Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I want to shift the debate although it's been very interesting hearing about the machinations of the internal Labour caucus on how they decide things—it's all a bit finger-to-the-wind and I think the public is clicking on that a lot of this is policy on the hoof. I want to look at the Supplementary Order Papers in my name of 170 and 171. This is about a mental health strategy. If it's an issue that is emblematic of this Government talking out both sides of its mouth it's a Government that promises to transform the mental health system yet in its once-in-a-generation—or so they tell us—reform of the health system what we find is exactly what submitters said in the select committee stage: that mental health was invisible. Who would've believed it? A Government that claims to be transforming the mental health system yet they're reforming New Zealand's health system and the peak bodies. I mean this is the Mental Health Foundation this is the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission the leading NGOs and the common theme that came out of submitters is that they said mental health was invisible in this bill. How could we end up in a position where mental health is invisible? They also talked about how the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission was not even an entity that the Minister needed to consult in developing not only the health strategy but I would argue the mental health strategy.The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission was a recommendation of Labour's own mental health inquiry to establish the commission as a voice for mental health in New Zealand. Yet in this bill they don't even include it as an entity that the Minister needs to consult. Of course we know the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission put out its first report which actually was very critical. It said that despite the announcement of $1.9 billion for mental health there was no material improvements. Yet this Government wants to say Trust us with a billion-dollar reform." and how is this going to improve health?So my question is: why is there not a mental health wellbeing and addiction strategy? Why is it not a requirement? Is it because the Mental Health Commission's actually been doing its job too well and it is critical of the Government's performance in delivering nothing for their $1.9 billion?But listen to the comments from the Mental Health Foundation about mental health being invisible in this bill. It says "This would appear to be symptomatic of the absence of any ownership and leadership built into the new health structure for the transformation process". Of course one of the findings of the commission's report was saying that in mental health we need leadership we need a well-managed clear plan that would execute change and here we have again no ownership no leadership of mental health in the bill in front of the committee today. The Mental Health Commission and the Mental Health Foundation are saying in their submissions that it needs to be a requirement and they want it legislated for this strategy to give people with mental health issues equal legal standing with other strategies mentioned in this bill.We know it's been canvassed in the Chamber this afternoon it is not too late to put a mental health and wellbeing strategy in; in fact it is not only not too late it's actually the right thing. I think when you go out there and you ask thousands of vulnerable New Zealanders who pitch up to your own inquiry and they tell their personal and often traumatic stories about how they wanted mental health to change—and there was a point here where this Government could have brought in a mental health and wellbeing strategy that would have driven transformation—[Time expired]"