Wall Louisa: Crown Entities Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wall Louisa: Crown Entities Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2351. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I will make a short contribution on the Crown Entities Reform Bill in terms of the debate. What I really want to focus on is rationale and what the rationale was for establishing the Mental Health Commission in the first place. When I was asked to speak on this bill today I thought: “Right. Well let’s have a look.” The commission was actually established after a 1995 inquiry because there were concerns in our society regarding the adequacy of mental health services following a programme of deinstitutionalisation and relocation to community living of people who have been in mental institutions. It was also established to consider the role of alcohol and drug services in relation to mental health. That was a need that society had at the time. We went through a process. There was an inquiry and as we know the Mental Health Commission which is actually an entity was created to improve and lift the priority around mental health in New Zealand. I actually think that is the question. What will change from having a specific entity—the Mental Health Commission—versus having an individual a person who is going to carry the responsibility to ensure that mental health continues to be a priority area in New Zealand?  
When I looked at some of the work of the Mental Health Commission it is very interesting because we know that one in five adults in New Zealand experiences mental health or addiction problems. This has a huge impact on our families and our communities. One of the other interesting pieces of research was done by the University of Auckland. We know that at secondary school level for example 10 percent of our girls self-harm and 5 percent of our boys self-harm. We have research that says that mental health is a big issue here in New Zealand. Obviously our youth suicide statistics and may I say our suicide statistics generally are pretty appalling. We would all acknowledge that as a country there is something seriously wrong when our kids are so hopeless that the only way out of the predicament that they see themselves in is to take their own lives.  
So the value of having an entity that focuses on mental health is that it ensures that there is a body that can collate that evidence that can drive that evidence and that can actually ensure that that evidence informs how the Ministry of Health does its work and how different aspects of social development funding provide the services that are critically needed in our community to address these needs. That is actually the difference. That is why we will not be supporting this part of the bill. We think that having a commission and having an entity with a capacity is much better than having an individual who will be in the Health and Disability Commissioner’s office and who has to be the champion of mental health. We think that is too big a burden to carry.  
Some of the other interesting research that the Mental Health Commission has produced about New Zealanders’ well-being relates to issues—for example we know that middle-aged people Maori Pacific people and people from the most deprived neighbourhoods have mental health concerns. We know there is a link between mental health and poverty. We know that there has been no change in the proportion of people aged 15 years and over who have hazardous drinking patterns—so between 1996 and 2006 we have not been able to address those issues. We also know that 6.6 percent of people over 15 years of age have a high or very high probability of an anxiety or depressive disorder. So there is a lot of need in New Zealand society.  
I look at the decision that has been made by this current Government and at the rationale for this bill. When the Government Administration Committee had its initial briefing on 15 February the purpose of this bill was to realign Government functions either by grouping complementary functions skills and objectives or placing functions in larger or more resilient agencies that had more capacity and capability. Obviously the overriding objective was about saving money pretty much. So I hope at the end of the day the decision to get rid of a commission and to replace a commission with a commissioner is not going to see an increase in some of the mental health indicators that we currently enjoy. As long as this Government is happy that this is not going to affect the ability of us as a nation to meet the needs of those who have mental health issues then that is fine. Kia ora.