O'Connor Simon: Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9705. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call on this first reading of the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill. I want to thank the Associate Minister for introducing it into the House. I think it is just another example of this Government’s good work in this space and there is a lot of work going on. This basically fits in a broader context with the Government’s Methamphetamine Action Plan amongst other things in basically working in the space of mental health and with a particular focus on youth. I think also it touches on some of the wider areas that the Minister himself is leading around work-drug control. So again thanks to the Minister for that.I think the Health Committee is looking forward to taking the bill and to teasing it out. It is quite a complex bill. I would not say “complicated” but it is a complex bill. There are a number of elements to it and probably the two that create the major tension are ultimately the desire to help and serve a particular individual or individuals but importantly to balance that with their rights.I was not pleased—well I was going to say “disappointed”. Actually let us start with the positive. I was pleased to hear that the Labour Party is supporting this bill at the first reading and I am hoping that other parties in the House—New Zealand First and the Greens—will be doing the same so that we can tease this out.I have to say for the record that I became a little bit disappointed but not completely surprised that the particular points of this bill were then taken to basically start a whole lot of predictable clichés attacking the Government in the area of health.Hon Ruth Dyson: What were they again?SIMON O’CONNOR: Well there is no point in actually putting them out again because they are all sort of falsities. And the fact that the Opposition just continues to put them out time and time again—it is that sort of old axiom that if you say it long enough people might believe it. The only problem we have is that when I am in my own electorate and around the country people are actually very grateful for the work that this Government is doing in the health sector and there is nothing like results to prove that.Sue Moroney: How patronising.SIMON O’CONNOR: See here we go again. We have been accused now of being patronising. You see it is just that classic ad hominem emotional attack without any facts going right back—Sue Moroney: Ha ha!SIMON O’CONNOR: And now they are laughing again. It is just so predictable really. I tell you what.Had I studied psychology I could have done multiple theses on these people.Hon Member: Theses?SIMON O’CONNOR: Theses—it is the plural of thesis. Gosh we really do need to do more work on Latin declensions here!We have a very good story to tell in the health space. We have increased the health budget now to $15.9 billion. The health budget is increasing. The attempts to jump through hoops and spin things that there is actually somehow a decrease basically falters very fast in the face of the facts.Hon David Cunliffe: Except for inflation.SIMON O’CONNOR: Here we go. Now we have got a little bit of alliteration thrown in there as well. Importantly in this particular context the funding for mental health has actually gone up from about $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion. Really important and a fact that the Opposition particularly Labour at this point has forgotten is that the whole point of district health boards in the way that they are structured is for them to choose how they want to allocate moneys to support people in their area. I think as a Government we are very supportive of that and we heard that through the district health boards as they came before the select committee. They are making choices all the time on behalf of their communities. So where there may be areas where we need more support in substance addiction I have every confidence that they will do so.I am quite interested in this bill from a personal point of view as well. It goes back a few years but I used to work in an addiction centre a drop-in centre in King’s Cross in Sydney of all places. It was a real eye-opener to understand that addiction particularly around drugs and alcohol is a disease. This is something that all people in many ways do not choose. The devastation that can bring not only to the individual but to the family and the wider community was very clear to me day after day week after week working with these people.One of the things I found working at this centre is how profoundly human those suffering this disease and addiction are. I mention that because it is all very easy to sort of put it outside or to demonise them stigmatise them and so forth. But actually they are human beings like you and me but they have their problems. And we as a society have to choose how to engage appropriately and I would stress proportionately. I think that is what this bill ultimately does.So if someone has an addiction—alcohol is the one that jumps to mind but of course various forms of drugs—how do we respond proportionately as a society to help them? Because by and large they do want help. That has certainly been my experience. A big part of that is to try to work alongside them to bring them to that situation themselves where they can understand what is occurring and to enable the help to be given in a way that enables them to release from the addiction from the disease.In most cases that is voluntary—it is voluntary—and those who understand they have a problem and need assistance will get the best results. But as we heard from the Minister there are a very small number of people in society who will never voluntarily seek help and of fundamental importance their level of addiction their substance addiction is so strong and so high that it is causing them immense harm. Importantly I want to stress again the addiction not only causes them harm but it has been very clear to me over the years from that experience in Sydney or in other places here in New Zealand that it has an immediate and profound impact on the family the whānau and the wider community. This is not something that is ever isolated and therefore we as a community have a duty—I would argue a moral duty—to step in and assist in these rare cases.So again this is not compulsory for all people by any means. It is for a very limited number. If you will excuse me for reading out a couple of my notes here—there are four elements within the purpose of the bill to describe when it is required. Of these four two are needed is my understanding. So the first test if you will is if someone has a neuro-adaptation to the substance. For those who do not know what a neuro-adaptation is basically it is when your body compensates for the presence of that particular chemical or substance and enables you to function quite normally. It is not quite at this level but we often talk about high-functioning alcoholics. They can knock back an incredible amount of booze or others smoke various substances or inject but somehow they are able to keep on functioning and working and you do not know how. That is neuro-adaptation: the body is able to compensate. So if the doctors and clinicians can see that this is at work that is one of the conditions.The other is quite broad of course. It is craving for the substance. That makes a lot of sense. The third one is unsuccessful efforts to control the use of the substance. And the fourth one is the use of the substance despite harmful consequences. It is those last two for me that really typify the point of this bill. If someone is unsuccessful they have tried to treat or have had someone attempt to give them treatment and they refuse it and the continuation of the substance abuse is leading to harm to themselves we as a society need to step in.The bill as outlined provides basically a whole range of steps which the committee will look at further as to how we begin to assist someone. But that brings me back to the first point that this is really balancing two needs: obviously the desire to help a particular person but also to work to protect their rights. From my first look over the bill I think we have got most of that in a very good space but I am looking forward to having it in front of the committee again—I am trusting and hoping—with unanimous support and to tease it out and to bring it back to the House in very good condition. So again thanks to the members and to the Minister.