Moroney Sue: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Moroney Sue: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10831] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure as a member of the Health Committee that heard the submissions on the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill to rise and speak in support of the bill’s second reading. The bill was generally agreed to and supported by the parties represented on the select committee but members who have read the commentary from the select committee will note—in particular in the introduction to the report—that there was a dissenting view on the timing of the proposed extension to the commission’s term and that that dissention was from the National Party. 
I would like to draw the House’s attention to this issue because there is probably much more to it than meets the eye. The National Party is of course a party that sees itself as being the next Government. If the prospect of National being in Government is not frightening enough I ask members to think about the way in which its members on the select committee approached the issue of the timing of the proposed extension of the Mental Health Commission to 2015. They said that it was their view that the principal Act should expire 3 years after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent—that is in common language that it should expire significantly earlier than 2015. In fact I think their first position on this may well have been that they wanted it to expire in 2009. National members wanted the commission to expire literally a year after the legislation comes into effect. Why might that be? 
 I think the House should really consider this question seriously. After all the Mental Health Commission is a body that under this bill will act as an advocate. It will promote and facilitate collaboration and communication and will work independently with others to promote understanding and reduce the stigma of mental illness. Those are all good measures and I think all New Zealanders would agree they are good things. The commission is really a watchdog body that will oversee what is happening in the area of mental health—an area that deals with some of the most vulnerable people in our society. 
Why would the National Party on the basis that it thinks it will be the next Government want to do away with this watchdog body earlier than the date being proposed by this Government? One can only assume that National a party proposing significant tax cuts and knowing that the largest area of public spending is health may not want a watchdog body looking to see what might happen to mental health services under a National Government. 
Why else would the National Party have dissented on this particular issue at the select committee? It was not a controversial issue. In fact none of the 22 submitters who came before the committee raised this issue at all. No one said: “Yes we do want this commission to have its life extended but only for a year or so or 3 years.” None of the submitters said that. It was only the National Party members who sat down and thought: “Golly gosh because we are so confident we’ll be the next Government despite what the voters might think we are not sure we would want such a good strong advocate for mental health consumers and their families to be in place to watch while we preside over the wrecking of mental health services that were built up by the Labour Government.” I think that is a serious issue that this House needs to think about. Certainly the public listening to this debate need to be aware that that was the push from the National members on the Health Committee. Fortunately however they did not have the numbers on the committee to shorten the life of the commission and the proposal from the select committee was that the life of the commission be extended through to 2015. 
I want to take a few minutes to remind members about some of the issues the select committee dealt with. We were concerned about the wording “eliminate inappropriate discrimination” and we asked some good questions about it. The issue was raised by a number of submitters and as members we were concerned to know what inappropriate discrimination may be. We felt that discrimination in total is probably inappropriate. At the select committee we talked about the fact that there were some forms of positive discrimination that should be allowed to exist through a bill such as the one we were considering. So in looking at the whole range of issues around the use of the words “inappropriate discrimination” we decided that it was in fact inappropriate discrimination that we wanted to ensure did not take place under the auspices of this bill not positive discrimination which can happen should happen and was supported by the members of the select committee. 
I say in conclusion that there was generally broad agreement in principle on extending the life of the commission. Submitters by and large supported the role of the commission. Some debated the philosophies they felt were held by members of the Mental Health Commission and I think that is a debate we always should have in our communities when it comes to mental health. If we are not constantly debating the philosophies and ideologies that are applied to the mental health service setting then probably we have forgotten about the people it is there to serve. 
I support the second reading of this bill. I have reservations about the reasons behind National’s wanting to bring the life of the commission to an early conclusion but was pleased to see that in general the select committee wholeheartedly wanted to see the commission’s life extended to 2015.