Franks Stephen: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9542] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am struggling to understand the reason for Supplementary Order Paper 161. I listened to this debate last night mostly on the radio as I was returning from the Manawatu where I had been looking after Mr Hughes’ folk. But I did not hear anything that really informed me why the Minister of Justice introduced a 44-page Supplementary Order Paper and why the criminal justice amendment was being— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is too much running commentary. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Thank you. I believe that Mr Goff would have had reasons that he regarded as substantial. I am quite sure there must have been some significant reason why after 4 years those pages should be delivered to this House on Tuesday to change substantially something that had been the subject of a largely consensual process in the Health Committee. 
I call on the Minister to explain to us even the most elementary things. For example what is the principle that lies behind the Supplementary Order Paper? How does it differ from the provisions in the bill? Do we still have the same distinction between those who are mentally impaired and therefore unlikely to recover and those who are mad? Are the mentally impaired to be dealt with in this legislation in a way that is different from the way that those who are mad are dealt with? Is there room after all this time or will there be room consistent with this legislation to improve criminal law in a way that many New Zealanders would like to see—that is that we get rid of all the wasted hearings on whether a person is insane? People really want to know whether he or she did it and whether to go toward a verdict of guilty but insane. In other words insanity or mental impairment goes to the form of sentence whether it is punishment or treatment but does not go to whether the person concerned will be subject to custody. 
I understand that the principle in the bill as it came back from the Health Committee was to draw a humane distinction between those who are sane and guilty those who are insane and guilty and also those who are mentally impaired and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions even though insanity is not the correct verdict. What I cannot tell in all the pages of amendments is just what is so urgent that it has made the Minister choose not to let the medical profession or people involved in dealing with the consequences of impaired people’s actions consider them. For example in relation to the inquiry into the Ellis case that has just been reported did anyone involved in it have an opportunity to consider the changes now coming before the Committee? Why would the Government not make sure that all these thousands of words were made available to the people who have been closely involved in these tragedies and ask them whether they are an improvement? 
What is the Government trying to hide? Is it trying to hide something or is it just frustrated with democracy? Is it simply impatient with the questions members of Parliament ask in a select committee on behalf of New Zealanders? Is it its view that “We know best and we are sick of being held up.”? Laws should not be done by decree. With all the bills that have been dealt with during this urgency I ask Mr Goff what led the Government to land on this House changes that nobody in the House other than the Minister and perhaps any cronies he has let into the know has a clue about. What led to a Supplementary Order Paper like this being delivered without any explanation? The explanatory note for 44 pages of Supplementary Order Paper consists of four paragraphs. Why did the medical profession not get a chance to come and comment? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Because there are no changes related to the medical aspects of the bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Minister is answering by way of interjection and I value that; if that is all we are going to get it is better than nothing. The Minister says it is because there are no changes that relate to the medical profession. In that case whom do they relate to? There is a whole set of new definitions in the Supplementary Order Paper including “intellectual disability” “medical practitioner” “psychologist” “special care recipient” and “unfit to stand trial”. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: They’re all in the original. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I ask the Minister why there is a substitution. What is the explanation? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Because it’s a stand-alone Act not an amendment to another. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Minister says it is because it is to be a stand-alone Act.