Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak to this the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill which as has been noted replaces the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 (ADA). Fundamentally what this bill deals with is the compulsory treatment of people suffering from drug and alcohol addiction. As has been noted the current Act is 50 years old and it no longer reflects modern views of human rights and modern treatment. We had 39 submissions to the Health Committee including from the Addiction Practitioners' Association Aotearoa New Zealand the Human Rights Commission and the New Zealand Law Society and from clinical groups the New Zealand Medical Association the National Nursing Organisation and the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners. There were four key themes from submitters. The first was that the majority supported a need for review and repeal of the ADA. The second concern was that maybe the compulsory treatment criteria were too broad. Those criteria hinge around clause 7 which states: (a) the person has a severe substance addiction; and (b) the person's capacity to make informed decisions about treatment for that addiction is severely impaired;". A response to that—there are several things. First of all the definition of "severe substance addiction" is only one factor in determining eligibility for treatment under the legislation. The definition of a disorder for the purpose of legislation is not the same as that required for diagnosis and can be qualified with other features or criteria such as harm to self or impairment of capacity. So we can bring down that concern around broad scope by our definition around diagnosis. I think secondly the definition that sits in clause 7(a) and (b) and in clauses 8 and 9 is also consistent with other health and disability legislation. The third concern was around rights and protections. The concern was that the bill be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and that it should also respect human dignity and fundamental rights and this has been brought in with the drafting. The fourth concern as the honourable member was just talking about was about implementation and particularly capacity and workforce. There are currently 80 people a year who receive compulsory treatment orders and the expectation is that will go up to 200. You would have to ask why. Are we going to find another 120 a year? Well it turns out the advice we have had is that the current Act is either unclear to practitioners or it is not considered fit for purpose so people are making other alternatives. This bill is likely to be more suitable so the numbers will go up to 200. How will we cope with those 200 people? I think some of the concerns that have been raised are addressed by the advice that we have. Firstly the treatment workload will be spread throughout the country rather than to a few institutions. Under the current Act the vast majority of patients are sent to the 47 beds at Nova Trust in Christchurch. So only a few organisations may take the greater part of this load. Secondly the length of the committal period will shorten significantly. Under the current Act up to 2 years can serve as a committal period. This is being looked at at 8 weeks with maybe an 8-week extension so it comes down substantially. I think the third factor that is useful is that we had a lot of people support this bill and say to us that yes it is really going to advance the cause of those people who suffer from severe addiction and severe addiction disorders. As always this bill is improved by submitters whom we thank and I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time."