O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh! Makes a change Alfred. Hey thank you very much. Look two things need to be very quickly noted to the Minister who's just resumed her chair—and thank you for her response to Simeon Brown. Mr Brown was referring to clause 203 which sits within Part 4. I think it's incorrect to be suggesting that his discussion about the General rule: benefit not payable while beneficiary absent from New Zealand" is out of scope. That isn't correct nor is it out of part.Secondly as my contribution will indicate there's more to Part 4 in terms of changes than simply the two that the Minister has pointed out. I'll be tabling a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOP)—and I know that other colleagues are at the moment—around this.So I want to spend a little bit of time if I might in Part 4 on clause 192 just to help the Minister there—192 in Part 4 before clause 203 which is also in Part 4. This is to do with the "Beneficiary resident in institution for treatment of alcoholism or drug addiction".Hon Member: Is it the AA eh?SIMON O'CONNOR: So it's not the AA eh which is referred to earlier by Christopher Penk. What is important is that the changes being made—and I suppose I'm just wanting to seek some clarity from the Minister which may take the time over the dinner break—is they have removed in the SOP the reference to the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 and also reference to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and to replace it which I think is well-meaning with the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017. I think the intention of the Minister is obviously to apply what is seen as a more updated Act in this space. I am wondering as the former chair of the Health Committee who stewarded the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill through the House that there may be at least two misunderstandings at play that would require some alteration. So I have SOP 34 tabled at the moment which is suggesting we go back to the original wording. That is that we have clause 192 referencing the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 and the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. It's possible that a further SOP might be needed in order to make sure we can bring in the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017. As I say there are two important factors which need to be addressed. One is timing of the substance addiction Act of 2017. The second is a fuller understanding of—The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member the time has come for me to leave the chair for the dinner break. Committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Colleagues the House is resumed in committee for the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. Before the dinner break we were debating Part 4. Simon O'Connor had the call and he has two minutes and two seconds remaining.SIMON O'CONNOR: I'll take it.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Simon O'Connor.SIMON O'CONNOR: Thank you very much. I'm not sure that'll be the best decision of the night but I'm pleased you have.I was talking on Part 4 clause 192(3) in particular. It was around the decision of the Minister to change references to the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 and the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and to instead replace it with the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017. And I was signalling to the Minister in the chair Carmel Sepuloni before the bell rang that I had two particular issues to raise. None is particularly political; it's more just trying to get an understanding of whether the right decision has been made about bringing this more recent legislation in.I suspect it is simply a belief that this new substance addiction Act of 2017 is more timely and therefore will help around the treatment of alcoholism or drug addiction but the two elements are to do with the dates—particularly when the substance addiction Act comes into force and the second is around whether or not that new legislation is broad enough for actually the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction.You'll excuse me Madam Chair as I attempt to pull up hopefully still my notes—there we go. So the first element around this new bill is the timing. So I wouldn't mind the Minister clarifying if they can. The Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act was something that had come through the Health Committee when I was chair and very importantly a number of elements of that legislation to do with the treatment around drug and alcohol actually do not come into force until at least a year after Royal assent is given.So we're now switching to the legislation that's referenced here—the substance addiction Act. The commencement date says "this Act comes into force on the day that is the first anniversary of the date on which it receives the Royal assent." So I suppose what I would like some clarification from the Minister or her officials on if possible is just a complete understanding that while rightly including the substance addiction Act of 2017 into this amendment many parts of it Minister are actually not in play at the moment. They're not actually in force.Some sections are. Sections 4 and 86 through to 96 along with sections 116—[Bell rung] Thank you very much. So some parts of this substance addiction Act are in force but a goodly number are still not in force. So I suppose I think we want to avoid a situation where through this social legislation rewrite bill we're not referencing or an Act now which is not in force. And fundamentally and I think rightly we're here to try and treat those with alcohol and drug problems; you can't fully do that—or someone can't fully do that—under an Act which is not fully in force.The second element moves away from the date per se but to the nature of what this substance addiction Act is in comparison to the drug addiction Act of 1966. I think it's really important to understand—and I'm very happy to be corrected on this—the substance addiction bill this Parliament passed is for the absolute top-end addicts. This is not an Act which is designed to help all people with drug and alcohol problems and this is where I think we're running into slight problems potentially.The social rewrite bill is using that substance addiction Act in terms of how we treat alcoholism and drugs. It is only designed as a piece of law to affect the absolute highest end drug addiction. We're not talking the alcoholic or the drug addict who goes to Alcoholics Anonymous or something. We're talking about if I might someone who has neuroadaptation to the substance. This means someone whose brain chemistry has been so affected by alcohol that they can no longer function. They're craving for a substance have had multiple unsuccessful efforts to control that substance and importantly out of the Act use the substance despite several harmful consequences.What we're talking about here Minister—and you may well know it already so I'm sorry to be presumptuous—is someone with such an alcohol or drug dependency that they have literally fallen down the stairs multiple times multiple fractures and are continuing to try and get alcohol. So I suppose what I'm highlighting to the committee is that it's good that it's been mentioned—the substance addiction Act here in the social rewrite bill in clause 192—but it's only aimed at looking after a very small very particular group of people. So perhaps if I put it another way the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act is very broad. It provides and manifests ways to help people with those addictions right across the panoply of care whereas the substance addiction one that has now been inserted does not. It is only focusing on a very narrow—very narrow—group of people.And finally which I think is important—well actually it's the third one that's jumped to mind. A lot of it's actually about the detaining of people. The whole point of this substance addiction Act 2017 is to effectively detain a person who has such a high level of alcohol and drug abuse. I don't think that's the intended aspect of this social security rewrite bill. I don't think the Minister or anyone is actually wanting that those coming to the Ministry of Social Development who are getting treatment for alcohol and drugs are going to be subject to that sort of high-level treatment.So fundamentally it's asking: why are we putting that particular Act in place? Why are we not keeping to the more general Act of 1966 around alcohol and drug harm? I think that's the general question. Then the specific questions in three parts are the dates and an appreciation that many elements of the substance addiction Act are not yet in force. They will become in force probably in about—what are we in at the moment? July—probably in September or October this year. I assume we might be up to about Part 7 of this rewrite bill by then but I think it's important that it's in play.The second part of it is ultimately an appreciation that the substance addiction Act is not for all alcoholics and drug users; it's for that absolute high end—I probably could count Minister on two hands the number of people who fall within the ambit of that legislation.And then finally an appreciation that even if it's correct to have that Act referenced here instead of the drug addiction Act it's about detaining New Zealanders in some ways and it's something that the Health Committee really spent a lot of time over. It's about detaining people in a sense against their will. So it doesn't to me quite fit here in section 192—that swapping out. I could imagine it would be part of it but not a complete—[Time expired]"