Doocey Matt; Salesa JennyMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thanks very much Madam Speaker. I think hopefully I can give the House a challenge tonight and all those watching this debate to see if by the end of it they'll actually know what a locality is because this bill does not describe what a locality is and that in fact is the issue. The last speaker Peeni Henare spoke of the optimism in the health workforce. I disagree. I think it's apathy because at a time when the health workforce is preoccupied quite rightly responding to the impacts of COVID—and not only that they've accepted change irrespective of whether they agree with it or not. But the biggest concern I think the health workforce has as many New Zealanders have is when you look at the bill in front of us—and I don't think the select committee process has really helped it—there's no real definition. There's no detail. People don't actually know what it's going to do. So that's why I set the challenge: if we can find out by the end of this debate what actually a locality is going to be.What's really concerning on this side of the House is here we have a Labour Government that's got a track record of failure to deliver of absolute incompetence. They cannot plan for anything. And now they're saying Trust us. In the middle of the pandemic we'll blow half a billion dollars on a health restructure." It doesn't add up. And then tonight the context of this—the worst poll this Government's had in five years. And we've got rural and regional government MPs who are sitting there going "I'm going to have to go back to the electorate when I didn't even stand on a platform of disestablishing their local DHB at the last election. And now I've got to defend rural not even being mentioned as a rural strategy as a priority group." Who would have thought in a country like New Zealand when you listed the strategies and the population priority groups rural would not be there. Because remember that term the Hon—well whatever the primary industries Minister is—Damien O'Connor had that term rural proofing? Oh yep remember that. Well where's the rural proofing in this bill? It's not there and I look forward to those Government members going back and explaining that in their electorate.The second reading is talking about submitters. I want to raise the submission of the New Zealand Rural General Practice Network. They have over 1800 members across 90 percent of all rural general practices. They quite rightly point out that rural and remote New Zealand encapsulates about 700000 New Zealanders—700000 New Zealanders. And I know as our agricultural spokesperson Barbara Kuriger will know that those 700000 people deliver 50 percent of this country's GDP—and they don't even get a look-in in this bill. The Government members did not want to listen to those submissions and here they are championing equity—equity when it suits them. Why not put a rural strategy in place? This bill was championed around addressing the postcode lottery. Not including rural is going to entrench the postcode lottery. And I just want to put a quote on the record from the general practice chair Dr Fiona Bolden. She says "We wish you luck if you have a medical emergency or an accident on a remote rural road and are waiting for a response from an under-funded and overworked rural GP or nurse who is on a 24/7 call roster or wait for an ambulance that has to be dispatched from a depot 3 hours away." People affected by that are not just rural people; because urban people will be out using those roads in rural New Zealand going on holiday going about their work. And that's why this is about all New Zealanders being sold short when this Government chose not to include a rural strategy and rural people as a priority group.Another priority group I want to flag up that wasn't listened to in the submissions in the select committee process was people with mental health issues. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission said "The issue of mental health is almost invisible within this bill." They're not listed. There's no mental health and wellbeing strategy. Who would have thought with a Government that came in on the pledge of transforming the mental health system that the mental health commission would be saying it's invisible in this bill. And of course the mental health commission are the ones who've released their recent report that said: with the Government's announcement of $1.9 billion no material improvements. And then they've got the nerve to bring the bill to the House that doesn't even prioritise people with mental health needs. Who would have thought of it?It says when they look at the Government policy statement in preparing a health strategy they're required to consult—this is the Minister—with health entities or groups considered as reasonably likely to be affected and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission is not one of those groups. The mental health sector watchdog is not someone the Minister has to consult. And the reason why that's important is: let's not forget last year's debacle with the Ministry of Health when ministry officials were caught running a risk lens over negative statistics as to not embarrass the Government. That's why we need the independent Crown entity the mental health watchdog included in this bill but they're not. You really have got to scratch your head as to why the mental health commission has to come in with a submission pleading to be included in this bill especially when setting up the mental health commission was a recommendation of this Government's own inquiry and they spent huge cost and time of this House passing legislation to establish it. And now not only do they not want to include it in this bill but as we know they're actually blocking its first reports at select committee. Then we have had the true advocate I believe in mental health in New Zealand which is the Mental Health Foundation. And they're saying that this bill does not demonstrate the Government's commitment to improving mental health and wellbeing outcomes. They're saying it shows no leadership and ownership. People with mental health issues in New Zealand can have a life expectancy shorter by 20 years of the average Kiwi. This bill was built around equity. Yet when we look at the strategies within this bill the health strategies that this bill will need to respond to mental health is not one of them. And you've got NGOs like Emerge Aotearoa who are really concerned about mental health being invisible in this bill. They're pointing out in their submission the impacts they see around COVID-19. We know other mental health systems around the world are calling the impacts of COVID-19 on youth mental health a shadow pandemic. Why would you not include a mental health and wellbeing strategy to inform this new health restructure? Of course the World Health Organization said that mental health needs to be a key plank in any country's COVID recovery management plan. This Government is tone deaf to the submitters that have taken their time to raise genuine concerns about what is going to be a once-in-a-generation restructure of the health system. Why would we not get this right? Why would we not include mental health as a strategy? Why would we not include our rural communities? Because when you start to become stubborn like this it starts to sound more and more ideological. Is the true point of this to be equitable? If it is put those two population groups in. Or is the point of this bill to be simply like the other bills coming through this Parliament ideological of taking away local people's views centralising it running everything from Wellington? The bureaucrats in Wellington do not know how to deliver health services in my electorate of Waimakariri. We have been waiting for after-hours healthcare services promised for a few years ago now. We've got a rural health hospital that's been closed down. Taking rural out of this bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member's time is up."