Woodhouse Michael: Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9594] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 Despite that attack on the integrity of members on this side of the House I will start this call the way I intended and that is to commend the member Winnie Laban for bringing the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill to the House even though I do not support its passage. I think it reflects the member’s concern about the importance of communication with whanau as an important component of the therapeutic relationship for those who are mentally ill. 
Frankly I think it is an insult to this House for the member Ms Dyson to suggest that simply because the members of this party do not support the bill that that somehow undermines the importance of that relationship. I am sure that concern was precipitated by or heightened by the submissions that the Health Committee heard in 2009 on a petition that called for a number of things to happen in mental health. The petition was tabled by a woman whose son had committed suicide and who was supported by her general practitioner whose son had also tragically committed suicide. I know the Health Committee was greatly moved by their submissions and listened very carefully to the experts in this area particularly in respect of communication. We heard from the Privacy Commissioner the Mental Health Commission and the Health and Disability Commissioner among others. 
Mr Hague asserts that the reason this bill is necessary is that although members here assert that the existing legislation provides for whanau involvement the clinicians are not doing so sufficiently to satisfy the expectations and the wishes of the family. I guess there is some basis for that position based on what we heard in the select committee in relation to this submission. The Mental Health Commission stated in its submission that more often than not where the lack of communication has been causing families distress it is usually the interpretation of the Privacy Act by the professionals that is the problem. That was backed up by the Privacy Commissioner and the Health and Disability Commissioner who indicated that our mental health professionals had much greater power to include families and whanau than they were doing. 
Let us have a look at the bill as it is worded because everybody on the other side of the House believes that it would somehow strengthen the family’s right to access to information and communication. Well it will not. New section (6) in clause 5 goes to the essence of this bill. It states: “Where a practitioner has decided to consult the family or whanau of a proposed patient … the family or whanau is entitled to—” certain things and it goes on to list those things. However the prerequisite factor is that the practitioner has to first decide that that is appropriate. Now that is exactly what we have in the existing legislation so this is a noble but flawed attempt to make changes to involve family. It simply will not change the status quo. 
Now I will move to whether it is appropriate to change the status quo. We all have a vested interest in our families. I am sure many members of this House have experienced the stress and trauma of a loved one who has suffered mental illness and they would not wish that on anybody but the fact is that there are many dysfunctional situations where it is not appropriate for family or whanau to be involved and that is because that is the wish of the patient. What this bill would do—even putting aside my criticism about the flawed aspect of it—is to completely undermine the autonomy and the rights of the patient to decide who and how they are involved in their care. For that reason I think there are some serious problems with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in this area. I certainly cannot agree with Sir Roger Douglas. The member described that as a reason for supporting the bill. Actually it is an equal reason for opposing it because the bill undermines the rights of the individuals. I applaud the member for her concern about the involvement of family and whanau which despite Ms Dyson’s tirade I think we all support. There is nothing patronising about that. But I cannot support this bill in its current form.