Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Madam Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. I've sat through the debate so far heard the introductory remarks and the other speeches and if I can just first acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston for her dedication on this issue. In researching for my speech tonight I see that this is an issue that you have been advocating for since 2013 which had come about from a constituent issue that you're familiar with. It is as has been acknowledged tonight wonderful to see that those constituent issues can be brought all the way through here to the House to be debated and to look at whether we can improve legislation for their experiences. So I first just wanted to start by acknowledging the honourable member for her member's bill. Also from the outset I will say that Labour will be supporting this bill to its first reading because we think there is merit in what the bill is proposing. I do want to say and I think the member herself acknowledged that maybe it's not perfect and there could be room for improving it. That would be possible through a thorough select committee process where we hear all views and can thrash out the areas that perhaps could be improved. But fundamentally it reflects Labour's values which are to promote justice accountability and transparency while respecting survivors of crime and their communities. I think that it's always a challenge. It's a balancing act between each other's rights that need to be respected in the processes. So I think that this bill has real potential and is worth considering at the select committee but like I said we do have some reservations and I'll go into those in a little bit more detail. If I can just talk to what the intent of the bill is it's to ensure that victims of legally insane offenders are treated the same as other victims of crime. The bill changes the formal finding of the court to provide victims with the acknowledgment that the offender was proven to have acted grievously even if they lacked the intent to be guilty of the action. The bill renames the verdict not guilty on account of insanity" to "the acts or omissions are proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible on account of insanity". The revised language is intended to acknowledge that the offender did in fact commit the criminal act but that the reasons of insanity therefore mean that they are not guilty. That's quite important. I heard in the previous debate some of the discussion around the use of insanity as a defence and I think it's really important to make it clear here for everybody in the Whare tonight and listening in that it is not the intention of this bill to actually go back and look at insanity as a grounds for defence. That's entirely separate. It is in fact how victims of that are treated and how it might be recorded by the courts. So the revised language is intended to acknowledge that yes the offender did commit the criminal acts but in terms of criminal liability the insanity finding is still there.Now I did just want to say that I did a little bit of research and when the member's bill was drawn from the ballot it was welcomed and celebrated by victims' advocates and so I think that they will be particularly interested in submitting. Equally there are those like Changing Minds who shared some of their concerns about what is proposed in the bill and I think that they too will seek an opportunity to maybe question and thoroughly analyse some of the areas where they have concerns particularly around the access to their medical records and the possible ability to have some influence on somebody's sentence. Sorry Madam Speaker I see my time's run out. Kia ora."