Scott Lynda: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9541] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) in its original form cleared up some of the major problems in dealing with people who have a mental illness or an intellectual disability who come before the courts. Very significant issues are involved in determining special patient status in determining whether somebody should be in a prison or a mental institution—a hospital that could treat that person’s mental illness. We know that this country has a huge number of people in prison today who have a mental illness. When they come before the court it is a matter of whether there are grounds for saying they are unfit to stand trial because they have a mental disorder or an intellectual disability. Initially we changed the definition from “mental disorder” to “mentally impaired” because it gave a broader definition. It was not defined. It was left undefined to avoid the possibility of leaving a gap in the legislation. It is difficult at times to determine how much a person is responsible for his or her actions when he or she commits a crime. 
The other part of the bill we talked about was the understanding of the police the Ministry of Justice our judges and our JPs of the issues of mental health and intellectual disability. Having been a nurse and a doctor I am very used to dealing in those fields; it always surprises me that members of the public when I start to talk to them really do not want to know. Some really have very limited understanding. Originally we saw that the police needed increased training in this area to be able to determine whether a person who had committed a crime had a mental illness. I think that issue has improved a lot but I am not too sure whether it has improved with regard to intellectual disability. We heard at the select committee of cases of people who had a really staggering gait because of something like cerebral palsy being considered to be drunk and of cases of people who had other conditions being misinterpreted as acting in an inappropriate way. There does need to be more understanding in society of those who have an intellectual disability. 
For people who come up before the courts the definition of whether a person has an intellectual disability is someone who is mentally impaired enough not to understand the consequences of his or her action or for somebody who has a mental illness at the time of committing the offence is clinically insane and not responsible for his or her actions. A finding of unfitness does not involve a determination of criminal liability and it can therefore lead to civil detention. There was a lot of discussion about that fact. 
I note the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 161. I have to say that a Supplementary Order Paper of that size should not be brought before members in this way. Members of the select committee and members of other parliamentary parties have not had time to peruse it. It is absolute arrogance for the Minister to bring in such a substantial Supplementary Order Paper which not only proposes changes to the original amendment bill but also proposes a completely separate stand-alone bill. Psychiatrists have not had time to look at it; neither have people working in the field nor people working in the field of criminal justice. To say “Trust us we know what we’re doing.” is to ask us to take a leap of faith. 
Why do we have a select committee process? I would like the Minister to tell us why we have a select committee process. I think the select committee process is excellent because it allows for the scrutiny of legislation. Often the officials who draw up a bill are doing their very best work but they are not out in the field and they do not always know how a point of law will be interpreted. That is why we have a select committee process—so that those issues can come under the scrutiny of not just other members of Parliament but the professions and those working in the field. Those people can go to the select committee and tell it that what it thinks is meant will not happen.