Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Madam Speaker that's the first time that I've heard that side of the House that side of the House and this side of the House—the House is now a triangle and I'm really enthused to hear about how there is a recognition that we don't just have this adversarial model in the House anymore and in fact we may have the opportunity to collaborate in more inquisitorial ways as put forward by the previous member Dr Emily Henderson.In turning to the bill the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill I want to acknowledge Louise Upston who has done—from my understanding in listening to contributions tonight—a phenomenal job in shepherding this through the Justice Committee. I also want to commend the Justice Committee for a very thorough report. This is not my portfolio—I'm speaking tonight on behalf of Golriz Ghahraman for the Greens in the justice portfolio—but I do of course have some interest in it from the perspective of the Greens spokesperson on mental health. The Greens will be supporting this bill at second reading particularly after having had conversations with the member in charge Louise Upston and in reviewing what is available and the changes that have been made with regards to the complexity and nuance throughout that select committee process. And I do just want to acknowledge how complex and how nuanced this process was and how finely balanced this procedure had to be in order to get to this place. I also want to acknowledge the member Louise Upston for her recognition of the fact that in the first drafting—the first cut of this bill when it was first presented to the House—there was some clumsy drafting which in turn could have presented some challenges. As has been noted by a number of other speakers tonight what we fundamentally need is a justice system that moves far more to one that is restorative and away from the adversarial model that does not recognise in turn the value of the experiences of and the importance of victims and survivors of criminality in our society. What this piece of legislation does is it enables that voice to be actioned through a victim impact statement. But as has already been noted importantly in changing the way that there is a recognition of the verdict shifting from not guilty on account of insanity"—and I'd just like to note the points made by my colleague Ginny Andersen about how what we're talking about here in the framing of the rhetoric "insanity" is a very legal term as outlined in the four pieces of legislation that this bill amends. So that is the changing or the renaming of the verdict from "not guilty on account of insanity" to "the acts or omissions are proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible on account of insanity". And that is a recognition of some of the kind of basics that law students throughout this country learn when they go through and learn about criminal law. That is the basis of actus reus the action of committing the crime and mens rea that is the mental component or the intention to or the competency and capacity to commit that crime. So it can be found here that the action has been committed and effectively that this has been undertaken and therefore is a victim of this crime but still that the offender can be found insane and therefore not criminally culpable. I also want to acknowledge particularly the submissions of the likes of JustSpeak who spoke about here in creating a better and more restorative justice system that we needed to make sure that we did not create a system that was vulnerable to political influence. Here I note some of the changes that have been made particularly around the ability of victims' submissions to impact outcomes. And I want to quote actually directly from the commentary from the Justice Committee where it says and I quote "Enabling victims to make a submission directly to the Minister implies that the Minister is expected to weigh the victim's submission against clinical advice provided in support of the application. This could increase the risk of a patient being detained for longer than necessary known as arbitrary detention. This would further increase the likelihood of administrative review of Ministerial decisions regarding changes of status or discharge." Importantly in reflecting on this concern—as highlighted by a number of submitters including those that supported the intention but not necessarily the original drafting; the likes of JustSpeak who and I note mentioned the Law Commission's review of this very area of the law—the Justice Committee went on to state and I quote "We consider that the risks of arbitrary detention and administrative review would be mitigated if the Minister were to receive the content of the victim's submission and the context of a report provided by the Director." Now that is the fine balance that we're grappling with tonight in that the Justice Committee did grapple with and made some quite substantive amendments to the bill that we are debating tonight as a result of hearing from those submissions. But I just—I think at the core of it—really want to highlight how potentially problematic it is and how perhaps actually folks beyond this Chamber and I in fact wasn't even aware of until I read this bill today that actually our Minister our Minister of Health from whatever administration is in charge of Government at any given time has ultimately the discretion over whether people are granted leave or granted change of status order if they are criminally insane offenders. That feels like something that is particularly vulnerable to potential political influence. And I note that the JustSpeak submission notes exactly that as a potential outcome that they've started to see some creep on per some academic reporting on the issue. So if we're looking to move away from that form of system I know it's probably outside of the scope of this bill but if we're looking to move away from that kind of system then in fact those responsibilities should sit with somebody who is not a political appointee. Now just in concluding the Greens' contribution tonight I do really want to acknowledge Wendy Hamer in particular who the Hon Nick Smith has noted is from his former electorate and to note that in reading her contribution in reading what she has been through and I'm sure is extrapolated throughout the many others who went on to sign on to her petition is that what we're talking about here are some pretty harrowing circumstances and there evidently is a need for change. But the contribution of the Greens is that that change needs to be finely balanced and it does need to meaningfully embody the kaupapa as laid down by this Government on a properly restorative justice system. At present we are comfortable with that conversation and this bill progressing into the committee of the whole House stage. At this second reading the Greens commend this bill to the House."