Ministry accused of ‘gagging’ Mental Health Foundation
CEO claims he was told the foundation couldn’t criticise the Government because it accepted government money. By Jessica McAllen.
The Mental Health Foundation claims the Ministry of Health is trying to ‘‘gag’’ it.
Foundation CEO Shaun Robinson claims he was told by an official that the foundation wasn’t allowed to criticise the Government since it accepted government money. However, the Ministry of Health says the official concerned has a different recollection of the conversation.
The stoush was sparked by a press release from the foundation, a charity that offers mental health education and seeks to hold the Government to account over its policies.
The February 12 press release addressed a wellbeing study the foundation had commissioned, which reported that 25 per cent of New Zealanders over 18 years old had ‘‘poor wellbeing’’. In the press release, the foundation said the health minister and prime minister needed to show they were taking action on the He Ara Oranga Mental Health Inquiry recommendations, released in late 2018.
Some two hours later, Robinson received what he considered to be an irate call from Acting Deputy Director-General Mental Health and Addiction, Toni Gutschlag. Robinson alleges Gutschlag asked why he had gone back on their agreement to a no surprises policy and said that accepting ministry money meant accepting limitations, including not being able to criticise the Government.
‘‘I was really shocked,’’ Robinson said.
The agreement in question relates to the Public Statement, Issues and Advertising clause in the foundation’s funding contract with the ministry – a contract which is up for renewal later this year. Robinson had never recalled having to deal with the clause – section B27.1 – in relation to media commentary in his five years at the foundation but he believed the ministry was ‘‘clearly interpreting’’ in a way to ‘‘gag political and social commentary that they don’t like’’.
In contract negotiations last year, which the Sunday Star
‘‘It is a complete contradiction of the spirit of that inquiry . . . it is completely unethical and antidemocratic.’’ Shaun Robinson
Times has seen, Robinson pushed back on the clause, asking if it could be revised to state that ‘‘nothing in B27.1 should prohibit either party from making reasonable public comment on public policy and social issues affecting mental health, wellbeing and suicide prevention’’.
The ministry declined the amendment, saying the distinction between criticism and reasonable public comment was clear.
Robinson believes the ministry is being very selective in its interpretation of that clause.
A spokesperson for the ministry said that the clause was a longstanding and standard contractual term used in many government contracts and included ministers as well as the ministry.
‘‘It is not intended to prevent organisations who have a valid and important role from expressing a view. One of the purposes of the clause is ensuring contractual and other disputes are handled constructively between the parties.’’
Robinson said he could understand the clause meaning ‘‘don’t slag each other off if you are having a problem with the delivery of services’’ but in his view questioning progress on the inquiry recommendations had nothing to do with contract issues.
‘‘I said, ‘Look, we’re going to do this because it’s the right thing to do, Toni.’
‘‘The Government endorsed an inquiry where thousands of people poured their hearts out, their suffering, concern, pain and hope for the future in a very public process and then two and a half years on their lead agency for implementing it is saying you can’t talk about this publicly.
‘‘It is a complete contradiction of the spirit of that inquiry . . . it is completely unethical and antidemocratic.’’
The ministry said that while Gutschlag did talk to Robinson after the press release, ‘‘recollections of the conversation that took place are quite different’’. The ministry did not accept Robinson’s recollection as ‘‘an accurate reflection of comments made or the intent of the conversation’’.
The intent of the conversation was to discuss their contractual partnership and how they worked together, a spokesperson said.
‘‘We had previously had conversations about working on a no-surprises approach, whereby both parties would provide prior notice of comments being made in the media (which is what we would expect of all our partners),’’ a spokesperson said.
‘‘We were disappointed this hadn’t happened in this instance.’’
Robinson said he had briefed the ministry weeks prior about the study results and that the foundation was planning on releasing it publicly.
Criticism around the Government’s implementation of the inquiry recommendations has been steady since the arrival of the He Ara Oranga report. In February, outgoing Mental Health Commissioner Kevin Allan had words of warning when he handed over the reins to the newly-established Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission.
Meanwhile, problems which existed before the inquiry are growing, including what many in the sector have dubbed a weakness of the Government’s response: Help for those not on the ‘‘mild to moderate’’ spectrum of mental health, which the Government championed in its Wellbeing Budget of 2019.
In the embargoed press release, the foundation noted that ‘‘our most vulnerable’’ were still waiting for help. Robinson doubled down on those comments in an interview with the Sunday Star-Times, noting that things weren’t getting better, ‘‘if anything it is getting worse’’.
‘‘We have school counsellors ringing us in tears because there are so many kids in serious distress that they can’t get to them . . . there is just a real lack of transparency . . .’’
The foundation’s funding goes on mental health promotion, suicide prevention resources, suicide bereavement support, and encouraging the media to responsibly report on suicide.