O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. Look actually firstly I would really encourage the Minister to respond to what I thought was—Andrew Bayly: And the Government members.SIMON O'CONNOR: I'll take the speech here Mr Bayly. In an earlier call I was asking the Minister quite a serious range of questions around the whole alcohol and drug element. I don't intend to rehash that in any way but I would really encourage the Minister to respond to that. I know one can always look at things frivolously or interpret what is being done in the committee stage as frivolous but actually it's relatively important to make clear that when we are referencing new legislation—in this case the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act of 2017—that's being done appropriately. And without belabouring the point and trying to make it too heavy if we get that wrong then we're not fulfilling the correct duty of care for those under the control of the Crown. And again fundamentally Minister if it helps it's around the clarity of dates because this new Act—this compulsory Act—does not come into effect for a whole year; so in other words parts of the Act are not effective at the moment. Secondly it is for people with the absolute highest issues of alcoholism; therefore does it encompass all people?I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It's around a tabled amendment that I'm attempting to table. Am I able to seek if that's valid now or not—whether I can speak to it?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You can speak to it while they're still considering whether it's valid. Go for it!SIMON O'CONNOR: Marvellous! The philosopher in me loves those distinctions. Marvellous!Look I would like to talk fortunately not in Greek and Latin to a tabled amendment fresh potentially on the Table—so fresh my hands are burning. It's a suggestion to insert new clause 213(a) and it's to do with factors that affect eligibility—in this particular regard to the Minister—around the child disability allowance.It may not be well known to this House: generally speaking when people are in the armed forces and are serving the Realm of New Zealand here in New Zealand if one of their children is receiving a child disability allowance all is fine—or to use the colloquial all is tickety-boo. However as you might imagine if someone is going off to serve the Realm overseas they lose access to the child disability allowance. And that makes sense because if like myself and others you've been in Iraq and Afghanistan you're not taking your children with you. The issue though Minister—and it's something I've raised in this House unsuccessfully for seven years and I think there's an opportunity here; I believe it would be policy-neutral because it would get the support of the House—is in those relatively rare circumstances where a serving military officer who has a child who is accessing the child disability allowance at the moment their eligibility is curtailed when they leave the Realm. However think of the circumstance for an example where a military officer is dispatched to be a military attaché in one of New Zealand's embassies and as you might expect takes their children; they should be able I would suggest and it's through this amendment to continue being eligible for the child disability allowance.So in this Part 4 a new clause 213(a) that I am suggesting is to put a factor of eligibility that serving the Realm in a military capacity overseas enables them to still maintain and retain the child disability allowance. I really need to stress it's in very particular cases. We're not advocating here that all our serving personnel in the likes of the Sinai in East Timor up on the North Korea - South Korea border in Iraq and Afghanistan—that our soldiers serving overseas—are to be taking their families; we're talking about very particular cases. So really we're coming back down to those who are at our embassies and those who are serving overseas in situations where they take their family.I suppose the fundamental principle behind this is equity and fairness. Fundamentally what it's about is that if he or she has signed up has taken the Queen's coin and is serving the Realm they shouldn't lose entitlement because of that service. And I suppose that's the fundamental issue here that we have around eligibility and criteria in Part 4: that in effect these men and women who are serving the Realm who are overseas with their children are being affected and are losing that entitlement. And it just doesn't seem particularly fair to me that they should be.I think really importantly as well this is not an unusual provision as far as I understand things. This is not completely unusual; it is very particular to the defence forces—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You need to sign your Supplementary Order Paper.SIMON O'CONNOR: Fundamentally at the moment people who are in the foreign service and in the police I understand still keep their entitlement when they are serving overseas. It affects just our defence force members. So this is a situation—and perhaps an example helps illustrate this—where a constituent of mine a number of years ago who has served the Realm with distinction has come in has a child affected with a disability has been rightly and thanks to the Government regardless of political colour receiving that benefit but at the moment that he and his family were deployed to one of our overseas missions he was put at a disadvantage—he his wife and in particular his child. He lost this entitlement. It was a factor affecting the benefit as is fitting of Part 4. It was a factor which has seen that he is at a disadvantage—his family's at a disadvantage—because of the service he's giving. And I just think fundamentally that's a flaw. I think it's actually where the House can come together at its best and strongest when actually we're just acknowledging that yes the law over time has just had a few problems that need tidying up. And I think this is an excellent case in point. It will Minister I suggest affect only the defence force. This will be probably they suggest to me no more than 10 people a year—if we're lucky. In fact as my current research indicates and by current I mean just now"—this is something I'm also seeking to introduce as a member's bill; in fact it sits in the ballot at the moment—we've probably only got about two people in this space at the moment overseas.So in terms of what we can achieve here in Part 4 we can go through as we rightly have done looking at all the entitlements we've got from insurance recovery to failure to assist child support. We've got hospitalisation. We've got alcohol and drug treatment. I suppose it's a plaintive plea—an alliterative plaintive plea—that we do look at this very small element to do with our defence forces. We may well be able to look—and Minister your officials may well be able to look—over the course of tonight at how that's already affecting those within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; how it's affecting the police. In fact if they are for some reason against the advice that I've been given not included then perhaps they should be included as well. It's not going to have a major impact on the policy-neutral elements that have been suggested because it's such a small amount of money in and of itself when one thinks of the child benefit and in total it's a very small number of people who are going to be affected. But as I say it's a situation that has arisen directly out of a constituent query to me. It's something that I will continue to pursue.I do understand the Minister's intention; it has been mentioned to us many times in this regard: that this bill is seeking to be policy-neutral and not trying to put anything in that's too problematic. I think twofold—one this is not going to have a major financial impact although will benefit and be gratefully received by those who again serve the country but secondly I think it will be neutral in so far as I would hope every member of this House would support it.So to wrap up where these contributions have gone working backwards fundamentally the new tabled amendment seeks that the eligibility criteria for our defence force personnel serving overseas—usually in a military or a defence attaché role—with their children do not have as a factor affecting their benefit that service overseas; that in effect they continue to receive the child disability allowance; and that they continue to receive all that they would if they were in the Realm. It's not able to go into the tabled amendment but the factor is that a lot of New Zealand embassies are effectively New Zealand land. I know there's a distinction between who owns the land but it's seen as New Zealand property so that may help us conceptualise it.The final point is really just an encouragement if possible Minister to address my earlier questions around the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction. Fundamentally in swapping out those two older bills as tempting as it was with the new one is that new bill actually in effect? I can tell you as the former chair of the Health Committee and reading the bill it is not. And secondly will this provide the appropriate duty of care required?So look that's where I'll end those contributions.Hon Members: Hooray!SIMON O'CONNOR: It may be a relief to the Minister—and probably to Mr McNulty—Kieran McAnulty: McAnultySIMON O'CONNOR: —that on this Part 4 I have given now all four speeches. But the more he interjects the more I may need to—no only kidding.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): If that seemed longer than five minutes it was indeed. I'm sorry I do apologise. We forgot to set the clock."