Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I too would like to begin my contribution tonight by acknowledging many whānau around Aotearoa in Kaikōura in Te Wai Pounamu and here in Wellington who are dealing with the after-effects of our latest earthquake. I hope that people out there know that we all stand in solidarity at this time. I particularly want to acknowledge the leadership of Kai Tahu the Kaikōura rūnaka and Takahanga Marae for opening their doors and showing I think the true spirit of whanaungatanga.It is my pleasure to speak in this Committee stage of the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill. I do that as a member of this House who is incredibly interested in issues to do with ethics. I particularly would like to ask the Minister in the chair Minister Dunne some questions about the principles of ethics. Those two principles are informed consent and do no harm. Underlying this piece of legislation and certainly in clause 7 of the bill is that the State has the right to intervene in someone's life and for those who—and I will read out clause 7—have a severe substance addiction" there is an underlying assumption that they do not have the capacity to make informed decisions about what the most appropriate treatment is for them.Under this piece of legislation upon application of somebody who is over the age of 18 we as a society can compulsorily treat that person which means we can detain them in a facility that they have not given consent to being detained in. I think that the fundamental ethical principle of informed consent complemented by do no harm does actually deserve the scrutiny of the House. So I would very much appreciate the Minister's justification for that ethical principle being compromised.But in highlighting that I also want to note clause 57 of the bill which is titled "Right to legal advice". This clause was particularly remedied by the Health Committee process because it did make some changes to the initial bill that was presented to the House. The assumption under this particular clause is that every patient is entitled to request a lawyer to advise him or her on their status and their rights as a patient and that the lawyer if they agree to act on behalf of the individual is permitted access to the patient's records files and everything that pertains to that person being under this piece of legislation treated in a facility that they have not consented to.So when I think about the ethical principles of informed consent and do no harm I actually think the safeguards are within the legislation but I do think that there is merit in the Minister talking about those principles. Underlying this piece of legislation I think are some very sound principles. Unfortunately we have people in our society who become so addicted that actually that addiction means that they do not have the capacity to make appropriate decisions and look after themselves and their families. I am particularly interested in families where people in this situation have dependent children for example. What is the State's responsibility within that context to ensure that the person receives the treatment they want but also to ensure that the family has some pathway to reunification? Unfortunately I think people who have addictive tendencies—some people are now saying more and more that it is hereditary that we are all born with it and that under some circumstances there is really nothing we can do to moderate that particular disposition. So I think that the intention of this legislation and the provisions that we are making are valid but I also think at this time it is appropriate that the Minister who is responsible for the legislation explain it a bit more thoroughly to the people of New Zealand. Kia ora."