Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to give the last contribution in this debate this evening. I have listened to the entire debate and it has been really thoughtful contributions not only from those members of the Justice Committee who participated through some part of this process like you heard the member Nicole McKee say—others the entire process—but also those like the member Ingrid Leary who took an interest in this and took it upon herself to read the submissions and understand where the submitters were coming from and share her own very personal and traumatic experiences that have happened in her life.I do like others want to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston. Again having had brought to her attention an issue in her constituency that showed a problem with the law as it currently stands she used the member's bill as an opportunity to try and rectify that situation and the law and it's been a process I think of more than eight years to get to this point tonight—and tonight is significant being the second reading. That's because it has gone through the entire select committee process and it is significant as has been referred to numerous times in the House tonight that there was unanimous support from the Justice Committee for the recommendations that we are making in this report.I really do want to thank the member for the way in which she allowed the committee through a very thorough very robust and very considered process to make substantial changes to the original draft. I think that what everybody had in mind when approaching it was that we wanted to do justice to the issue to try and get the absolute best outcome that we could get in terms of the drafting for such a significant issue. So I do want to acknowledge that it was challenging and frustrating at times. We were trying to get a meeting of the minds that what we were landing on between the members from all parties in the select committee as well as the officials as well as the Parliamentary Counsel Office—that we were achieving everybody's hope and intent in the drafting that we ultimately came up with and I will touch on what some of those quite significant ones were. So it took a lot of really meaningful discussion and dialogue and debate to land on the drafting that we came to and in everybody's view in all honesty we are achieving that very intention that she was hoping to achieve with this member's bill.I also want to thank the Hon Dr Nick Smith who several times through the process was able to add to the discussion and our collective understanding based on real-life examples in his constituency. That really did help me understand where some of the tensions were what it was that we were trying to achieve why maybe some of the things we were discussing were going to fall short of that or why it was so important and it required us to work through until we could find a mutually acceptable outcome for both sides. There were several times that you talked about your constituents who have experienced this and that helped me understand.I want to also acknowledge those who had the courage to come before the select committee. Some we heard in public some we heard anonymously but through their courage to come to our select committee to help the select committee understand the changes that they were seeking for somebody who doesn't have firsthand experience of this—nobody closely related to me or I'm not even aware of any cases that have been brought to me in my community on this—hearing from them was invaluable. It really did allow me to put myself in their position and to understand why the law as it currently is does not meet their needs what the gaps were and what the impact of the law currently is on them.Because of that often very difficult evidence to sit there and to listen to—and I think the member for Whangārei Dr Emily Henderson talked about often at times it was very emotional for members on the committee. Harrowing experiences very vivid descriptions but it helped us understand the gravity of the issues that we were grappling with and why trying to find that consensus amongst the members and make this legislation the best legislation possible was so important. So I want to acknowledge all those submitters—those directly impacted also their whānau who came in and shared those who were victims and those who were whānau of those who had committed the offence.For those that are listening in tonight there are a couple of statistics that I think are important. When this bill was first introduced there were some statistics from the year 2000 and the year 2016 to compare. In 2016 the defence was used successfully by 34 people compared to just four in the year 2000. Then in our select committee report in the 2019-20 financial year 153 people were found unfit to stand for trial and 40 people were found not guilty on account of insanity. The number does seem to be increasing. I don't know if that will continue to be the trend but what those numbers show is that this is not a very small number. Even if it was just those four I think the arguments that we heard in the submissions are compelling and whether it's four or 40 the law should still be changed. But what I want people to understand out there is that it is a significant number of people who are found to be not guilty on account of insanity and you think about the victims and the wider community. It is significant.Labour is supporting this bill along with the other parties in the House because I think all of us have recognised how important it is to take a victim-centred approach in this. That was one of the hardest things for me to first understand—and others have spoken on it. I am the last so some of these comments are repetitive. Even though the acts have been done to the person because the offender was not guilty because of insanity they therefore are not considered a victim. Yet if the person was sane then they would be a victim. But in this case insane they're not a victim and you're sitting there and you can see how real that was for them and how difficult it was first for them to sometimes hear that verdict—not guilty—when they have experienced often in the cases we heard very serious offences against them but also that they are not treated like victims in any of the processes.So the key amendment that this bill achieves and you've heard it tonight is the renaming of the verdict of not guilty on account of insanity" to "proven but insane". I think it is quite important for people to understand that we're not debating the use of that as a defence. That's an entirely different debate. This is about how it is defined how it is worded and what that means in terms of those who have been victims of it.Very important—and this was really debated at some length and detail—was notification when somebody is being considered for a leave of absence. We were trying to work through technically how that would be achieved when you have the interaction between the health system and the justice system and whether the back-room systems have the mechanisms to be able to do that. I can see Dr Nick Smith nodding his head. I think that's one where we went back to officials several times. We wanted to make sure that it didn't have undue financial implications which would go beyond the scope of a member's bill. But in the end it was explained to us that with more time they would be able to get their system to be able to do that. So there's a short delay in the introduction of it but it is capable of being able to give that notification to members and that was one that I was really moved by where they could be out in the community and somebody is there unbeknown to them. Sorry Madam Speaker I have run out of time. I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time."