You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Law Commission - Issues Papers >>
2021 >>
[2021] NZLCIP 49
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
He Arotake i te Ture mô ngâ Huarahi Whakatau a ngâ Pakeke. Review of Adult Decision-Making Capacity Law: p reliminary issues paper [2021] NZLCIP 49; He Arotake i te Ture mô ngâ Huarahi Whakatau a ngâ Pakeke. Review of Adult Decision-Making Capacity Law: preliminary issues paper [2021] NZLCIP 49
Last Updated: 1 December 2022
Whiringa-ā-rangi | November 2022
Te Whanganui-a-Tara, Aotearoa
Wellington, New Zealand
![2021_4900.png](2021_4900.png)
He Puka Kaupapa | Issues Paper 49
He Arotake i te Ture mō ngā Huarahi Whakatau a ngā
Pakeke
Review
of Adult Decision-Making Capacity Law: Preliminary Issues Paper
![2021_4901.png](2021_4901.png)
Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission is an independent, publicly funded,
central advisory body established by statute to undertake
the systematic review,
reform and development of the law of Aotearoa New Zealand. Its purpose is to
help achieve law that is just,
principled and accessible and that reflects the
values and aspirations of the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Te Aka Matua in the Commission’s Māori name refers to the parent
vine that Tāwhaki used to climb up to the heavens.
At the foot of the
ascent, he and his brother Karihi find their grandmother Whaitiri, who guards
the vines that form the pathway
into the sky. Karihi tries to climb the vines
first but makes the error of climbing up the aka taepa or hanging vine. He is
blown
violently around by the winds of heaven and falls to his death. Following
Whaitiri’s advice, Tāwhaki climbs the aka matua
or parent vine,
reaches the heavens and receives the three baskets of knowledge.
Kia whanake ngā ture o Aotearoa mā te arotake
motuhake
Better law for Aotearoa New Zealand through independent
review
The Commissioners are:
Amokura Kawharu – Tumu Whakarae | President
Claudia Geiringer – Kaikōmihana | Commissioner
Geof Shirtcliffe – Kaikōmihana | Commissioner
The Hon Justice Christian Whata – Kaikōmihana | Commissioner
The Māori language ingoa | name of this review was developed for Te Aka
Matua o te Ture | Law Commission by members of the Commission’s
Māori
Liaison Committee.
Kei te pātengi raraunga o Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa te
whakarārangi o tēnei pukapuka.
A catalogue record for this title is
available from the National Library of New Zealand.
ISBN 978-0-9951291-9-1 (Online)
ISSN 1177-7877 (Online)
This title may be cited as NZLC IP49. This title is available on the internet
at the website of Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission:
www.lawcom.govt.nz
![2021_4902.png](2021_4902.png)
Copyright © 2022 Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute
and adapt
the work, as long as you attribute the work to Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law
Commission and abide by other licence terms.
To view a copy of this licence,
visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Contents
Have your say
HOW TO SUBMIT ON THIS PAPER
We would like to hear
your views. Your input will help us think about options for reform.
To help us understand your views, we ask questions throughout this paper. Not
all questions will be relevant to all people, and there
is no need to answer all
the questions.
You can provide a submission to this paper by:
Review of Adult Decision-Making Capacity Law
Law Commission
PO Box 2590
Wellington 6140
Submissions are due by 5pm on 3 March 2023.
WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR SUBMISSION?
Information given to the
Law Commission is subject to the Official Information Act 1982 and the Privacy
Act 2020.
For more information about the Ombudsman and the Official Information Act,
please see the Ombudsman’s
websitewebsite. For more information about the Privacy Act,
please see the Privacy
Commissioner’s website.
If you send us a submission, we will:
We may also:
- Publish the
submission on our website.
- Refer to the
submission in our publications.
- Use the
submission to inform our work in other reviews.
Your submission may
contain personal information. You have the right to access and correct your
personal information at any time.
You can request that we do not publish your name or any other identifying
information in your submission. If you request this, we
will not publish your
name or any other information that we think might identify you or others on our
website and in our publications.
However, if you make a submission on behalf of an organisation, we will
publish the name of that organisation.
If we receive a request under the Official Information Act that includes your
submission, we must consider releasing it. If the information
requested includes
your personal information, we will consult with you.
If you have questions about how we manage your submission, you are welcome to
contact the Law Commission’s General Manager (gm@lawcom.govt.nz).
SEEKING HELP WHEN MAKING YOUR SUBMISSION
Some people may find it
emotional or distressing to make a submission. If you want to make a submission,
you may want to arrange to
have a support person ready to help. If you need
someone to talk to, you could call or text 1737. This helpline service is free
and
is available 24 hours a day. You’ll get to talk or text with a trained
counsellor. The service is provided by Whakarongorau
Aotearoa | New Zealand
Telehealth Services.
CHAPTER 1
1
Introduction
- 1.1 We
all make decisions every day. Some of these decisions may be relatively minor or
routine, such as what to eat for breakfast.
Other decisions may be less routine
or more significant, such as where to live, starting a new job, or having an
operation. Sometimes
we make decisions alone and sometimes we seek support or
help.
- 1.2 In this
review, we will consider what role the law should have when a person’s
decision-making is affected. There are many things that can affect a
person’s decision-making. These can include a traumatic brain injury,
dementia,
learning disabilities and experiences of mental distress.
People’s decision-making can be affected for one decision, for a
series of
decisions or for decisions more generally.
- 1.3 We use the
term ‘affected decision-making’ to refer to all these situations.
While other terms, such as ‘impaired
decision-making’ or
‘diminished capacity’ are sometimes used, we have heard those terms
may not resonate with everyone
and they can be stigmatising or perpetuate
negative stereotypes. We think it is important to use language that people are
comfortable
with.
- 1.4 If a
person’s decision-making is affected, the current law may treat some or
all their decisions differently to the way
it otherwise would. It does this
using the concept of ‘decision-making capacity’.
- 1.5 Not everyone
with affected decision-making will be considered to lack decision-making
capacity. For those who are considered to lack decision-making capacity,
there are significant legal implications. If a person is assessed not to have
decision-making
capacity for a decision, the decision might not have legal
effect. Another person may be appointed to make the decision for them.
- 1.6 Medical or
other expert advice will often be important to determining whether someone has
decision-making capacity. However, what
it means to have decision-making
capacity, and what happens if a person does not, are legal questions, not
medical ones.
SCOPE OF OUR REVIEW
- 1.7 Te
Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission is an independent agency that provides law
reform advice to the government. We review
the law and make recommendations to
the government on how to improve it.
- 1.8 The scope of
this review is set out in a document called our ‘terms of
reference’. They are very broad. In short,
we will consider how the law
should approach issues relating to affected decision-making of adults. Our terms
of reference are included
as an annex to this paper.
- 1.9 A brief
summary of the current law is set out in Chapter 4. Under the current law,
decision-making capacity tends to be a yes
or no concept. For any given
decision, a person is either assessed as having, or not having, decision-making
capacity. If they are
assessed not to have decision-making capacity, the law may
not give effect to their decision and may appoint someone else to make
a
decision instead.
- 1.10 This is not
the only approach the law could take. In recent decades, there have been
widespread calls for law reform. There has
been increased recognition of the
human rights of disabled people and a shift towards supporting people to make
their own decisions.
There has also been increased recognition that the law in
this area does not adequately take into account te Tiriti o Waitangi, or
te ao
Māori and the multi-cultural nature of Aotearoa New Zealand. As well, our
population is changing. Aotearoa New Zealand
is an increasingly aging and
culturally diverse population.
- 1.11 Against
this background, our review will consider fundamental questions such as: What,
if anything, should the law do when a
person’s decision-making is
affected? How should the law enable people to make decisions about their own
lives, while protecting
them from harm or abuse? How should the law reflect te
ao Māori? How should other cultural perspectives be included?
- 1.12 Some areas
of decision-making capacity are outside the scope of our review, even though
they are important. We are not reviewing
approaches to decision-making capacity
under criminal law. We are also not reviewing decision-making capacity for
children and young
people.
OUR REVIEW SITS ALONGSIDE OTHER WORK
- 1.13 Some
of the calls for law reform have also led to other related projects and
initiatives. Manatū Hauora | Ministry of Health
is carrying out a
‘repeal and replace’ review of the Mental Health (Compulsory
Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. Our
review is separate to the work the
Ministry of Health is doing, but we will consider the Ministry’s work when
we make our final
recommendations.
- 1.14 Other
initiatives include the establishment of a new ministry – Whaikaha |
Ministry of Disabled People – and the
introduction of the Accessibility
for New Zealanders Bill. Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi |
Waitangi Tribunal,
as part of its Hauora inquiry, is also looking at the
experiences of tāngata whaikaha Māori | disabled Māori. In
addition,
the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care is investigating
abuse in State and faith-based disability and institutional care
settings.
PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER
- 1.15 This
paper supports our first round of consultation. We want to learn about your
experiences with current law and practice and
what you think about the big
issues and principles that should inform our review.
- 1.16 This paper
does not focus in detail on issues with the current law. It also does not cover
every area of law or issue that is
raised by this review. Instead, the paper
starts by setting out relevant context to this review (Chapters 2-5). We discuss
the language
we use, why reform is needed, the key legal concepts and law, and
relevant tikanga and te ao Māori concepts. In Chapter 6 we
discuss some
principles we have developed to guide our review.
- 1.17 This paper
then considers decision-making in practice. Chapter 7 looks at ways in which
people can be involved in others’
decisions. Chapter 8 considers how the
law can ensure people with affected decision-making are safe from harm, and
people involved
in the decision-making of others are accountable for their
actions. Chapter 9 then provides an opportunity for you to tell us anything
else
you think we should know.
- 1.18 In
developing this paper we received input from our two advisory groups: the
Professional Expert Advisory Group and the Lived
Experience, Family and
Whānau and Carers Expert Advisory Group.
- 1.19 We will
have a second round of consultation in 2023, supported by a longer consultation
document that will address the current
law in more detail and propose some
options for reform. This will draw on the feedback we receive on this paper.
- 1.20 After our
second round of consultation, we will prepare our final report. This will
recommend to the government how the law should
be reformed in this area. We
intend to provide our final report to the Minister of Justice by 30 June 2024.
CHAPTER 2
2 The language we use in our
review
INTRODUCTION
- 2.1 The
language we use in this review is important. Some words are understood
differently by different people, there are differing
views around preferred
language, and these views can change over time. Sometimes language can be
stigmatising or perpetuate negative
stereotypes.
- 2.2 To ensure
that our written work and publications are as clear as possible, we need to
settle on some consistent language. In this
section, we explain some key terms
we propose to use and why. We acknowledge that people will have a range of views
on our proposed
terminology and are interested in your thoughts.
- 2.3 If we are
communicating with you directly, we will seek to use the language you prefer to
use, whether or not that is the same
as the language we use in our written work.
SOME KEY TERMS
Disability and disabled person
- 2.4 We
intend to take a broad and inclusive approach to defining disability to include
disability resulting from any mental, cognitive,
or sensory impairments. We also
intend disability to include disabled people’s experience of being
excluded from full participation
in society due to physical and societal
barriers. This reflects what is called the ‘social model’ of
disability. We discuss
the social model of disability in Chapter 3.
- 2.5 We propose
to use the term ‘disabled person’ to describe any individual
who experiences disability. This term also
reflects the social model of
disability and is consistent with the New Zealand Disability Strategy 2016-2026,
which was developed
with advice from disabled people.
- 2.6 We
acknowledge that not all people with affected decision-making will identify or
agree with the term disabled person. Some people
may prefer to use the term
‘person with a disability’. We have also heard that many Māori
disabled people identify
as Māori first, and that some people may not
identify with the language of disability at all.
Learning disability
- 2.7 In
our research and early consultation, we have seen the terms ‘cognitive
impairment’, ‘learning disability’,
‘cognitive
disability’ and ‘intellectual disability’ used
interchangeably. We propose to use the term ‘learning
disability’,
as we have heard this term is generally preferred.
Tāngata whaikaha Māori
- 2.8 We
intend to use the term ‘tāngata whaikaha Māori’ to refer
to Māori disabled people.
- 2.9 The term
tāngata whaikaha Māori was developed in 2018 in collaboration between
Māori disabled people, their whānau,
providers and officials. The word
‘whaikaha’ can be translated as to have strength, to have ability,
and to be enabled.
Mental distress and person experiencing mental
distress
- 2.10 We
intend to use the terms ‘mental distress’ and ‘person
experiencing mental distress’ to refer to circumstances
where a
person’s mental health is negatively impacted in a way that affects their
thoughts, feelings, or behaviour. We intend
this term to cover a range of
experiences, from mild or short-term mental distress to severe or long-term
conditions. It includes
experiences caused by or arising from mental illness. It
also includes experiences of mental distress where a person is not
‘ill’
in a medical sense – for example, following a
bereavement, losing a job or witnessing a traumatic event.
- 2.11 Our current
law tends to use the term ‘mental disorder’, and we understand some
people may prefer the language of
‘mental illness’ or
‘mental health challenges’. We also acknowledge that some people
may find the term mental
distress limiting or feel that it does not capture
their experience. We will use more specific terms where we can. However, we
think
it is helpful to have a term that covers a broad range of mental distress
experiences that can affect the way that people make decisions.
Lived experience
- 2.12 We
propose to use the term ‘lived experience’ when someone has directly
experienced or is directly experiencing something
themselves. It is important
that we understand and appreciate the unique insight and perspective that
people’s first-hand experience
may bring. The United Nations Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also requires that disabled people are
involved
in the development of relevant legislation and policies.
- 2.13 In our
review, we intend to distinguish between different kinds of lived
experience:
(a) ‘Personal lived experience’ refers to someone with personal
lived experience of affected decision-making.
(b) ‘Lived experience as family or whānau member, friend or
carer’ refers to someone who is a family or whānau
member, friend or
carer of someone with personal lived experience.
- 2.14 Some people
may have both personal lived experience and lived experience as a family or
whānau member, friend or
carer.
QUESTION 1
Do you agree with the terms we propose to use
in our review? If not, what changes should we make?
|
CHAPTER 3
3 Why is reform needed?
INTRODUCTION
- 3.1 There
have been widespread calls for reform of the law relating to adult
decision-making capacity. In this chapter, we set out
what has led to the calls
for reform. These are:
(a) Changes in the way we view disability.
(b) Greater recognition of the legal significance of te ao Māori, tikanga
Māori and te Tiriti o Waitangi.
(c) Greater protection of human rights.
(d) Changes to Aotearoa New Zealand’s population.
(e) Increased understanding about how people’s decision-making can be
affected.
(f) Particular issues with current legislation.
CHANGES IN THE WAY WE VIEW DISABILITY
- 3.2 Attitudes
towards disability have shifted in recent decades.
- 3.3 For a long
time in Western society, disability was viewed through the lens of a
‘medical model’. The medical model
views disability as an illness,
condition or impairment requiring a medical intervention (sometimes without the
individual’s
consent). Increasingly, this approach has been seen to ignore
the extent to which disability results from the physical and societal
barriers
that affect how disabled people live their lives.
- 3.4 Alongside
the medical model sits institutionalisation, where thousands of disabled people
here and overseas were placed away from
their family and whānau to live in
institutions. Aotearoa New Zealand has undergone a process of
deinstitutionalisation, closing
such institutions and enabling disabled people
to live in and as part of the community. Deinstitutionalisation reflects a
greater
understanding of the harm done by separating people from whānau,
family and friends.
- 3.5 In response
to the medical model of disability and institutionalisation, the disability
rights movement began to emerge and alternative
models of disability were
developed. ‘Social models’ of disability do not focus on a
person’s impairment. Instead,
they focus on identifying and removing
physical and societal barriers that prevent disabled people from being fully
included.
- 3.6 In the
decision-making context, this has led to calls for the law to provide support to
people to make decisions instead of decisions
being made for them.
TIKANGA MāORI, TE AO MāORI AND TE TIRITI O
WAITANGI
- 3.7 In
recent decades, there has been greater recognition of the significance to law
reform of tikanga Māori, te ao Māori
and te Tiriti o Waitangi.
- 3.8 The current
law relating to adult decision-making capacity does not generally take into
account te Tiriti o Waitangi | Treaty
of Waitangi. Neither does it generally
take into account tikanga Māori, nor provide for Māori perspectives to
be reflected.
For example, the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act
1988 (PPPR Act) makes no express reference to te Tiriti or to Māori
concepts, values or processes.
- 3.9 As well, the
medical and social models of disability discussed above are
‘Western’ models of disability and therefore
focus on the individual
and their individual experiences of disability. These models may not account for
other world views, especially
those that place greater emphasis on relationships
and collective responsibilities. The same issue arises with the concept of
‘decision-making
capacity’.
- 3.10 This means
we will need to consider what decision-making looks like in te ao Māori and
how tikanga is and should be understood
and applied. We will also need to
consider what the relationship between tikanga and state law should be in
relation to affected
decision-making.
- 3.11 We discuss
the relevance of tikanga and te ao Māori more in Chapters 4
and 5.
GREATER PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
- 3.12 The
main statutes relating to people with affected decision-making were enacted in
the 1980s and 1990s. Since then, there has
been increased protection of human
rights generally and for disabled people specifically.
- 3.13 In the
early 1990s, Aotearoa New Zealand passed the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
and the Human Rights Act 1993.
- 3.14 In 2006
there was an international shift towards greater protection of rights of
disabled people, with the adoption of the United
Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Disability Convention). The Disability
Convention recognises that
disabled people enjoy human rights on an equal basis
with others. It also emphasises that disabled people must be involved in the
development of relevant law and policies. Aotearoa New Zealand ratified (agreed
to implement) the Disability Convention in 2008.
- 3.15 There have
been significant calls for greater protection of human rights in this area. For
example, the Mental Health (Compulsory
Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 has
been criticised for being out of step with Aotearoa New Zealand’s human
rights commitments.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities has also criticised Aotearoa New Zealand’s
‘guardianship
regime’, that exists under the PPPR Act. We discuss
human rights more in Chapter 4.
CHANGES TO OUR POPULATION
- 3.16 In
recent decades, our population has changed. It continues to become more
diverse. For example, the 2018 Census recorded 27.4 per cent of
people counted were not born in Aotearoa New Zealand. This was up from 25.2
per
cent in 2015. Our current law may not adequately accommodate the perspectives of
people from different cultural backgrounds.
- 3.17 New
Zealanders are also living longer, and the incidence of dementia is therefore
predicted to rise. In 2020, the Dementia Economic
Impact Report estimated that
the number of people living with dementia would more than double by 2050. This
means an increasing proportion
of New Zealanders may need support to make
decisions.
LIMITATIONS OF THE CONCEPT OF ‘DECISION-MAKING
CAPACITY’
- 3.18 Under
our current law, a person is either considered to have or not have
decision-making capacity for a particular decision.
If a person is assessed not
to have decision-making capacity, the law may intervene in their
decision-making. If a person is assessed
to have decision-making capacity, the
law has no role to play, whether or not the person would benefit from some
decision-making
support.
- 3.19 This does
not reflect reality. The extent to which a person’s decision-making is
affected, and how much support they may
need in decision-making, may vary. A
person’s decision-making may be more affected at some times than others,
or more affected
for some decisions than others.
PARTICULAR ISSUES WITH CURRENT LEGISLATION
- 3.20 We
are aware of several particular issues with some of the current legislation. We
discuss some of these issues in Chapters 7
and 8.
CHAPTER 4
4 Legal concepts and context
INTRODUCTION
- 4.1 In
this chapter, we set out the legal context to this review. We discuss:
(a) Some underlying legal concepts that are relevant to this review.
(b) Some of the key current laws that regulate affected decision-making.
(c) The relevance of te ao Māori and, in particular, tikanga Māori.
(d) Domestic and international human rights commitments.
SOME UNDERLYING LEGAL CONCEPTS
- 4.2 This
section explains some of the underlying legal concepts that are relevant to this
review. These are: ‘decision-making
capacity’, ‘legal
capacity’, ‘substituted decision-making’, ‘supported
decision-making’,
‘best interests’ and ‘will and
preferences’.
- 4.3 What these
terms mean, and how they should be used, is often debated. Some people prefer
different terms entirely. This section
provides a high-level summary of each
concept.
‘Decision-making capacity’
- 4.4 The
law uses ‘decision-making capacity’ as a threshold. If a person is
assessed to have decision-making capacity,
the law has no role to play, and the
person is free to make their own decision. If a person is assessed not to have
decision-making
capacity, the law may step in. The decision might not be given
effect, or it might be overturned. Another person may be appointed
to make the
decision instead. When we use the term decision-making capacity, we are
referring to this concept.
- 4.5 Decision-making
capacity appears in many of our laws, although sometimes different terms are
used. Other phrases used include
‘competence’, ‘mental
competence’, ‘mental capacity’, ‘legal capacity’
and ‘capacity’.
In this review, we think using different terms for
the same concept will be unhelpful. We will use the term decision-making
capacity
unless the context requires a different term.
- 4.6 Generally,
the law uses a ‘functional approach’ to test decision-making
capacity. Broadly, this means the assessor
must consider whether the person
sufficiently understands the general nature and likely consequences of their
decision and is able
adequately to communicate the decision. The test is a legal
one, but in practice, the assessment is often made based on the opinion
of a
doctor.
- 4.7 The
functional approach has been described as a neutral way of testing
decision-making capacity. However, this view is not shared
by everyone. Some
people argue that it is discriminatory or discriminatorily applied towards
disabled people – particularly
when assessments are made of the individual
alone, without the supports they would normally have to assist their
decision-making.
- 4.8 Other
criticisms of the functional approach include:
(a) Professionals assessing decision-making capacity may be informed by their
own culture and beliefs. Language or cultural differences
may also lead to
misinterpretation or misunderstanding.
(b) The experience of being medically assessed may be alienating for some
people, which may impact how they respond to the test.
(c) Testing mental functioning alone, and restricting a person’s ability
to make decisions on that basis, may not align well
with other worldviews such
as te ao Māori. This is discussed more in Chapter 5.
‘Legal capacity’
- 4.9 The
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has
explained that ‘legal capacity’ refers
to two closely related
concepts:
(a) Legal standing: the ability of a person to hold rights and duties.
(b) Legal agency: the ability of a person to act on those rights and duties.
- 4.10 Legal
capacity is related to decision-making capacity. If a person is assessed as not
having decision-making capacity, the law
may restrict their legal capacity. In
particular, it may restrict that person’s legal agency by not giving
effect to or by
overturning their decision or by requiring someone else to make
the decision for them.
‘Substituted decision-making’ and
‘supported decision-making’
- 4.11 ‘Substituted
decision-making’ involves one person making a decision on behalf of
another person. It is often said
to involve two other features:
(a) The substitute decision-maker can be appointed by someone other than the
person concerned, including against their will. For
example, a court might
appoint a welfare guardian, or a doctor might make a treatment decision for a
patient.
(b) Decisions made by the substitute decision-maker are based on the ‘best
interests’ of the person concerned.
- 4.12 By
contrast, ‘supported decision-making’ refers to supporting a person
to exercise their legal capacity. As it is
the person’s decision that is
supported, it follows the decision should reflect their will and preferences,
rather than someone
else’s assessment of their best interests.
- 4.13 The terms
‘substituted decision-making’ and ‘supported
decision-making’ are understood differently by
different people. This is
particularly so in the context of calls to shift from substituted to supported
decision-making. However,
as discussed in Chapter 7, there are various ways in
which one person can be involved in another’s decision. Not all these
can
be categorised in ways that everyone would agree with. Therefore, in later
chapters, we have tried to avoid using these terms.
We have instead focused on
exploring some practical ways in which a person can be involved in
another’s decision-making.
‘Best interests’ and ‘will and
preferences’
- 4.14 Related
to substituted and supported decision-making are the concepts of ‘best
interests’ and ‘will and preferences’.
- 4.15 Typically,
best interests refers to a substitute decision-maker making a decision about a
person based on what they believe to
be the person’s objective best
interests. For example, in the context of medical treatment, a person’s
best interests
might be determined by what expert medical opinion accepts as
appropriate treatment. A key objective of the best interests standard
is to
protect people who are considered unable to adequately decide for
themselves.
- 4.16 The concept
of will and preferences focuses on the wishes of the person with affected
decision-making. This may be different
from what someone else considers to be
the person’s objective best interests. Some commentary emphasises that
this is the point
of supported decision-making: people should be supported to
make the decisions they want to, even if others would decide differently
(and
might even consider the decision unwise).
- 4.17 In practice
the distinction between best interests and will and preferences is not always as
stark as it may first appear. For
example, in the United Kingdom, a deputy (the
equivalent of a welfare guardian) must act in the best interests of a person. In
determining
the person’s best interests, the deputy must consider the
person’s past and present wishes and feelings and their values
and beliefs
relevant to the decision. In other words, the person’s ‘best
interests’ are heavily dependent on what
the person wants (or is
understood to want). Some case law in Aotearoa New Zealand has been guided by
this test.
CURRENT LAW
- 4.18 In
this section, we outline some of the key laws in Aotearoa New Zealand that
regulate affected decision-making of adults.
Some key statutes
Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988
- 4.19 The
Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (PPPR Act) is a key statute
in this area. The focus of the PPPR Act is
on what happens if an adult is
assessed as not having decision-making capacity to make a decision, or
decisions, about their personal
care and welfare or their property.
- 4.20 Broadly, if
a person is assessed to lack decision-making capacity:
(a) Te Kōti Whānau | Family Court may make a range of decisions about
the person’s personal care and welfare, such
as that a person live in a
particular place or receive medical treatment.
(b) The Family Court may appoint a welfare guardian. A welfare guardian is
someone who makes decisions for another person about their
personal care and
welfare. For this reason, the PPPR Act is sometimes said to involve an
‘adult guardianship’ regime.
(c) The Family Court may appoint a property manager. A property manager is
someone who makes decisions about another person’s
property.
- 4.21 The PPPR
Act also sets out a process for one person to grant another an ‘enduring
power of attorney’ to act in their
personal care and welfare and/or their
property affairs at some time in the future. The enduring power of attorney will
generally
activate once a person is assessed as not having decision-making
capacity.
Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act
1992
- 4.22 The
Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 (Mental Health Act)
sets out the circumstances in which a person
may be subject to compulsory mental
health assessment and treatment. A person must have a “mental
disorder” as defined
by the Mental Health Act before they can be subject
to compulsory assessment or treatment. “Mental disorder” is defined
to mean an “abnormal state of mind” that is of such a degree that it
poses a serious danger to that person or others
and/or seriously diminishes the
capacity of that person to take care of themselves. The term
‘capacity’ is used in a
different way here – it refers to the
person's ability to take care of themselves. However, the Act still operates on
the basis
that a person subject to it is not able to make their own decision or
decisions about treatment.
- 4.23 There has
been extensive criticism of the Mental Health Act 1992. The government inquiry
into mental health and addiction (He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government
Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction) found that the Act is out of date
and does not reflect best practice or align with Aotearoa New Zealand’s
international commitments.
As noted in Chapter 1, Manatū Hauora | Ministry
of Health is carrying out a ‘repeal and replace’ review of the
Mental
Health Act.
Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act
2017
- 4.24 The
Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017 provides for
compulsory medical treatment in some circumstances.
It can apply when a person
is assessed as having a severe substance addiction and “impaired
capacity” to make decisions
about their treatment.
Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights
- 4.25 The
Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (the Code)
outlines the rights of people using health and
disability services, and the
duties of health and disability providers. Under the Code, people generally have
rights to make an informed
choice about medical treatment and to give informed
consent.
- 4.26 These
rights may be limited if it is considered that a person has “diminished
competence” and in some circumstances
treatment can be provided without
the person’s consent. For example, if a person is “not
competent” to give informed
consent, medical treatment may be provided if
it is in the person’s best interests, reasonable efforts have been made to
understand
their views, and the medical provider believes treatment would be
consistent with the person’s views if they were
“competent”.
The common law
- 4.27 Adult
decision-making is also regulated through the common law (law that is found in
court decisions rather than in statutes).
This includes contract law and the law
of testamentary capacity.
- 4.28 Under
contract law, people can enter into legally binding agreements with each other.
The law will not undo a contract solely
on the basis that one of the parties did
not have decision-making capacity. However, it may do so if that is something
the other
party to the contract knew or should have known.
- 4.29 The common
law also regulates a person’s ability to make a will to dispose of
property after their death. When a person
dies, there will sometimes be a
dispute about whether the person had ‘testamentary capacity’ to make
the will and whether
the law should recognise the will as valid. Broadly, if a
will appears “rational on its face”, the court will presume
that the
will-maker had sufficient decision-making capacity. If the will appears
irrational, the person seeking to uphold the will
must show that the will-maker
had decision-making capacity when the will was made.
TIKANGA MāORI
- 4.30 Tikanga
Māori is significant to law review and reform in four mutually reinforcing
ways, recently underscored by Te Kōti
Mana Nui | Supreme Court in Peter
Hugh McGregor Ellis v the King [2022] NZSC 114.
(a) Tikanga is the first law of Aotearoa New Zealand. It is an independent
source of rights, obligations and authority in te ao Māori.
(b) Law should give effect to rights and obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi
as they relate to tikanga.
(c) Tikanga can comprise a source of New Zealand common law. Tikanga can also be
reflected in statute law and assist in the interpretation
of statutes.
(d) Aotearoa New Zealand has international obligations in relation to Māori
as indigenous people.
- 4.31 There are
various ways tikanga and the law relating to affected decision-making might
relate to each other. To explore these
possibilities, we need first to consider
how decision-making is approached in tikanga Māori and te ao Māori. We
discuss
this further in Chapter 5.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND AFFECTED DECISION-MAKING
- 4.32 A
number of human rights, both domestic and international, are engaged by law on
affected decision-making.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
- 4.33 The
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights) protects and promotes human
rights and fundamental freedoms in Aotearoa
New Zealand. Among others, this
includes the right to refuse medical treatment, the right not to be detained
(held) without good
reason and the right to freedom from discrimination. The
rights set out in the Bill of Rights may only be limited by other laws where
this is “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
International human rights instruments
- 4.34 People
with affected decision-making hold several relevant rights at international law.
These rights include the right to freedom
from discrimination, the right to
liberty, dignity and security, the right to self-determination, the right to the
highest attainable
standard of health and the right not to be tortured or
subject to cruel treatment.
Article 12 of the Disability Convention – equal
recognition before the law and legal capacity
- 4.35 The
Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (Disability Convention) is
fundamental to affected decision-making laws.
Article 12 affirms the right of
disabled people to equal recognition before the law and recognises disabled
people have legal capacity
on an equal basis to others.
- 4.36 Article 12
signals a major shift in attitudes to how we think about the law in this area.
It is generally agreed that Article
12 reflects the shift from a ‘medical
model’ of disability to a ‘social model’ of disability.
Article 12
recognises that there are barriers in society that may prevent or
make it difficult for some people to make decisions.
- 4.37 There is
also broad agreement that Article 12 signals:
(a) A shift towards supported decision-making; and
(b) A focus on respecting the person’s “rights, will and
preference”, instead of what someone else thinks is their
objective best
interests.
- 4.38 Beyond
that, there are different views on what Article 12 requires or does not permit.
One area of debate is whether Article
12 ever permits substituted
decision-making, even in ‘extreme’ cases. This is a matter we will
need to consider in our
review. At this stage, though, we think it more helpful
to focus on some specific decision-making arrangements.
CHAPTER 5
5 Te ao Māori me ōna
tikanga
INTRODUCTION
- 5.1 In
this chapter, we discuss some tikanga Māori and Māori concepts that
might be particularly relevant to decision-making.
- 5.2 There are
various ways in which the law concerning adult decision-making and tikanga might
relate to each other, and in which
the law might reflect Māori
perspectives. To explore those possibilities, we need to understand how
decision-making is approached
in tikanga and te ao Māori, and learn about
those perspectives.
DECISION-MAKING IN TE AO MāORI
- 5.3 The
idea of decision-making capacity in our current law might be said to reflect a
‘Western’ perspective, focused
on individual autonomy and individual
rationality.
- 5.4 Māori
understandings of decision-making, based on whakapapa and whanaungatanga, may be
less focused on the individual.
- 5.5 Whakapapa
sees each person as part of an interconnected framework of intergenerational
‘layers’ connecting individuals
to each other by descent from
ancestors. Descent-based relationships are not limited in te ao Māori to
human genealogy, but
describe the association of individuals to waka, to atua |
gods and to the natural environment.
- Whanaungatanga
can be described as the everyday social fabric or reality of kin-based
relationships in te ao Māori. It is the
sharing of experiences and the
strengthening of bonds with others in recognition of whakapapa connections.
Whanaungatanga has been
described as a principle of
kinship:[1]
[K]inship is the warmth of being together as a family group: what you can draw
from being together and the strength of using all
the resources of a family. ...
Whanaungatanga to me also means that whenever a person feels lonely he will go
round and visit some of his kin and it is just as
enjoyable for the kin to
receive a visit as it is for the person to go.
- 5.7 Together,
whakapapa and whanaungatanga locate a person within and by reference to their
whānau and whakapapa. Individual
identity cannot be separated from
whānau and whakapapa, because whānau and whakapapa are fundamental to
that identity.
The decisions of an individual are therefore inherently connected
to, and can have meaningful implications for, their whānau
and
whakapapa
- 5.8 Compared
to some other cultures, decision-making in te ao Māori may therefore place
less emphasis on individual autonomy
and the rights, will and preferences of the
individual. Whakapapa and whanaungatanga obligations may require someone making
a decision
to engage in more kōrero with whānau and hapū and give
greater consideration to those wider interests.
- 5.9 Definitions
of decision-making capacity that focus on specific tests of individual mental
ability may not sit easily alongside
this approach. Neither may the appointment
of someone to make decisions on behalf of a person who has failed a capacity
test, if
the person appointed is not familiar with the significance of
whakapapa, whanaungatanga and tikanga more generally, or does not have
whanaungatanga obligations to the person.
TIKANGA MāORI
- Tikanga
is the first law of Aotearoa New Zealand. Tikanga includes a body of norms and
values that guides and directs behaviour in
te ao Māori. Tikanga governs
relationships by providing a “koru ... of ethics” and a shared basis
for “doing
things right, doing things the right way, and doing things for
the right reasons”.[2] Tikanga
has evolved over time and continues to adapt to accommodate developments in
society and technology.
- 5.11 At an
initial wānanga we organised, six principles of tikanga were identified as
particularly relevant to decision-making
in te ao Māori: whanaungatanga,
aroha, mana, tiaki, wairua and rongo. We discuss these briefly
below.
- We
acknowledge that how tikanga values are applied may differ among different iwi
and hapū. We also acknowledge that no aspect
of tikanga can be properly
understood in isolation from tikanga as a whole. Tikanga principles are
intertwined and exist in “an
interconnected
matrix”.[3] Singling out
specific principles, and briefly summarising them, cannot fully convey their
significance or relevance. We intend it
to be helpful, but are mindful of its
limitations.
Whanaungatanga
- 5.13 As
discussed earlier in this chapter, whanaungatanga is fundamental in te ao
Māori. It imports positive obligations on
members of a whānau or
hapū. Whanaungatanga recognises that personal decisions not only have
personal implications, but
are made in a collective context and so may involve
whānau, hapū and iwi.
Aroha
- 5.14 Closely
related to whanaungatanga is aroha. Broadly, aroha can be described as a display
of love, compassion, sympathy, empathy
and concern for others.
- Aroha
is closely associated with kinship ties and the caring acts expected to be
performed towards kin, especially in times of sickness,
need or other trouble.
Cleve Barlow has explained that a person who has aroha for another
“expresses genuine concern towards
them and acts with their welfare in
mind, no matter what their state of health or
wealth.”[4]
- A
recent study found that aroha, alongside manaakitanga (which encompasses notions
of hospitality, kindness, generosity and support),
had a role in the way people
cared for their whānau members living with dementia. The study showed that
many whānau were
driven by the inherent, collective obligation to care for
others with a sense of compassion and caring that “enables their
acceptance and tolerance of changes brought about by illness and
disease.”[5] At our initial
wānanga we heard that, in the case of illness, it is aroha that drives
people to look for solutions and to lessen
the difficulties that might result
from situations where a person’s decision-making is affected.
Mana
- Mana
has been described as “a key philosophical concept combining notions of
psychic and spiritual force and vitality, recognised
authority, influence and
prestige, and thus also power and the ability to control people and
events”.[6]
- 5.18 Inherent in
the notion of mana as ‘power’ or ‘authority’ is the
responsibility to use that power for
the welfare and wellbeing of an individual
or a collective. Mana derives from the collective, and so carries with it an
obligation
to exercise it for collective wellbeing.
- Māori
Marsden has identified three aspects of mana: mana atua – god given power;
mana tūpuna – power from the
ancestors; and mana tangata –
authority derived from personal
attributes.[7]
- 5.20 Mana
tūpuna means that those with the senior whakapapa lines have a ‘head
start’ in the expectation of leadership
positions. But because, in
tikanga, descent can be traced through both male and female lines in every
generation, there will generally
be many potential leaders with significant mana
tūpuna. Mana tangata is therefore also very significant.
- 5.21 Mana
tangata underscores the obligations of those with authority to make decisions
that have the support of the collective –
because a decision-maker whose
decisions are not supported will be corrected or replaced by others with
sufficient mana whose decisions
will have support.
- 5.22 Mana has
wider dimensions beyond the purely personal, which can be relevant to
decision-making. Personal decisions can affect
the mana of the collective
– the whānau, the marae, the hapū, the iwi and other broader
collectives or groups with
which the person is associated.
- 5.23 Mana is
also relevant to Māori whose decision-making is affected – for
example, in how their connections to whānau,
marae and hapū are
maintained, and in the deference shown to their decisions. The greater a
person’s mana atua and mana
tupuna, the greater the deference and respect
expected to be shown to them.
Tiaki
- 5.24 Tiaki
means to care for or support. It is most widely known in the term kaitiaki,
which is generally described as stewardship
or guardianship. It is concerned
with providing care for and preserving taonga or precious things. While the act
of tiaki is often
expressed in relation to the environment, it also relates to a
social context – that is, caring for and looking after other
people.
- 5.25 In relation
to the care of people with dementia, for example, kaitiakitanga (the exercise of
kaitiaki) has a critical role in
the health and wellbeing of whānau. In the
context of adult decision-making more generally, tiaki is relevant to providing
foundational
support to a person with affected decision-making. Tiaki, in this
context, is therefore also closely tied to aroha. In the context
of
decision-making support, it could be thought of as a manifestation of
aroha.
Wairua
- 5.26 Wairua
can be defined as the inherent spiritual essence of a person. The existence of
wairua does not depend on the physical
form of a person but describes a state of
being beyond consciousness and even death. For example, when a person dies, they
are said
to travel ‘te ara wairua’ or ‘te rerenga
wairua’, which describes the pathway of spirits someone follows
to their
final resting place.
- 5.27 The wairua
of a person, however, can be affected by external forces or individuals. For
example, traditionally the wairua of
a person could be diminished by makutu or
sorcery performed by tohunga, by transgressing a tapu, or by particular events
or experiences.
- 5.28 The concept
of wairua is relevant to the intervention and care that needs to be shown
towards someone with affected decision-making
capacity. They have wairua, which
can be positively or negatively affected by others.
- 5.29 A related
concept is ‘mauri’ or the life force of a person or an object. A
mauri stone, for example, would traditionally
be imparted with wairua through
karakia, and buried beneath a wharenui to contain and symbolise the health and
wellbeing of the wharenui.
Mauri as it relates to a person symbolises their
wellbeing, or ‘mauri-ora’. Protecting and enhancing the mauri-ora of
a person whose decision-making is affected may be a key consideration.
Rongo
- 5.30 In
the context of this review, the notion of rongo as a state of internal balance
and peace may also be relevant. A person’s
decision-making might be
affected by their spiritual and mental balance. Rongo might be considered to
emphasise the importance of
restoring that balance.
- In
tellings of the separation of Papatūānuku and Ranginui,
Rongo-mā-Tāne is said to have been hidden within his
mother,
Papatūānuku. From there, he listened in safety and silence to the
turmoil and violence of the world above. “In
this way, Rongo gets to know
silence, and internal peace from external violence. When Rongo emerges, peace
prevails in the external
world.”[8] Rongo is said to
guide activities relating to knowledge and knowing, peace and peacemaking,
healing, intent listening and silence.
- In
stressing the significance of balance, rongo might be seen to point away from a
binary approach to decision-making that sees a
person as either having, or not
having, decision-making capacity. Dr Tākirirangi Smith has explained:
[9]
In traditional Māori narratives, light and dark are different states of
being, both with aspects of well-being and healing.
In Māori knowledge
systems, the atua all had a place and it was the balance between these atua that
was important, as well as
rebalancing when there was disruption through trauma.
NGā ARIā MATUA E TORU | THREE KEY CONCEPTS
- 5.33 In
this section, we outline three Māori concepts we have encountered in our
research that may be relevant to Māori
perspectives on adult
decision-making. While we understand that these are not tikanga principles, they
may be significant to the
operation of tikanga.
Hinengaro
- Hinengaro
is sometimes given as a translation for mind, but this is not a perfect
translation. Te Aka Māori Dictionary defines
hinengaro more broadly, as
“mind, thought, intellect, consciousness, awareness”. Dr Hinemoa
Elder has explained that
Māori have “distinct concepts of the mind as
a system within a wider body of knowledge called mātauranga”.
Dr
Elder identifies the concept of hinengaro as being the Māori concept of
“mind, the seat of thoughts and
emotions”.[10]
- One
of the four dimensions in the Māori model of health developed by Tā
Mason Durie, ‘Te Whare Tapa Whā’,
is te taha hinengaro. Dr
Elder has observed that te taha hinengaro is “often translated as the
aspect of psychological health
and well-being, or as emotional
health”.[11] It encompasses
how a person communicates, thinks and feels. It also encompasses spiritual
wellbeing. When te taha hinengaro is strong,
people are likely to be better able
to cope with stress and challenges.
- 5.36 The concept
of hinengaro may therefore not map easily onto Western conceptions of mind that
view it as primarily about thinking
and separate from emotions. In the context
of affected decision-making, it may encourage approaches that focus on the
person as a
whole, rather than solely or primarily on their thought processes.
Wairangi and pōrangi
- 5.37 Two
other concepts we have encountered in our research are wairangi and
pōrangi.
- 5.38 At our
preliminary wānanga, wairangi was explained as describing someone who is
confused or troubled such that their decision-making
is affected. Wairangi is
defined in the Māori dictionary Te Pātaka Kupu as “Kāore e
āta whakaaro, kāore
rānei e mātau ki te mahi tika”,
meaning someone who “does not comprehend, or does not understand the
correct
thing to do”. The concept of wairangi not only describes affected
decision-making capacity in a ‘cognitive’ sense,
but also a state of
intense emotion and despair.
- 5.39 At the same
wānanga, the concept of pōrangi was described as referring to someone
who is permanently in a state of
deep unrest and trouble, and who therefore
cannot make decisions for themselves or their whānau.
- 5.40 The causes
of both pōrangi and wairangi will be varied. A person may be in a state of
wairangi due to a specific event or
situation that causes a severe emotional
response, such as a bereavement. This will generally be temporary, but not
always. Wairangi
in the sense of general forgetfulness might also occur as
someone ages. A state of wairangi might develop into a state of pōrangi
caused by mate wareware (dementia).
- Pōrangi
may be considered by some to result from the person affected committing of a
form of hara (spiritual infringement). Pōrangi
resulting from a hara
implies a moral judgement on the actions of the
individual:[12]
Some Māori may feel they are unwell because they have breached certain
cultural protocols, and they may describe their illness
as mate Māori, or
mākutu, and their whānau may describe their behaviour as disturbing or
pōrangi.
- 5.42 On the
other hand, pōrangi and wairangi might also result from causes such as
ageing. When this occurs, a kuia or kaumātua
might be described as becoming
more tapu, as they journey from te ao mārama (the current world) to te ao
wairua (the realm of
spirits). In that situation, there is no implied moral
judgement under tikanga Māori. Rather, kuia and kaumātua continue
to
hold an important role as keepers of knowledge and wisdom.
- 5.43 As with
hinengaro, neither pōrangi nor wairangi map easily onto similar Western
terms. For example, both terms can encompass
aspects of what, from a more
Western perspective, might be separated into concepts relating to mental
distress, to emotion and to
cognition/thinking. As with hinengaro, in the
context of affected decision-making, wairangi and pōrangi may encourage
approaches
that focus more on the whole person than solely or primarily on their
thought processes.
QUESTION 2
Have we identified the tikanga principles and
concepts most relevant to decision-making? If not, what changes should we
make?
|
DECISION-MAKING BY MĀORI TODAY
- 5.44 We
understand that, while some Māori may primarily live according to tikanga,
this is not the case for all Māori. Some
may feel different degrees of
connection to te ao Māori, or find that there are other factors that
prevent them from practising
tikanga on an everyday basis. Some might find that
it is hard to act consistently with tikanga given current law.
- 5.45 We are
interested in how relevant tikanga is to Māori today when it comes to
decision-making and, in particular, when someone’s
decision-making is
affected. We are also interested in how the current law affects the ability to
live in accordance with tikanga
Māori, and how the law could be changed to
address
this.
QUESTION 3
How is tikanga Māori relevant to you in
relation to decision-making, and to affected decision-making?
QUESTION 4
In situations when someone’s
decision-making has been affected, have you and your whānau/hapū/iwi
been able to act
in accordance with tikanga Māori in the way you would
want? If not, how could this be improved?
|
CHAPTER 6
6 Principles for our review
INTRODUCTION
- 6.1 In
this chapter, we discuss some principles that we have developed to guide our
thinking in this review.
- 6.2 These
principles will help us identify core values, interests or objectives that need
to be considered in affected decision-making
law reform. This will help us
identify what is important and what good law concerning the affected
decision-making of adults looks
like. We will use these principles to guide our
analysis of the issues and options for reform.
OUR PROPOSED GUIDING PRINCIPLES
- 6.3 We
have developed seven guiding principles for our review. We think the law
relating to affected decision-making should:
(a) Respect and uphold the human rights of people with affected
decision-making.
(b) Uphold the Crown’s obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi.
(c) Recognise and provide for tikanga Māori.
(d) Empower people with affected decision-making to live flourishing lives.
(e) Recognise and facilitate relationships built on trust.
(f) Keep people safe from abuse and neglect and promote accountability.
(g) Be accessible and strike an appropriate balance between flexibility and
certainty.
- 6.4 We developed
these principles by considering what other people, laws and organisations have
identified as important values and
interests in this area. We also asked our
advisory groups what important values, concepts or ideas our guiding principles
should
include.
- 6.5 We discuss
each of these principles below.
Principle 1: the law should respect and uphold the human
rights of people with affected decision-making
- 6.6 Human
rights help to underpin Aotearoa New Zealand’s democratic society, and
good law should seek to respect and uphold
these rights.
- 6.7 As discussed
in Chapter 4, many human rights are engaged in this review. Fundamental to
these, and all human rights, is the inherent
dignity of all people.
- 6.8 Some human
rights that we think are engaged by this review include the rights to:
(a) Equal recognition before the law.
(b) Freedom from arbitrary detention.
(c) Non-discrimination.
(d) Highest attainable standard of health.
(e) Refuse medical treatment.
(f) Self-determination.
Principle 2: the law should uphold the Crown’s
obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi
- 6.9 Te
Tiriti o Waitangi | the Treaty of Waitangi is a foundation of government in
Aotearoa New Zealand. Good law should uphold the
Crown’s obligations under
te Tiriti o Waitangi.
- 6.10 There is a
te reo Māori text and an English text and there are differences between the
two texts. For reasons discussed
in our recent reports, our view is the te reo
Māori text should be regarded as the primary record of the commitments made
in
1840.
Principle 3: the law should recognise and provide for
tikanga Māori
- 6.11 As
we explain in Chapter 4, tikanga Māori is relevant to law review and
reform. We think the law should recognise and provide
for tikanga Māori.
- 6.12 In Chapter
5 we outline six tikanga principles that appear to be particularly relevant to
decision-making in te ao Māori.
There are various possible ways in which
tikanga Māori and the law relating to affected decision-making might relate
to each
other. For example, the law might reflect tikanga values that resonate
widely with all New Zealanders. It might also respect the
operation of tikanga
amongst Māori who wish to live in accordance with it.
Principle 4: the law should empower people with affected
decision-making to lead flourishing lives
- 6.13 We
think empowering people with affected decision-making capacity should be a
guiding principle for this review. Empowerment
is one way the law can contribute
to the wellbeing of people with affected decision-making.
- 6.14 We have
heard that the voices of people with affected decision-making can be lost or
ignored. When decisions are made for a person
with affected decision-making,
they may feel disregarded or disempowered. We think it is important the
law’s role in promoting
wellbeing and good outcomes for people with
affected decision-making is deeply rooted in empowerment.
Principle 5: the law should recognise and facilitate
relationships built on trust
- 6.15 We
think the law should recognise and facilitate relationships built on trust. We
have heard that trusting and supportive relationships
are fundamental to
promoting positive decision-making and outcomes for people with affected
decision-making. These relationships
include those between the person with
affected decision-making and their family and whānau. They also include
those between
professionals and people affected and their family and
whānau.
- 6.16 We have
heard concerns that the current law is too focused on the individual making the
decision and does not sufficiently allow
for family and whānau involvement.
For example, many submitters in the ‘repeal and replace’ review of
the Mental
Health (Compulsory Treatment) Act 1992 (Mental Health Act) shared
that family and whānau are essential to the wellbeing of people
experiencing mental distress and hold significant knowledge and understanding of
their needs. We have heard that the formality of
many decision-making
arrangements, in particular the adversarial nature of the court system, can also
damage relationships.
- 6.17 We have
also heard that the law does not provide enough avenues for people to make
decisions collectively or together as a family
or whānau. This may be
particularly relevant for Māori and other cultures, where more collective
or group-based decision-making
arrangements may be preferred. The tikanga
principle of whanaungatanga, discussed in Chapter 5, may be particularly
relevant here.
- 6.18 It is
important to note that some people do not have positive relationships with all
their family or whānau or may not wish
them to be involved. This was raised
by submitters in the ‘repeal and replace’ review of the Mental
Health Act. While
we think the law should facilitate family and whānau
involvement in decision-making, individual preferences should also be respected.
Principle 6: the law should keep people safe from abuse and
neglect and promote accountability
- 6.19 We
think the law has a role to play in ensuring that people with affected
decision-making are safe from abuse and neglect. We
have heard that people with
affected decision-making can be vulnerable to abuse and neglect. This can
sometimes involve family and
whānau or people in their wider support
system. For example, a significant proportion of elder abuse cases involve
family members.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities requires that laws concerning affected decision-making provide
for
appropriate and effective safeguards against abuse.
- 6.20 The law can
also promote accountability. We have heard that it is important that people
involved in decision-making arrangements
are held accountable for doing things
properly.
- 6.21 We think
this principle will also allow us to think about safety more broadly. For
example, we have heard that those involved
in supporting a loved one with
affected decision-making do not always feel safe and supported in their role.
This principle could
also include concepts like cultural safety. This is the
concept of ensuring a service, like a health care service, reflects the cultural
values and practices of those using it.
Principle 7: the law should be accessible and strike an
appropriate balance between flexibility and certainty
- 6.22 We
think a legal framework for affected decision-making should be accessible. It is
important that people who are affected by
the law can access and understand it.
We have heard that people do not always understand what the law requires of them
or what they
may or may not do. We have also heard that legal processes can be
confusing to navigate.
- 6.23 The law
also needs to be responsive to the circumstances, values and cultural
considerations of the people interacting with it.
Affected decision-making laws
are relevant to a wide range of people in Aotearoa New Zealand, in all different
walks and stages of
life. We have heard that every experience is different. We
have also heard that people have different approaches and values when
it comes
to decision-making and how they want others to be involved. People can have very
different views about what ‘good’
decision-making looks like. For
all these reasons, we think the law will need to be flexible and avoid a
‘one-size-fits-all’
approach where possible.
- 6.24 However, we
will need to balance flexibility with certainty. We think it is important there
is clarity and transparency about
what the law
requires.
QUESTION 5
Do you agree with the seven guiding principles
we have developed? If not, what changes should we make?
|
CHAPTER 7
7 Decision-making arrangements
INTRODUCTION
- 7.1 When
a person’s decision-making is affected, the law can permit or require a
decision-making arrangement to be used for
some or all decisions. In this
chapter, we:
(a) Explain what we mean by ‘decision-making arrangement’.
(b) Discuss some different decision-making arrangements that are used in our law
or used in other countries’ laws. These are:
decision-making supporters,
advance directives, enduring powers of attorney and court ordered
decision-making. We also discuss the
idea of collective or group-based
decision-making arrangements.
(c) Discuss some ways the law might make decision-making arrangements work
better for people.
DECISION-MAKING ARRANGEMENTS
- 7.2 We
use the term ‘decision-making arrangement’ to mean a process or
arrangement that may be used when a person’s
decision-making is affected.
The arrangement determines or guides how others may be involved in the decisions
of a person with affected
decision-making.
- 7.3 Many
decision-making arrangements do not require the law to operate, such as when a
parent supports an adult child with affected
decision-making to make a decision.
Sometimes these informal arrangements will involve family, whanau and friends.
Other times they
may involve care workers. We do not think new law should
undermine any decision-making arrangements that are already working well.
- 7.4 However,
some of these informal decision-making arrangements may be improved by new law.
For example, a new law might enable a
decision-making supporter to be more
effective by giving them easier access to relevant information.
- 7.5 Other
decision-making arrangements can only be used if they are set out in law, such
as a welfare guardian.
- 7.6 In the rest
of this chapter, we discuss some decision-making arrangements that might be
improved by or included in law. These
are not the only decision-making
arrangements that could be included in our law, but they are some of the key
ones.
- 7.7 We think it
is likely our law will need to address a range of decision-making arrangements.
People’s decision-making can
be affected in a variety of ways, for
different amounts of time, and for different decisions. Not all decision-making
arrangements
will work for everyone and people may use different decision-making
arrangements for different decisions. A ‘one size fits
all’ approach
is unlikely to be appropriate.
DECISION-MAKING SUPPORTER
- 7.8 As
noted above, many people with affected decision-making are supported to make
decisions by other people, such as friends or
family members. We refer to these
arrangements as ‘decision-making support’ or use of a
‘decision-making supporter’.
- 7.9 Some of the
ways a person might support another person to make a decision are:
(a) Help the person to identify the decision that needs to be made. Sometimes
only one decision may need to be made. Sometimes there
may be more than one
decision.
(b) Identify and access any relevant information, or assist the supported person
to do this. Depending on the decision, this might
include information on the
person’s medical history or finances.
(c) Help the person to understand information about the decision. For example,
the supporter could help the person with online searches
or to work through a
document.
(d) Help the person to understand the consequences of the decision. For example,
it may be helpful to discuss options and outcomes
with the person and help them
explore what is most important to them.
(e) Help the person to communicate a decision, or even communicate the decision
for them. This might include writing the decision
down, discussing the next
steps, and working out whether anyone else needs to be involved.
- 7.10 We have
heard that decision-making supporters can be helpful. Many submitters in
Manatū Hauora | Ministry of Health’s
‘repeal and replace’
review of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992
(Mental Health Act) expressed
a preference for a system where people are
supported to make their own decisions. However, we have also heard that
sometimes providing
support can be difficult as supporters do not have legally
recognised powers or duties.
Hēmi is 25 years old. He likes watching football and playing
Minecraft. He wants a job where he can work with lots of other people. He
has a learning disability and lives at home with his mother.
Hēmi is offered a job at the supermarket near his house and his mum
helps him read through the employment agreement and accept
the job. Hēmi
needs to provide his employer with his bank account number. His mum rings up the
bank to get his bank account
details, but the bank will not provide her with the
information, saying it is Hēmi’s personal information.
|
What issues are we thinking about?
- 7.11 Decision-making
supporters are not formally recognised in law in Aotearoa New Zealand.
- 7.12 We are
thinking about whether and how the law in Aotearoa New Zealand could improve
decision-making support. One way decision-making
support could be improved by
legislation is to give decision-making supporters power to access relevant
personal information (subject
to appropriate confidentiality obligations). In
the Ministry of Health’s ‘repeal and replace’ review, many
submitters
said that, for support to be successful, whānau and family need
to have access to relevant information.
- 7.13 We are also
thinking about whether the law could clarify the scope and effect of a
decision-making support arrangement. There
may be cases where the role may need
to be limited or support has not been (or cannot be) used. Some questions we are
considering
are:
(a) How might a decision-making supporter provide support alongside other
decision-making arrangements?
(b) What should happen if a person would like a decision-making supporter, but
they do not have family, whānau or friends who
are able to assist them?
(c) Does the use of a decision-making supporter need to be limited in some
situations? What should happen if the person’s will
and preferences are
very difficult to work out or understand? What should happen if their proposed
decision could harm them or someone
else? Should the law require the supporter
to take an action (for example, seek to use a different decision-making
arrangement) or
not provide support in such cases?
(d) What happens if a person makes a decision, such as entering into a contract,
without the decision-making support they would otherwise
use. Does the law need
an ability to overturn the contract?
- 7.14 Some
countries have tried to make decision-making support easier by creating a role
of ‘formal decision-making supporter’.
This is a person legally
recognised as a person supporting someone with affected decision-making. We are
thinking about whether this
is something which would be useful for the law in
Aotearoa New Zealand to include and, if so, what it might look like. For
example,
should a formal decision-making supporter have any obligations? How
should a person with affected decision-making appoint a formal
decision-making
supporter? How might the role accommodate different cultural perspectives?
What is your experience with decision-making
supporters?
- 7.15 To
help us consider these issues, we are interested in your experiences with
decision-making supporters.
QUESTION 6
Has someone supported you to make a decision,
or have you been a decision-making supporter to someone with affected
decision-making?
If so, how well do you think that process worked? What could be
improved?
|
ADVANCE DIRECTIVES
- 7.16 Under
an advance directive, a person may decide, in advance, what they want to happen
when their decision-making is affected.
Advance directives are typically used
for health care decisions.
- 7.17 Advance
directives are sometimes used in Aotearoa New Zealand. However, their legal
status is unclear. It is uncertain when and
whether other people (such as
doctors) are required to follow
them.
Doug is in his mid-30s. He works at a bank and likes to play rugby in
his spare time. He has been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder.
A few years ago, he made a written advance directive about the treatment
he would, and would not, like to receive when he is experiencing
mental
distress. He has not reviewed the advance directive since it was written.
Doug becomes unwell and his decision-making becomes substantially
affected. His family tells the doctor that there is an advance directive
in
place and it must be followed. Doug says he no longer wants to follow the
advance directive. The doctor is uncertain about whether
the advance directive
should be followed, especially given it was made several years ago.
|
What issues are we thinking about?
- 7.18 As
noted above, the legal status of advance directives in Aotearoa New Zealand is
unclear. We will need to consider whether the
status and scope of advance
directives should be clarified in law.
- 7.19 Many
submitters to the Ministry of Health’s ‘repeal and replace’
review considered advance directives to be
useful and important. Concerns raised
included the absence of an easily accessible register of current advance
directives, and the
ability of clinicians and attorneys appointed under enduring
powers of attorney to override advance directives.
- 7.20 Other
issues we are thinking about are:
(a) How should a person make an advance directive? Should it be in writing?
Should they receive legal advice?
(b) What sorts of decisions can be covered by an advance directive? Should they
be limited to health care decisions or can they include
other types of
decisions? Are there some decisions that should not be made with an advance
directive, such as a decision under the
End of Life Choice Act 2019 (as is
currently the case)?
(c) What should happen if a person’s decision-making is substantially
affected when they make an advance directive? What should
happen if later, when
their decision-making is significantly affected, they want to change it or
decide differently?
(d) Should people, such as doctors, be required to follow an advance directive?
If so, what happens if the advance directive is 10
years old and the
person’s circumstances have significantly changed? What happens if it does
not specifically deal with the
situation at issue? If advance directives are not
binding, what effect should they have?
(e) When should an advance directive take effect? Typically, an advance
directive only becomes active once a person is assessed not
to have
decision-making capacity. However, there are possible variations on
this, including ‘self binding-directives’. These are similar to
advance directives
but operate in the mental health context. They do not require
a loss of decision-making capacity and instead apply during periods
of mental
distress that the person knows ahead of time can significantly affect their
behaviour and decision-making.
(f) How can advance directives be accessed when they are needed? Should there be
a central register?
What is your experience with advance directives?
- 7.21 To
help us consider these issues, we are interested in your experiences with
advance directives.
QUESTION 7
Have you experienced making, or been involved
in using, an advance directive? If so, how well did you think that process
worked? What
could be improved?
|
ENDURING POWERS OF ATTORNEY
- 7.22 An
enduring power of attorney (EPOA) is a decision-making arrangement where a
person (the donor) gives another person (the attorney)
the power to make a
decision or decisions for them in the future. The attorney’s powers
typically only begin once the donor
is assessed as not having decision-making
capacity. An EPOA can cover decisions about personal welfare or about
financial/property
matters.
- 7.23 EPOAs
currently are made possible by the Protection of Personal and Property Rights
Act 1988 (PPPR Act).
Priya is in her mid-60s and has just retired from being a school
teacher. She enjoys spending time in her garden.
She is planning ahead and decides she would like to give one of her
children the power to make personal and financial decisions for
her, if her
decision-making becomes seriously affected in the future.
Priya investigates how to make an EPOA and learns she needs a lawyer to
witness it. The last time she used a lawyer was when she bought
her house 20
years ago.
Priya contacts her lawyer and sets up her EPOA. It was a bit more
expensive than she was expecting, but she decides it was worth it.
Priya leaves
the original EPOA at the lawyer’s office, and takes a copy home and puts
it in a drawer in her desk.
|
What issues are we thinking about?
- 7.24 Some
issues we are thinking about are:
(a) How can the law ensure EPOAs are accessible? We have heard it is difficult
for service providers and professionals to find out
whether there is an EPOA in
place, who the attorney is and how to get hold of them. One way to resolve these
issues may be a register
of EPOAs.
(b) Can the process for creating an EPOA be improved? The current process for
creating an EPOA is formal and prescriptive. It must
be witnessed by a person
who must explain the effects of the EPOA and answer any questions. We have heard
that it is too expensive
and inaccessible for many people. We have also heard it
is difficult to change an EPOA easily if needed.
(c) Is there a way to ensure that EPOAs remain up-to-date and accurate? We have
heard that they are not often regularly reviewed
by donors.
(d) When should an EPOA come into effect? Should it come into effect when a
person is assessed not to have decision-making capacity?
Should some other
threshold be used?
(e) When an EPOA is activated, how should the attorney make decisions for the
donor? Currently, the paramount consideration of the
attorney is the promotion
and protection of the welfare and best interests of the donor or the best
interests of their property.
As far as practicable, the attorney must consult
with the donor. They are not required to follow any advance directive.
What is your experience with an enduring power of
attorney?
- 7.25 To
help us consider these issues, we are interested in your experiences with
enduring powers of attorney.
QUESTION 8
Have you made, or been involved in using, an
enduring power of attorney? If so, how well did you think that process worked?
What could
be improved?
|
MAKING DECISIONS FOR SOMEONE ELSE UNDER A COURT ORDER
- 7.26 Under
this type of arrangement, a decision is made for a person with affected
decision-making under a court order. This can occur
without the person’s
consent. Such processes can apply to a single decision or can be
ongoing.
Hēmi, who we met on page 38, has made a friend online. His friend is
older and lives in the United Kingdom. His friend has bought
him a ticket to
come and visit him. Hēmi’s mother does not find out about the
proposed trip until shortly before Hemi
is due to leave.
Hēmi’s mother is very concerned about his safety and applies to Te
Kōti Whānau | Family Court for an order that
Hēmi cannot leave
Aotearoa New Zealand. The Family Court is concerned it is unsafe for Hēmi
to go to the United Kingdom,
and decides it is in his best interests to remain
in the country. The Court makes an order that Hēmi cannot leave Aotearoa
New
Zealand.
|
- 7.27 Under our
current law, there are many decision-making arrangements where decisions are
made for someone under a court order.
Some examples include:
(a) An order under the PPPRA, such as an order that a person be given medical
advice or treatment, or not leave New Zealand. These
orders are made by Family
Court.
(b) The appointment of a person to make decisions for another person on an
ongoing basis. This could be for personal matters (a welfare
guardian) or
financial and property (a property manager). These orders are made by the Family
Court.
(c) An order for compulsory mental health treatment under the Mental Health Act.
These orders are made by the Family Court.
(d) An order for compulsory treatment for addiction under the Substance
Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017
(Substance Addiction
Act). These orders can be made by the Family Court or Te Kōti-ā-Rohe |
District Court.
- 7.28 With the
exception of the Mental Health Act, the orders require a finding that the person
lacks decision-making capacity. Under
the Mental Health Act, orders are only
made when a person has “an abnormal state of mind” that is of such a
degree that
it poses a serious danger and/or seriously diminishes their ability
to take care of themselves.
- 7.29 When a
decision is made for someone else, the decision is effectively guided by what
the decision-maker believes to be in the
person’s best interests. For
example, in the case of compulsory treatment for addiction, the person must have
a severe substance
addiction, compulsory treatment must be considered necessary,
and appropriate treatment must be available. When a welfare guardian
makes a
decision, their first and paramount consideration is promoting and protecting
the welfare and best interests of the person
for whom they are acting.
- 7.30 Determining
what is in a person’s best interests will often require consideration of
the views of the person affected and
their whānau. Some processes aim to
empower the affected person. For example, under the PPPR Act, a person acting as
a welfare
guardian must encourage the person with affected decision-making to
act on their own behalf to the extent possible. In addition,
some case law under
the PPPR Act has interpreted ‘best interests’ to include substantial
consideration of the person’s
will and preferences. Another example is the
Substance Addiction Act which provides the purpose of compulsory treatment is to
“protect
and enhance [the person’s] mana and dignity and restore
their capacity to make informed decisions about further treatment and
substance
use”.
What issues are we thinking about?
The key debate – should one person be able to make a
decision for another person?
- 7.31 There
is significant debate about whether someone should be able to make a decision
for a person with affected decision-making
under a court order. Much of the
debate is concerned with ‘hard’ cases, such as where:
(a) The person’s will and preferences are difficult to work out or
understand, even after all available support has been provided
and previously
expressed wishes have been identified. An example is where a person is in a coma
and does not have an advance directive
or whānau who know the
person’s preferences for medical treatment.
(b) The person’s decision could seriously harm them or someone else.
- 7.32 Article 12
of the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(Disability Convention) does not expressly
state whether the law can permit
someone to make a decision for someone else without their consent. However, it
does state that legal
measures should respect the rights, will and preferences
of the person and apply for the shortest time possible. Views on whether
the law
can permit one person to make a decision for someone else without their consent
therefore often depend on questions such
as:
- (a) When is a
person able to make a decision for someone else? Is it only in cases of last
resort? Against this, some people have
argued that it is very difficult to
ensure this only occurs in the most extreme cases. This is especially so if it
is quicker and
cheaper to appoint someone else to make the decision, rather than
support the person to make their own decision.
- (b) How should
the decision be made? There is a big difference between a simple
’objective best interests’ standard and
a standard that is required
to take proper account of, or reflect, the person’s rights, will and
preferences.
- (c) How long
can the intervention last? Attitudes to the possibility of short-term
’emergency’ interventions are likely
to be different to attitudes to
long-term ones.
- 7.33 The United
Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Committee) has
said it is not permissible to make an
objective ‘best interests’
decision for someone else. In its view, if it is not practicable to work out a
person’s
will and preferences, the best interpretation of a person’s
will and preferences must be used. Someone else will work out what
the person
would likely want based on what is already known about them, including
preferences, values, attitudes, any advance directive
(or other record of their
values and wishes) and any physical and verbal communications. This is sometimes
referred to as ‘facilitated
decision-making’.
- 7.34 Some
commentators disagree with the Committee’s approach. As explained in
Chapter 4, the concept of best interests is nuanced.
We have heard that it may
be better viewed as a framework or process for reaching a decision, where the
decision-maker is required
to consider several matters, including the views of
the person with affected decision-making.
- 7.35 In
addition, the Committee’s view does not expressly address what should
happen when a person’s decision could seriously
harm them or someone else.
Some people have told us the law should address situations where a person with
affected decision-making
wants to make a decision that places themselves or
someone else at risk of immediate serious or irrevocable harm. According to this
view, the law’s failure to respond in such situations would be
inconsistent with the human rights of the person (and potentially
others).
Article 12(4) of the Disability Convention does not just refer to the
“will and preferences” but to the “rights, will and
preferences” of the person.
- 7.36 If someone
is permitted to make a decision for another person, we have heard that great
care is required to ensure it is only
allowed in ‘serious’ cases. It
should not be used where the decision the person wants to make is simply seen by
someone
else as imprudent or risky. It is often said that a key purpose of
article 12 of the Disability Convention is to ensure the ‘dignity
of
risk’ – the right of disabled people to take risks in the same way
that everybody else can.
How is the debate relevant to our review?
- 7.37 In
light of that debate, we are thinking about several issues.
- 7.38 We need to
consider whether the law should ever permit someone to make a decision for a
person with affected decision-making,
including without that person’s
consent.
- 7.39 If so,
several other issues arise, such as:
(a) When should the law permit someone to make a decision for someone else?
Should it be when the person is assessed not to have
decision-making capacity?
Should it be because they or someone else is at risk of immediate harm? Should
another test be used?
(b) How should a decision be made? Should it be based on the person’s best
interests? If so, what account should be taken of
the person’s wishes?
Should the decision-maker be required to decide solely based on the
person’s will and preferences
(and what is known about their will and
preferences)? What if these appear to conflict with each other, or with the
person’s
rights? Should another standard be used?
(c) Who should authorise the decision? For example, should an order be made by
the Family Court or a specialist Tribunal? We have
heard that access to the
Family Court can be beyond the reach of many New Zealanders and not always
possible in urgent situations.
How long should the intervention last? Should it
be just for one decision or for multiple decisions? As noted above, article 12
of
the Disability Convention states any legal measures should be for the
shortest time possible.
(d) How can these arrangements accommodate different cultural perspectives?
What is your experience with court ordered
decisions?
- 7.40 To
help us consider these issues, we are interested in your experiences with court
ordered decisions.
QUESTION 9
Have you been involved in a process of making
decisions for someone else under a court order, or having decisions made for you
under
a court order? If so, how well did you think that process worked? What
could be improved?
|
COLLECTIVE DECISION-MAKING ARRANGEMENTS AND COLLECTIVE
DECISIONS
- 7.41 The
decision-making arrangements discussed above generally reflect
‘Western’ understandings of decision-making which
emphasise
individual freedom and see decision-making primarily as a question of individual
reasoning and thinking skills. However,
it is easy to imagine all the scenarios
in this chapter having significant impacts on the wider members of the
person’s family
or whānau. And, as discussed in Chapter 5, approaches
to decision-making in te ao Māori may be less focused on the individual
and
reflect a more collective perspective based on whakapapa and whanaungatanga.
Other cultures may also have a more collective approach.
- 7.42 As part of
our review, we are considering whether the law should allow people to approach
decision-making arrangements collectively
or as a group. For example, a
decision-making arrangement might allow multiple people to support a person to
make a decision. The
decision would still be made by the individual, but some or
all of their wider family, whānau and significant others may be
involved in
providing support. Alternatively, an advance directive might record a wish that
certain decisions are made after discussion
among the family or whānau and
that collective interests should be taken into account.
- 7.43 For some
people, a collective arrangement might enable more effective decision-making
support than using one decision-making
supporter. It might better reflect how
the person lives their life and avoid tensions in the wider group as to who
should be singled
out as the supporter.
- 7.44 Another way
a decision-making arrangement could be collective is by allowing the decision
itself to be made collectively. For
example, some overseas jurisdictions permit
an arrangement called ‘co-decision-making’. Under this arrangement,
a person
with affected decision-making has a ‘co-decision-maker’.
Decisions are made jointly by the person with affected decision-making
and the
co-decision-maker.
- 7.45 We have
also heard of interest, particularly amongst doctors, in models of ‘shared
decision-making’. This is where
a treatment decision is reached jointly,
based on conversations between the patient and doctor.
- 7.46 While
co-decision-making and shared decision-making focus on a decision made jointly
between two people, they could be adapted
to allow more than two people to make
the decision.
What issues are we thinking about?
- 7.47 Many
of the issues we are thinking about for decision-making support arrangements are
relevant here. Collective decisions also
raise additional issues, such as:
(a) Should a co-decision-maker owe obligations to the person with affected
decision-making? If so, what should they be?
(b) What should the decision-making ‘standard’ be? Should collective
decisions be reached based on the best interests
of the person with affected
decision-making, their will and preferences, or something else (for example, a
balance of the wishes
of the person and other members of the person’s
family, whānau and other group)?
(c) Can collective decisions be specified in an advance directive or similar
document?
(d) Should a co-decision-maker be liable to third parties for any decision made
collectively? If so, should that liability be the
same as the person with
affected decision-making or should it be different?
(e) How should disagreements be resolved? What happens if the joint
decision-makers do not reach consensus? Could a process for resolving
disagreements be addressed in an advance directive or similar document?
What is your experience with collective decisions and
decision-making arrangements?
- 7.48 To
help us consider these issues, we are interested in your experiences with
collective decisions and decision-making arrangements.
QUESTION 10
Do you think there should be more ways for
other people to be involved, in a more collective way, in decision-making
arrangements
when a person’s decision-making is affected? If so,
how?
|
OTHER DECISION-MAKING ARRANGEMENTS
- 7.49 We
have discussed some core decision-making arrangements above. However, there are
others, such as the ‘personal ombudsman
scheme’ in Sweden. Under
this scheme, people with affected decision-making can access a personal
ombudsman, who provides them
with professional decision-making and advocacy
support on an ongoing basis. We are interested to hear about any other
decision-making
arrangements you think we should be aware
of.
QUESTION 11
Do you think there are any other
decision-making arrangements we should explore? If so, what are they?
|
WHAT WOULD MAKE USING DECISION-MAKING ARRANGEMENTS
EASIER?
- 7.50 We
are also thinking about what could make decision-making arrangements easier or
more effective to use.
- 7.51 For
example:
(a) It may be helpful for a person with affected decision-making to write down
their personal beliefs and values or record how they
want people to communicate
with them. This could then be used by a decision-making supporter, to inform how
they support the person
to make a decision. An example of this is My Health
Passport developed by Te Toihau Hauora, Hauātanga | Health and Disability
Commissioner. My Health Passport contains information about how to communicate
with and support the person and can be taken along
to health and disability
services.
(b) Some decision-making arrangements may benefit from template documents. For
example, if a person is required to choose a decision-making
supporter and set
the boundaries of that arrangement in writing, it may be useful to have a
template support agreement.
(c) It may be helpful for people to receive guidance or training on what the
decision-making arrangements are and how they are used.
For example, it may be
useful for a decision-making supporter to receive training on the scope of the
role and ways to support a
person to make a decision.
(d) It may be helpful for some decision-making arrangements to be recorded in a
central register. We have heard that advance directives
and EPOAs can sometimes
be difficult to find when they need to be used.
(e) Decision-making is generally easier when the material relating to the
decision is provided in an accessible or easy to understand
way. Some
initiatives are already happening in this space. For example, the government has
introduced the Accessibility for New Zealanders
Bill which aims to provide a new
legislative framework for identifying, preventing and removing barriers to
participation for disabled
people, tāngata whaikaha Māori and others
with accessibility needs.
QUESTION 12
What things might make decision-making
arrangements easier or more effective?
|
CHAPTER 8
Safeguards and accountability
INTRODUCTION
- 8.1 Much
of the time, decision-making arrangements for a person with affected
decision-making work well. However, sometimes things
might go wrong or
people’s rights might need protecting.
- 8.2 We think the
law has a role to play in keeping people with affected decision-making safe from
abuse, neglect and being taken advantage
of. The law might also be used to
support others involved decision-making arrangements, such as decision-making
supporters.
- 8.3 Which
safeguards and accountability mechanisms are appropriate will depend on the
decision-making arrangement being used. Because
it is difficult to think about
safeguards and accountability mechanisms out of context, this chapter focuses on
five scenarios. The
scenarios are intended to help you think about which
safeguards and accountability mechanisms might be needed in different
situations.
SCENARIO ONE: THE ROLE OF A DECISION-MAKING SUPPORTER
Hēmi (who we
met in Chapter 7) has a learning disability and lives at home with his mum. His
mum now has control of his money
and how he spends it. Hēmi is getting
older and wants to make more decisions about his own life. She uses some of it
to cover
Hēmi’s house expenses and saves the rest for Hēmi.
Hēmi would like to have some more control over his money.
He would like to
buy some expensive Minecraft collectibles. His mum does not think this is
a good use of money and is worried about his budgeting skills. She is worried
that if
she gives more control to Hēmi he will not make
‘responsible’ decisions.
|
What safeguards and accountability mechanisms could be
useful in this scenario?
- 8.4 As
explained in Chapter 7, there is no specific legal framework for decision-making
supporters. This means that there are no specific
safeguard and accountability
mechanisms to manage difficult situations, such as when a person with affected
decision-making wants
to do something and their supporter disagrees.
- 8.5 Some ways
the law could provide safeguards and accountability mechanisms are:
(a) Formalising the relationship: The law could allow, or require,
the support relationship between Hēmi and his mum to be formalised and
recorded.
(b) Setting out duties: The law could set out duties or responsibilities
of decision-making supporters. For example, the law could require
Hēmi’s
mum to respect his will and preferences.
(c) Limits on the supporter: The law could place clear limits on what the
decision-making supporter can do. For example, the law could expressly prohibit
Hēmi’s
mum from making decisions on his behalf. It could also set out
a process for when the supporter has a conflict of interest in relation
to a
particular decision.
(d) Protection of personal information. If the law allowed a
decision-making supporter to access the personal information of the supported
person, the law might need to
place limits on the access and use of that
personal information. For example, the law might prevent a decision-making
supporter from
accessing the supported person’s personal information
without their knowledge or consent. It might prevent the decision-making
supporter from using that information for any purpose other than proving
support.
(e) Written agreement: The law could require a formal written support
agreement. This could ensure that Hēmi and his mum are clear on the scope
of the
relationship and there is something to refer to if there is uncertainty
or disagreement. The law might set out minimum requirements
for support
agreements or require them to be reviewed by a lawyer for the person with
affected decision-making.
(f) Independent body: The law could require the support relationship to
be disclosed or registered with an independent body. This could allow third
parties
to verify the relationship. The independent body could also have an
education and/or oversight role.
QUESTION 13
Do you think there needs to be safeguards or
accountability mechanisms when a person with affected decision-making has an
informal
decision-making supporter? If so, what should they be?
|
SCENARIO TWO: ENDURING POWERS OF ATTORNEY AND ELDER
ABUSE
Priya,
who we met in Chapter 7, is now in her mid-70s and lives alone. Under the
enduring power of attorney (EPOA) she made ten years
ago, she appointed one of
her adult children, Sam, as attorney for both her personal care and
property.
Priya is diagnosed with dementia and assessed as no longer having
decision-making capacity. The EPOA is activated, which means Sam
has power to
make decisions about Priya's personal care and welfare and property.
Sam moves in to live with Priya, rent free. All house expenses are coming out
of Priya’s bank account. Sam has been making a
lot of cash withdrawals,
which he says are for food, clothes and gifts for Priya, but there are no
receipts or records. Sam recently
bought himself a new car.
Sam’s siblings don’t know how Priya’s money is being spent,
but are concerned that she is not getting good care.
They are worried she is not
being properly fed and she is not allowed to leave the house.
|
What safeguards and accountability mechanisms could be
useful in this scenario?
- 8.6 Some
safeguards and accountability mechanisms for EPOAs already exist under the
Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act
1988 (PPPR Act). For example:
(a) There are strict requirements for making an EPOA. It must be in the
prescribed form and witnessed by an approved person, such
as a lawyer.
(b) Generally, an EPOA will only activate if a person is assessed as not having
decision-making capacity.
(c) When acting under an EPOA, the attorney’s paramount consideration is
to promote and protect the person’s welfare
and best interests (or to use
their property in the promotion and protection of their best interests).
(d) An attorney must keep records of each financial transaction.
(e) If an attorney is not acting in the donor’s best interest, or has
failed to comply with their other obligations, Te Kōti
Whānau | Family
Court may revoke their appointment.
- 8.7 It is not
clear how effective these mechanisms would be in this scenario.
- 8.8 We have been
told that applications to the Family Court can be expensive, time consuming, and
are not always able to be heard
promptly. In this case, Priya may be unaware of
how Sam is using her money and (given her dementia) is likely unable to access
the
court without support.
- 8.9 We have also
heard that there are insufficient monitoring processes for EPOAs. In
Priya’s scenario, Sam’s siblings
are concerned about Priya’s
welfare, but might not notice the potential misuse of Priya’s money. One
option might be
to have a specific oversight or complaints body, that could
monitor or investigate actions taken under EPOAs or respond to concerns.
Oversight may increase the likelihood of issues being identified proactively,
rather than reactively. Such a body could also have
an ongoing educative
function.
- 8.10 We have
also heard that a central register of EPOAs may assist with transparency of
actions taken by attorneys. A register may
be unlikely to help in Priya’s
scenario, but it would make interactions between third parties and attorneys
more
straightforward.
QUESTION 14
Do you think there needs to be safeguards or
accountability mechanisms when a person uses an enduring power of attorney? If
so, what
should they be?
|
SCENARIO THREE: MOVING TO A REST HOME OR CARE FACILITY
Linda
is in her mid-80s and has been diagnosed with dementia. She lives alone in the
family home as her husband died five years ago.
She has not made an enduring
power of attorney.
Her family is worried it is no longer safe for Linda to live at home. They
have come over multiple times to find the gas element left
on. Linda has also
started leaving her house and getting lost.
Linda’s family and clinicians decide Linda should be in a secure care
home environment. In practice, once in the rest home she
will not be able to
leave, and her personal choices will be limited. It appears the move to
the care home will be permanent. Linda indicates to family members that
she
would prefer to live at home, but does not strongly say no to the move.
|
What safeguards and accountability mechanisms would be
useful in this scenario?
- 8.11 Specific
safeguards and accountability mechanisms for Linda’s situation are missing
from our current law. There is no specific
legal process designed to approve
Linda’s move to the long-term residential care, nor any specific mechanism
for monitoring
her ongoing stay.
- 8.12 There have
been calls for Aotearoa New Zealand to fill this gap. Ways to do this might
include:
(a) A clear and straight-forward legal process that can be used to authorise a
move to long-term residential care. This could be
a specialist court or
tribunal, or an independent person.
(b) A process to monitor the continued stay in the care home.
(c) An independent oversight body, specifically established to monitor moves to
rest care facilities and investigate concerns.
QUESTION 15
Do you think there needs to be safeguards or
accountability mechanisms when a person moves to a rest home or care facility?
If so,
what should they be?
|
SCENARIO FOUR: WELFARE GUARDIAN’S DECISIONS MIGHT CAUSE
HARM
Deborah
lives with her aunt, Lucy, and their two cats. She has had a traumatic brain
injury and is assessed as not having decision-making
capacity for a wide range
of personal decisions. Lucy is appointed as a welfare guardian to make decisions
about Deborah’s
personal care and welfare.
Lucy often rejects medical advice about Deborah’s healthcare because
Lucy does not trust doctors. As a result of the traumatic
brain injury, Deborah
sometimes has seizures and they are becoming more frequent. The doctor advises
these can and should be treated
with medication. Lucy does not accept the
advice as she does not believe in medication. Lucy believes she can better
manage Deborah’s
seizures with natural remedies.
|
What safeguards and accountability mechanisms would be
useful in this scenario?
- 8.13 There
are some existing safeguards and accountability mechanisms for welfare guardians
under the PPPR Act. For example:
(a) A welfare guardian can only be appointed by the Family Court.
(b) The appointment of a welfare guardian must be reviewed at least every three
years by the Family Court.
(c) The welfare guardian’s first and paramount consideration is promoting
and protecting the person’s welfare and best
interests.
(d) Individual decisions made by welfare guardians may be challenged and
reviewed by the Family Court, as can the appointment of
the welfare guardian
itself.
- 8.14 It is not
clear how effective these mechanisms would be in a case such as Deborah’s.
There is no formal monitoring system
in place for welfare guardians. The primary
accountability mechanism is the Family Court which we have heard may not be
accessible
for some people. It is also a very formal response. Lucy may simply
require some education or training. However, a formal response
might still be
necessary if Lucy continues to ignore medical advice.
- 8.15 Ways of
providing improved safeguards or accountability could include:
(a) An oversight and complaints body, which could help identify and resolve any
issues that arise.
(b) Accessible education and training about the welfare guardian’s role
and powers.
(c) A requirement for welfare guardians to provide regular updates on the
exercise of their powers.
QUESTION 16
Do you think there needs to be safeguards or
accountability mechanisms if a person has a welfare guardian? If so, what should
they
be?
|
SCENARIO FIVE: SUPPORTING PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE SUPPORT
Alex
is looking after their elderly father, who has affected decision-making. Alex is
trying to support their father to make decisions
but finds the demands on them
exhausting. There is no other support within the extended family. Alex has a
very strained relationship
with their siblings, who constantly demand
explanations and regularly claim Alex is failing to provide proper care and
support. Alex
is also experiencing mental distress and is struggling to
cope.
|
What safeguards and accountability mechanisms would be
useful in this scenario?
- 8.16 We
have heard that the safety and wellbeing of decision-making supporters is
important in facilitating good outcomes for adult
decision-making – both
for the supporter, and for the person being supported.
- 8.17 Some
mechanisms that might assist in Alex’s situation include:
(a) Ensuring that legal frameworks consider or support the safety and wellbeing
of decision-making supporters and those they are
supporting.
(b) Easily accessible information and advice on the role of decision-making
supporter.
(c) Access to support services. It may be helpful for Alex to have a space to
raise concerns, explore options and seek guidance.
Other support, such as
counselling or respite care may be useful.
(d) An accessible resolution service. This could be used to resolve situations
where there are challenges or breakdowns in the relationship
between the
decision-making supporter and the supported person.
QUESTION 17
Do you think there needs to be safeguards or
accountability mechanisms to help supporters? If so, what should they be?
|
CHAPTER 9
Is there anything else you would like to tell
us?
- 9.1 The focus of
this paper has been on the big issues and principles that should inform our
review. We have asked several questions
about your experiences. We want to hear
about what currently works, and what could be done better.
- 9.2 However, how
the law should best address affected decision-making is a large and complex
question. There are many possibilities
and issues we have not been able to
address in this paper. That does not mean they are not important.
- 9.3 We want to
provide an opportunity for you to tell us anything else you think we should
know. Your input will help us make recommendations
on how the law should
approach adult decision-making.
- 9.4 We also want
to provide an opportunity for you to tell us how we could improve our
consultation process. We will have a second
round of consultation in 2023 and
your feedback will help us improve that process.
QUESTION 18
Is there anything else you would like to tell
us?
QUESTION 19
How easily could you access information about
the review and how to make a submission? What could we do better?
QUESTION 20
How easy did you find making a submission? What
could we do better?
|
APPENDIX 1
Acknowledgements
Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission gratefully acknowledges the
contributions of the people and organisations that have shaped
our Preliminary
Issues Paper, especially those individuals who have generously shared their
personal experiences with us.
We acknowledge the generous contributions and expertise from our Lived
Experience, Family, Whānau and Carers Expert Advisory
Group:
Jeanette Brunton, Gina Giordani, Matthew Innes, Cindy Johns, Kate Johns,
Wiremu Kohere, Lisa Martin, Sir Robert Martin, Fiona Parrant,
Gaylene Te
Rauna
We also acknowledge the generous contributions and expertise from our
Professional Expert Advisory Group:
Professor John Dawson, Alison Douglass, Dr Hinemoa Elder, Andrew Finnie, Dr
Mark Fisher, Associate Professor Dr Ben Gray, Dr Huhana
Hickey, Iris Reuvecamp,
Dr Jeanne Snelling
We acknowledge the individuals who attended our wānanga to share their
insights on adult decision-making in te ao Māori,
including Tai Ahu, Tamati
Cairns, Dr William Edwards, Dr Hinemoa Elder and Tā Hirini Mead.
Nō reira, ko tēnei mātou e mihi nei ki a koutou, kua whai
wā ki te āwhina i a mātou. Tēnā
koutou, tēnā
koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
We emphasise that the views expressed in this Preliminary Issues Paper are
those of the Commission and not necessarily those of the
people who have helped
us.
The Commissioner responsible for this project is Geof Shirtcliffe. The legal
and policy advisers who have worked on this paper are
Megan Rae, Sarah
Fairbrother, Rebecca Garden and Fiona Thorp. We thank Tai Ahu and Annelise
Samuels from Whāia Legal for their
considerable assistance, in particular
with Chapter 5. The law clerks who have worked on this paper are Georgia
Drummond and Jessica
MacPherson.
APPENDIX 2
Select bibliography
Below is a select bibliography. If you would like to learn more about the
laws we are reviewing, you may find these texts helpful.
AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND LEGISLATION AND BILLS
Accessibility
for New Zealanders Bill (153-1)
Health
and Disability Commissioner (Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers'
Rights) Regulations 1996
Human
Rights Act 1993
Mental
Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992
New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Protection
of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988
Substance
Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017
OVERSEAS LEGISLATION AND INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
Adult Guardianship and
Trusteeship Act 2008 (Alberta)
Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 (Ireland)
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2515 UNTS 3
Guardianship and Administration Act 2019 (Vic)
Legislative Review No 1384 (Peru)
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (UK)
CASES REFENCED IN THIS PAPER
Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis v the King [2022]
NZSC 114
NA v LO [2021] NZFC 7685
TEXTS AND COMMENTARY
Sylvia Bell and Warren J
Brookbanks Mental Health Law (3rd ed, Thomson Reuters, Wellington,
2017)
Sylvia Bell Protection of Personal and Property Rights: Act and
Analysis (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2017)
Richard Benton, Alex Frame and Paul Meredith Te Mātāpunenga: A
Compendium of References to the Concepts and Institutions of Māori
Customary Law (Victoria University Press, Wellington, 2013)
Alison Douglass Mental Capacity: Updating New Zealand’s Law and
Practice (Report for the New Zealand Law Foundation, Dunedin, July 2016)
Alison Douglass, Greg Young and John McMillan Assessment of Mental
Capacity: A New Zealand Guide for Doctors and Lawyers (Victoria University
of Wellington Press, Wellington, 2020)
Dr Mark Fisher and Janet Anderson-Bidois (eds) This is not my home
(New Zealand Human Rights Commission, Auckland, 2018)
Wayne Martin and others The Essex Autonomy Project: Three Jurisdictions
Report: Toward Compliance with CRPD Art. 12 in Capacity/Incapacity Legislation
across
the UK (Essex Autonomy Project, 2016)
Brigit Mirfin-Veitch Exploring Article 12 of the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: An Integrative Literature Review
(Donald Beasley Institute, Dunedin, 2016)
Iris Reuvecamp and John Dawson (eds) Mental Capacity Law in New
Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2019) 29
Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission Māori Custom and Values in
New Zealand Law (NZLC SP9, 2001)
Te Tari Mō Ngā Take Hauātanga | Office for Disability Issues New Zealand Disability Strategy 2016 - 2026 (Te Manatū
Whakahiato Ora | Ministry of Social Development, November 2016)
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
General Comment No 1 (2014): Article 12 – Equal recognition before the
law UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/1 (19 May 2014)
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of
New Zealand CRPD/C/NZL/CO/2-3
APPENDIX 3
Terms of reference
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Te Aka Matua o te Ture |
Law Commission (the Commission) will undertake a review of the law relating to
adult decision-making capacity.
THE CURRENT LAW
Under the current law,
if a person is assessed as wholly or partly lacking decision-making capacity,
their exercise of legal capacity
may be limited. So, if a person is assessed as
lacking the ability considered necessary to exercise legal rights and duties,
their
decisions may not be recognised as having legal effect. In these
circumstances, another person can be given authority to make decisions
on their
behalf. This is commonly referred to as substituted
decision-making.
The central statute that addresses adult decision-making capacity is the
Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1989 (PPPR
Act). Other law also
addresses issues to do with decision-making capacity. Together these cover a
wide variety of decisions we may
all face over the course of our
lives.
The current law regulating decision-making capacity affects a wide range of
adults. Those particularly affected include people with
dementia, people with
acquired brain injuries, people with neurodisabilities (including
learning/intellectual disabilities), people
with mental health needs and people
with other neurological or physical disability or health needs that affect their
decision-making
abilities. People sometimes fall into more than one of these
groups. A person’s decision-making abilities may be affected only
some of
the time, to differing degrees at different points in time or in relation to
different types of decisions. Further, experiences
of impairment are influenced
by societal barriers and, frequently, by multiple forms of discrimination (such
as race, gender and
sexual orientation).
SOCIETAL CHANGES AND THE NEED FOR REFORM
There have been
significant developments since the PPPR Act was passed over 30 years
ago.
Issues have arisen with the operation of the PPPR Act and other relevant law.
Societal attitudes about disability have also shifted,
and in 2008 Aotearoa New
Zealand ratified (committed to implementing) the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (Disability Convention). This has led to
recognition that there are barriers in our society that disable people, which
need to be removed to enable disabled people to participate equally in society.
In addition, as our population ages an increasing
proportion of New Zealanders
will require support to make decisions about their lives. These developments
have all contributed to
widespread calls for reform of the law in this
area.
Further, the PPPR Act may not be compatible with ao Māori perspectives,
te Tiriti o Waitangi | the Treaty of Waitangi and the
rights of tāngata
whaikaha Māori (Māori disabled people), their whānau, hapū,
and iwi.
The Disability Convention reaffirms existing human rights, the general human
rights principles of equality and non-discrimination,
and the specific right of
disabled people to enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis. This specific right
establishes obligations
on government to provide the support required for people
to exercise this right (commonly referred to as supported decision-making),
and
to provide associated safeguards. The Disability Convention also emphasises that
disabled people must be involved in the development
of law and policies that
affect them.
The Disability Convention guides the New Zealand Disability Strategy
2016-2026. The Strategy is guided by the principles of te Tiriti
o Waitangi, in
particular partnership, participation and protection. Ensuring that disabled
people are involved in decision-making
that impacts them is also a guiding
principle of the Strategy. In pursuing its vision of a non-disabling society,
the Strategy recognises
the need to provide appropriate support to those who
require it to communicate or make decisions. The Strategy also recognises the
need to put safeguards in place that protect disabled people in the exercise of
their rights, regardless of whether they need support
to make
decisions.
THE COMMISSION’S REVIEW
It is in this context
that the Commission will examine the law and associated practice relating to
adult decision-making capacity.
We will consider how issues relating to adult decision-making capacity should
be regulated in Aotearoa New Zealand. In particular,
we will consider whether
our law and practice strike an appropriate balance between:
- enabling people
to make decisions about their own lives (including with appropriate support from
whānau, family, carers and caregivers,
other professionals or the wider
community); and
- safeguarding
people from harm.
A NOTE ON LANGUAGE
The language we use
about disability is important. Some words are understood differently by
different people, there are differing
views around preferred language, and these
views may change over time.
The language used in our law will be part of our review and we will be
seeking disabled people’s views on this matter.
We acknowledge the status of te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language
as official languages of Aotearoa New Zealand and will
seek to use these
languages in appropriate ways in conducting our review.
SCOPE OF THE REVIEW
The review will include
(but not be limited to) consideration of:
- Ao Māori
perspectives on decision-making capacity and its regulation, including how the
law should address any matters of particular
concern to tāngata whaikaha
Māori, their whānau, hapū and iwi, and Māori more
generally.
- How the law
should recognise and provide for te Tiriti o Waitangi | the Treaty of
Waitangi.
- How the law
should protect and promote human rights, including consideration of:
- Aotearoa
New Zealand’s international human rights commitments, particularly under
the Disability Convention and the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples; and
- Domestic
human rights laws, particularly the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and
Human Rights Act 1993.
- The language
used in our law.
- How to assess a
person’s ability to make decisions about exercising legal rights and
duties.
- How the law
should facilitate and regulate the provision of support to people who require
support to be able to exercise legal capacity
on an equal
basis.
- How the law
should recognise the role of whānau, hapū and iwi, family, carers and
caregivers, and the wider community in
the provision of such support.
- How the law
should regulate the exercise of legal capacity in rare circumstances where
decisions may need to be made on behalf of
a person.
- What safeguards
the law should provide around measures relating to the exercise of legal
capacity.
- How the law
should regulate situations where people, whose ability to make decisions may be
limited, are deprived of their liberty
(other than in the context of criminal
proceedings).
The review will consider various
laws and legal instruments as they relate to the regulation of adult
decision-making capacity, and
how they interact.
In particular, this will include:
- Protection of
Personal and Property Rights Act 1988
- Mental Health
(Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992
- Substance
Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017
- Health and
Disability Commissioner Act 1994 and the Code of Health and Disability Services
Consumers’ Rights established under
that Act
We are
aware that the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and
the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment
and Treatment) Act 2017 are the
subject of separate reviews. We will consider these reviews and their
implications for our work.
The Commission will not review capacity under criminal law (which includes
the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation
Act 2003)), but
may however comment on the implications of our review for criminal
law.
Similarly, we will not review capacity in relation to children and young
people (as defined under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989), but
we may comment on
the implications of our review for children and young people, their families,
whānau, hapū and iwi, and
carers and caregivers, particularly as young
people transition into adulthood.
REVIEW PROCESS AND TIMING
In addition to the
Commission’s general commitment to consulting the public on our reviews,
the Disability Convention requires
that disabled people are involved in the
development of legislation and policies to implement the
Convention.
We will work with disabled people, tāngata whaikaha Māori, and
their representative organisations to facilitate accessible
consultation
processes and maximise the participation of those individuals and communities
most directly affected by the laws relating
to adult decision-making
capacity.
Engagement will also include a public consultation process in
2022.
People can subscribe to updates on this review, including opportunities to be
involved, on our webpage. Click here to
subscribe for updates.
The Commission launched its review with the publication of these Terms of
Reference in August 2021.
The Commission intends to report to the Minister Responsible for the Law
Commission, the Minister of Justice by the end of
2023.
October 2021
![2021_4903.png](2021_4903.png)
Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission is located at:
Level 9, Solnet House, 70 The Terrace, Wellington 6011
Postal address: PO Box 2590, Wellington 6140, Aotearoa New Zealand
Document Exchange Number: SP 23534
Telephone: 04 473 3453
Email: com@lawcom.govt.nz
- [1] John
Rangihau “Being Māori” in Michael King (ed) Te Ao Hurihuri:
The World Moves On – Aspects of Māoritanga (Hicks Smith &
Sons, Wellington, 1975) at 222.
- [2] Bishop
Manuhuia Bennett “Pū Wānanga Seminar” (presented with Te
Mātāhauariki Institute) as cited
in Richard Benton, Alex Frame and
Paul Meredith Te Mātāpunenga: A Compendium of References to the
Concepts and Institutions of Māori Customary Law (Victoria University
Press, Wellington, 2013) at 431.
- [3] Ellis
v the King [2022] NZSC 114, appendix “Statement of Tikanga” at
[30].
- [4] Cleve
Barlow Tikanga Whakaaro: Key concepts in Māori culture (Oxford
University Press, Melbourne, 1991) at 8.
- [5] Margaret
Dudley and others “Mate wareware: Understanding ‘dementia’
from a Māori perspective” (2019)
132 NZMJ 66 at 69.
- [6] Richard
Benton, Alex Frame and Paul Meredith Te Mātāpunenga: A Compendium
of References to the Concepts and Institutions of Māori Customary Law
(Victoria University Press, Wellington, 2013) at 154.
- [7] Māori
Marsden “God, Man and Universe: A Mäori View” in Michael King
(ed) Te Ao Hurihuri: The World Moves On – Aspects of
Māoritanga (Hicks Smith & Sons, Wellington, 1975) at 194.
- [8] Tākirirangi
Smith “He Ara Uru Ora: Traditional Māori understandings of trauma and
well-being” (Te Atawhai o
Te Ao, Whanganui, 2019) at 3.
- [9] Tākirirangi
Smith “He Ara Uru Ora: Traditional Māori understandings of trauma and
well-being” (Te Atawhai o
Te Ao, Whanganui, 2019) at 4.
- [10] Hinemoa
Elder “Te Puna a Hinengaro: he Tirohanga ki a Āheinga The Wellspring
of Mind: Reflections on Capacity from a Māori
Perspective in Iris Reuvecamp
and John Dawson (eds) Mental Capacity Law in New Zealand (Thomson
Reuters, Wellington, 2019) 29 at 32.
- [11] Hinemoa
Elder “Te Puna a Hinengaro: He Tirohanga ki a Āheinga: The Wellspring
of Mind: Reflections on Capacity from a
Māori Perspective” in Iris
Reuvecamp and John Dawson Mental Capacity Law in New Zealand, at 33,
citing Mason Durie “Is there a distinctive Māori psychology?”
(paper presented to the National Māori
Graduates of Psychology Symposium,
Hamilton, 2002).
- [12] Louise
Ihimaera “He Ara ki te Ao Mārama: A pathway to understanding the
facilitation of taha wairua in mental health services”
(MA theses, Massey
University Palmerston North, 2004) at 108.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/lawreform/NZLCIP/2021/49.html