Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Chair for an opportunity to speak to this fourth part on victim impacts statements. I think for those members who aren't fortunate enough to be on the Justice Committee you're getting a taste today of the level of detail with which we went through this bill but also how seriously we took this issue. And I spoke earlier tonight about the overlap between the justice and the health policy space which I think is also a question about this part of the bill. But that conflict or that overlap was also present when we considered operational matters as well. I didn't take a second call on the last section but one of the interesting questions that was raised there was procedurally operationally what happens when a patient commits an offence while they're out on leave? And what are the operational connections between justice and health that ensure that that data is captured and quick steps are taken? So again I would make the point that we need to be actively considering the interaction between the health and the justice space. So in relation to the changes that are made here this absolutely sits in that point of tension space in terms of giving victims a right to have their say but also questioning really the impact that has on a relevant decision-maker particularly in the health space and what impact it should have. But this part of the bill isn't just about the provision of the victim's views which we do have at clauses 14I and 14J; it's also direction to judicial officers not to take into account withheld parts. So again you see that really fine approach to balancing of rights. I would also point out a significant section which I know is important for many of those who we heard from. And that is 13A which is really the notice for victims or persons or offenders subject to mental health or intellectual disability of care. It's the right to be notified of a person or offender's designation. What we heard from a number of people who submitted to the select committee was a sense of fear about offenders being out in public. But I would also say equally—as much a sense of anxiety about not knowing what was happening. And again the Chief Victims Advisor puts this really well when she describes interviewing victims and she says they describe this feeling of being sort of in limbo and really being unheard and unseen. And so I do think that this is a really significant piece of the bill. Then perhaps my question—as we're nearing the ends of the parts of the bill—as well for the member is just reflecting on pace of change. I think there are a number of pieces of legislation that are upcoming in the House including the safe areas bill at some stage where we've seen moves from the likes of Australia in those areas before New Zealand has gone into those areas ourselves. I know that there have been moves in New South Wales to review their legislation in this space. I also know that Canada have made an attempt to change the verdict requirements. And the question is really: have the changes that have been made across all parts of this bill done justice to the pace of change internationally? Are we keeping up with our neighbours across the Ditch? Are we keeping up with like jurisdictions—for example Canada—but also the most recent research in terms of the experience of victims and the experience and also the rights of patients who are in the care of mental health facilities as well?