Hague Kevin: Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hague Kevin: Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9591] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 Talofa lava to my friend and colleague the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban. I congratulate her on bringing the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill to Parliament. 
The Green Party will support this bill going to the Health Committee. We are a party that bases all of our policies on a charter. One of the principles of that charter is ecological wisdom. When we think of ecology we think of course about the natural environment and the connections between all of the species and the elements of the natural world. But the idea of ecology and ecological wisdom transcends that. It says effectively that everything is connected to everything else. That is the truth whether we are talking about the relationships between people and their environment or different aspects of a person’s health. 
In the health sector in New Zealand for quite some considerable time we have worked to a holistic model of health. It is perhaps best encapsulated by Professor Mason Durie with his whare tapawha model. It talks about four interrelated dimensions of health: tinana hinengaro wairua and whanau. Effectively the model is saying each of those dimensions of a person’s health is intimately related to each of the others and no person can be healthy without all of them being in harmony. That means that a person’s family or whanau relationships impact on their mental health and their emotional health hinengaro. But it also works the other way in that a person’s mental health or emotional health impacts on the relations that they have with their family or whanau. This bill addresses that point directly. I am pleased that even those members in the House who have so far indicated that they will be voting against the bill—I am saddened to hear that and I will talk about it in a moment—understand and appreciate the importance of that connection. 
I refer briefly to a couple of the core documents. First of all is the second New Zealand mental health plan Te Tahuhu which sets out some of the objectives of the plan in relation to family and whanau: “The importance of family and whanau is recognised in the development of an outcome statement for whanau and friends who support people with and who are affected by mental illness”. There is “Increased recognition that service users live in whanau and communities and that mental illness and addiction impacts on whanau” and there is the “Inclusion of family/whanau in treatment”. Those are some of the objectives of our mental health services plan. Two goals amongst the five of the Mental Health Commission are to “reduce stigma and discrimination involving people and their families experiencing mental illnesses and/or addictions” and to “help families to support members who have experience of mental illness and/or addictions in ways that promote their recovery and sustain family life”. All through the documents setting out our plan for mental health we acknowledge the role of families and whanau and we look to support it. Most important Platform which is a coalition of non-governmental organisations in mental health talks about mental health and addiction problems also affecting families and whanau who must be considered part of any journey to recovery. 
There is widespread recognition of the importance of family and whanau both in creating a person’s mental health and also in the recovery from mental illness. So why are we here debating this bill if Dr Paul Hutchison is correct and the existing law already sets out a platform for that to occur? The reason we are here today debating this bill is that it is not occurring. Any member of this House who has had any dealings with mental health services will be familiar with countless examples where a person’s recovery from mental illness would have been assisted by the involvement of their family and whanau but that has not occurred for spurious reasons. Dr Hutchison has been present on the select committee when we have heard that very evidence. Sure the concerns raised by Dr Hutchison and Heather Roy are appropriate to be debated but the appropriate place to do that is in the select committee and that is why this bill should go forward.