, where the Minister has not taken advice from officials as to the impact of Oranga Tamariki and disability cuts on the mental health sector, which is evidenced in Official Information Act request 67722. I realise that the member isn’t responsible for that, but I think that we would like to hear how she sees this strategy being able to be reconciled in that context: front-line freezes and the timeliness aspect when we’ve got people in the South, young people, who are not meeting the requirement to be seen by specialists within the three weeks set by the mental health Minister.

Those are just a few examples. I realise that the member will be hard-pressed—[Time Expired] Mr Chair, may I continue?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Bear in mind we are on the title.

Yep. If the member can answer those questions, I really feel that that’s probably as much as she can do, being a member’s bill, and so I won’t be offering any further contributions or questions. I just think it’s important to get a sense from the member how she sees this bill contributing to mental health strategy given those various comments around the GPS, and also her commitment, on behalf of her Government, to the extent she can as a member, to the ongoing independence of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission.

I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that clauses 1 to 8 and the Schedule stand part.

Clauses 1 to 8 and the Schedule