Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well it's a real pleasure to stand and speak in support of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill in this second reading. I had the privilege of sitting on the Health Committee listening to the submissions reading the submissions—the 53 submissions—and listening to the oral evidence given by 15 submitters here in Wellington and by video conference. There were both organisations submitting but also individuals such as the submission that the speaker from the other side of the House quoted from and they were heartfelt submissions and very sobering submissions that made us realise just how important this work is that we do here.So this bill has three main parts to it as the speaker before me Dr Tracey McLellan touched on: eliminating the indefinite treatment orders; and secondly minimising the risk of harm to patient or public when transporting forensic patients who are special patients as defined under the Act; and also an amendment to the audiovisual link and that carries on from what appeared to be successful use of audiovisual technology in the COVID-19 response in 2020. I'd like to also acknowledge the officials that were involved in these amendments: the Director of Mental Health and his team. I'd have to say they were incredibly respectful and incredibly generous in their time that they gave us talking through how things operated. I was enormously impressed with how they dealt with us in the select committee and also with the issues that were brought up by the submitters so I absolutely want to acknowledge them.As the previous speaker said the indefinite treatment orders were an issue that many wanted to submit on. One of the submitters criticised the indefinite treatment orders as a breach of human rights; and indeed at a very individual level we can tell from the submission that the member from the other side of the House read out how incredibly difficult it is for individuals that are under one of these orders. So it really is life-changing for a number of these people. There were some submissions about the length of time to review the compulsory treatment orders at the end of each 12 month period for the duration of the order. Some submitters thought that perhaps six-monthly would be more appropriate but on balance we stuck with the 12 month review period but we thank those that took the time to explain why they thought perhaps the six months might be more appropriate. The bill seeks to minimise the risk of harm to the patient and public and also the staff that are involved in transporting patients. This is a very sensitive area where obviously we want to ensure that the minimum of restraint is used that is necessary but there are times when forms of restraint have to be used both for the patient's safety and also for the safety of staff and public. So this was a welcome change in the bill.The audiovisual link amendment was one that exercised quite a lot of discussion. It's interesting how things have changed since COVID. Things that we might never have considered appropriate by video conference have now become mainstream and the audiovisual link submissions talked about the concern around whether this might become the default position and whether there might be a temptation to just always think that that is the mode that should be used. And while we acknowledged and many of the submitters acknowledged how valuable it might be for family members or caregivers of a patient to be able to be present by audio or video link they wanted to be sure that it would be done with the preference and best interests of the patient or the proposed patient and in a manner which removed barriers for in-person attendance in a way that was productive rather than restrictive. So we were very pleased that we were able to debate that.I would like to read from one of the submissions. This person said As someone who has been admitted to three psychiatric hospitals during my youth I feel like my comments and recommendations here may be of use" and they certainly were. "I definitely agree with having someone there that is familiar with you and your life when the mental health assessment is read out." He goes on to say "someone familiar should be invited to listen and support the patient receiving care. I had no familiar face or even a familiar voice when I was admitted to any of the psychiatric hospitals I've been to". And so if the use of audiovisual equipment enables much better support for the patient then of course we should be trying to adopt that technology.The amendment to the bill comes within a broader setting of the work programme to repeal and replace the Mental Health Act and many of the submitters commented on that. Many of the submitters commented on their concern that perhaps they didn't see the context of these bill amendments within the wider repeal that was occurring. Some submitters were concerned at the time that was being taken for that full and wider repeal and replacement of the Mental Health Act to occur. And so we need to be very mindful that while many of the submitters were pleased to see these amendments they were also eager and in fact quite forceful in their encouragement that this wider repeal and replacement of the Mental Health Act should occur. Perhaps just turning our minds to more general thoughts around the mental health of New Zealanders—we know what an incredibly important issue this is for us. Certainly Mental Health Awareness Week brings that to the fore but the fact that we are in COVID lockdowns again also brings it to the fore. We are seeing skyrocketing numbers of at-risk New Zealanders who are finding it increasingly hard and difficult to get the support they need from mental health services. We know that waiting times for children to access services have ballooned. The number of children having to wait over two months to see a counsellor has almost doubled in the past three years. The Government came to power promising great things around mental health around child poverty and around housing and you would have to say that scrutiny of the Government's actions on these key issues does not bode well for this Government.This week an independent review was released. The independent review interestingly was undertaken by Grant Robertson so you would have to say there is a great deal of defensiveness and concern about any daylight being shone on the outcomes of mental health in this Government. So while it has been pleasing to be part of the select committee that scrutinised and I think improved this bill—particularly around things that we spoke about in terms of reporting around the use of audiovisual and reporting around the use of restraint—there are certainly much broader much wider issues around the mental health area that need to be addressed and hopefully will be addressed in the repeal and replace of the Mental Health Act in the fullness of time and I hope that I am able to be part of hearing the submissions on that because we do definitely need to hear from the people that are most impacted. Thank you Madam Speaker."