Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Look in terms of Part 2 of the bill the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill which specifically makes amendments to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act there's one area that I just would like to cover. I think there's been a really good discussion already but there's one part that I think deserves being highlighted and the member may wish to comment on this as well. What was fascinating for the committee to see was when as mentioned Dr Crawshaw the Director-General of Mental Health actually described the process. And sometimes from the health perspective it was seen as making decisions with a bit of a black box"—was the term he used to describe that. So I would like to think that through some of these changes we're actually making the system far more transparent and providing health professionals with more I guess real information from different sources to be able to make those decisions or make those recommendations to the Minister with a bit of a real-world flavour to it as well.So I think that in terms of what's been said already to support that it strikes that balance of making sure that health professionals are still acting within the best interests of the mental health patient—to make sure that their therapy and their journey back into wellness is being supported as appropriately as possible—but at the same time if there's pertinent information provided by the victim or the family that it's being taken into account when that recommendation is being made to the Minister in terms of what to do. I think it was really interesting to see that there is a lot of effort that goes into those decisions and I think that for those submitters that were watching and listening and understanding some of that information it is not a simple decision being made when someone is being released back into the community and how that is done. There were some instances given by the Director-General of Health that quite specifically said that it would not be in the best interests of the patient if it was just a trip to the dairy or maybe a trip every second week—like in the initial stages of someone being supported back into the community that it's not within the best interests of the patient for that information to be provided to the victim of the offence every single step of the way.So that balance of making sure that the appropriate level of information is made available—I think and the member may wish to comment that this has made a considerable improvement to decision-making processes that has really managed to straddle both the criminal justice process and also the reintroduction of someone back into the community and that whole rehabilitative process of the mental health system. And let's remember that New Zealand's history in terms of mental health of the way that we have treated mental health patients in the past is a shocking and abysmal history of how people have essentially been incarcerated for what is a health issue. So to be able to make such improvements to our system that still guarantees victims and their families that ability to feel that their views have been taken into account whilst still providing the patient the ability to build back their life is there. So I guess that was just my view—that that was a really special point in the bill for me—and I invite further comment in that space."