Goodhew Jo: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10935] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I also rise in support of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill and I do so because along with my colleagues the Hon Tony Ryall and Drs Jackie Blue and Jonathan Coleman I examined the bill at the select committee and believe on balance that there is merit in supporting its passage through the House. In general the purpose of the bill is simply to extend the life of the commission to 2015. But the opportunity this extension offered to improve the bill was taken and there have been changes in the commission’s role: firstly in advising and reporting to the Minister on the implementation of the national mental health strategy; secondly in promoting and facilitating collaboration and dialogue about mental health issues; and thirdly in advocating for the interests of people with mental illness and their families generally. 
It would be fair to say that when we were listening to the 14 submissions and reading the other eight we were given a valuable insight into the complicated lives of the family members of those who experience mental illness. At times we heard tragic stories shared and it was through that experience that we came to realise the significance of a highly functional and effective Mental Health Commission. Sixteen of the submissions were from organisations and groups and six were from individuals. Some family members expressed opposition to the bill and it would seem that that signalled a really important opportunity for the Mental Health Commission to look at why these people felt that their needs were not being met. The commission should see that as an opportunity and not a threat. So when this bill passes through Parliament in a slightly different form the Mental Health Commission should be able to ensure that it addresses the concerns of those people rather than just putting those concerns into the past. My colleague Dr Jonathan Coleman questioned the Minister of Health Pete Hodgson during the select committee estimates process. Of note during that process where spending on mental illness was scrutinised was the sense that although the Ministry of Health believes there have been improvements in the lot of those with mental illness there is actually scant evidence to support this belief and that certainly worried the National members on the Health Committee. 
Spending on mental illness has increased under Labour but as with other areas of the sector it is not enough just to spend more. The public of New Zealand deserves to know that when the Government increases spending there is a corresponding value for money. We in National believe that the mental health sector like other parts of the health sector is a victim of report mania or “report-itis”. When reports get in the way of delivery rather than facilitate improved delivery we then see that as a waste of taxpayers’ money. 
The Mental Health Commission needs to play an important role in monitoring results and providing an assessment of the Government’s role in mental health service provision. Adding to monetary accountability issues are the workforce issues the sector faces but these issues should not happen when some district health boards are underspending their ring-fenced mental health dollars. Meetings with mental health practitioners have shown me that workforce issues including large workloads and a lack of support from the Government should be a very high priority for this Labour-led Government. In my electorate Aoraki we have a district health board that has in the past underspent ring-fenced mental health funding. Much of the problem has been due to a lack of numbers in the workforce to provide that particular service to the local community. We have lacked the specialised people to fill those roles and in fact that is a nationwide problem. As we know the health sector workforce crisis is widespread and the South Canterbury District Health Board is like all other district health boards in that respect. In fact when we looked at the amount of underspent ring-fenced mental health money we found that more than $18 million remained unspent last year. 
The Mental Health Commission has the responsibility to act as an advocate for the interests of people with mental illness and their families generally but it also needs to take into account the interests of other stakeholders. The list of stakeholders in this bill includes the ministry district health boards mental heath service funders and providers those with mental illness their families and caregivers and also groups representing the interests of people with mental illness and their families and caregivers. Therefore a lot of masters are listed in this bill—an awful lot of masters—and I am sure that juggling so many masters gives rise to many tensions. That may be why the select committee heard some submissions that caused us some concern and that may be why some people were highly critical of the Mental Health Commission. 
One thing that has changed over the decades and needs to continue changing—and I will finish on this note—is the way that mental illness is viewed and discussed by the general public. These days mental illness is much less viewed as a taboo subject something that needs to be hidden away and a shameful thing to happen to oneself or one’s family members. More and more we see communities advocating for a fair go for those who suffer from mental illness. The Like Minds Like Mine campaign and John Kirwan’s attempts to destigmatise mental illness have been vital and they have made significant improvements for people who suffer discrimination because they suffer from a mental illness. 
In my electorate a constituent wrote a book about suffering from depression. It is entitled  
No One Gives You Chocolates 
. The author’s penname is Ellen Munro and I commend the book to those wishing to understand depression. This book is about depression and those who suffer from it and it was written by someone who has an absolute understanding of it. The thing about depression and about other illnesses that people need counselling for is that the people concerned do not actually fit the criteria for that ring-fenced money. Time and time again I hear community groups ask how they can access money for those people who need counselling. It is certainly a role for the Mental Health Commission to address the concerns of stigma discrimination and access to services for those people suffering mental illness and needing some counselling. Maybe it is time to look at the blueprint for funding parameters. 
This bill will address some concerns that have been raised and hopefully will continue the work successfully achieved by the Mental Health Commission and develop that work to achieve more. My colleague Dr Jonathan Coleman has indicated that during this Committee stage he will promote a change to the date on which the Act will expire so that instead of being 2015 it will be 3 years after the date on which this bill receives the Royal assent. We in National believe that just as that change to the date will give the Mental Health Commission an opportunity to address its effectiveness it will also give us a chance to reflect on that opportunity and put up an achievement standard for the commission to either achieve or not. It will be another chance for us to scrutinise the Mental Health Commission. 
I commend this bill to the Committee. I support the bill but I also note that some submitters had grave concerns and I urge the Mental Health Commission to address those concerns soon.