Blue Jackie: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10929] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am happy to speak to Part 1 of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. There are a couple of clauses I want to speak about. The first one is clause 5 which defines “stakeholder”. The definition “stakeholder” includes many groups not just the ministry or the usual bodies or people who are normally named as stakeholders such as district health boards and traditional providers such as doctors and mental health services. The definition has been widened to include groups who represent the interests of people with mental illness such as families and caregivers of the mentally ill. I think that is an excellent amendment. 
The mental health area is highly dependent on groups and organisations that support families and individuals who have mental health issues. Really if it were not for non-governmental organisations we would be in dire straits. Probably 20 percent of Vote Health goes to non-governmental organisations across the board but mental health providers have greater representation than that in the mental health vote as such—almost 30 percent of the national expenditure. I think they are unsung heroes. Their crucial input is often not acknowledged. They are the glue that keeps our families stuck together. I understand that in the northern region which is where I live there are 80 non-governmental organisation providers in the area of mental health. They receive 30 percent of the mental health funding and that has been devolved to the northern district health boards. It is predicted that the non-governmental groups will actually increase in size over the next 10 years as the shift to services in the community becomes more prominent. 
I think that National’s tax package with breaks for volunteer groups and charitable organisations went down well and it will make significant changes to the way community groups will be funded. It was a very successful policy. It was so successful that Labour stole it word for word and announced it in this year’s Budget. But it is a good initiative for the non-governmental organisation sector and I am sure that much more money will flow to this invaluable group. 
The next two clauses I will speak about are clauses 7 and 8 which deal with the term of the Mental Health Commission. National as Jonathan Coleman pointed out has some concerns about that. We would like the term of the Mental Health Commission to finish 3 years after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent. There are a number of reasons for this. The Mental Health Commission was established 11 years ago in 1996. If it is to expire in 2015 that is another 8 years away and National thinks that date is too far away. The commission is a publicly funded body and we feel it should have measured outcomes. The 2015 date is too far in the distance. We do support the work of the Mental Health Commission but we feel it should be accountable and answerable. We feel that the date Dr Jonathan Coleman proposes in his amendment is more realistic and tangible. 
I raised the point last night in the second reading debate on this bill that it is interesting how the Mental Health Commission has devolved away from the Ministry of Health with its own directorate of mental health. If at some point in the future we look at bringing the Mental Health Commission back into the Ministry of Health then we would want obviously a date for its expiry that is not as far away as 2010. Three years from the date of the Royal assent would be a much more realistic date. The Mental Health Commission does very good work. As Jonathan Coleman pointed out the advertisement aimed at destigmatising depression that features John Kirwan is actually the Ministry of Health’s advertisement. But there are many other facets that the advertisement works on. 
I am really concerned about the mental health workforce. That is a particular issue for me. I raised it last night and I would like to raise it again today. Enrolled nurses are in a threatened workforce. Basically they have been stigmatised in the mental health workforce. They have been sidelined and pushed out. It really began when Mark Burton a psychiatric patient killed his mother and an enrolled nurse was incorrectly implicated. An edict went out that enrolled nurses should be removed from more acute care situations including psychiatric facilities. Basically they have been sidelined ever since. Where was the Mental Health Commission in that situation? That was the question I posed to the House. I went to the commission’s website and looked at all its archived press releases but I could not find a solitary word in favour or support of this workforce. There are about 4000 enrolled nurses in New Zealand. About 250 of them are in the psychiatric workforce. Those are 2004-05 figures; we do not have current figures. It is an aging workforce and as the nurses retire I doubt that we will see many more unless they are supported.