Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak to this part of the bill which I also think raises some really complex issues about rights balancing that we certainly heard a lot of in some of the written submissions including from some rather significant entities. I do think that it's important that we consider again whether we struck the right balance in the space of victim submissions but also the privacy issues that were raised by a number of organisations.I think there's a tendency to see particular areas of the law as discrete and each contained in their own boxes and what this bill highlighted for me was really that we were dealing with a complex overlap between the mental health system and the justice system. For me as a West Auckland MP over the last few months I've been out to see probations who had also talked to me about the significant overlap they see fairly regularly in terms of the justice and mental health and wellbeing space. So it's certainly an area that I think we need to become more practised and well versed in in terms of how we respond appropriately really across both.Just going back to the specific tensions that were identified in the submissions we had before us the first one was really about whether or not it was appropriate for a victim their family a member of the public for their submission their statement in terms of how the Act had impacted them to influence a decision about release whether that was short-term release or longer-term release. I think we did hear that from several of the submitters. So what we were really balancing was the need to be heard the very valid concern of safety concerns but also a question about what a decision maker in a health context should take into account as they were making this decision. We heard that again from a number of submitters.The other big argument that was made was about the privacy space. So once a decision had been made what information should be provided to victims and their families? In this space we heard from the Privacy Commissioner who I believe raised some very valid concerns about privacy rights that we ought to protect. I know the Privacy Commissioner also had concerns about the information on health certificates and precisely what information was shareable and what information wasn't. I think the point that the Privacy Commissioner was trying to make was that we ought to be distinguishing between things that attach to safety and things that really did attach to you know very private health information of the individual concerned. I do know that this is a balance because what we heard from victims on the other side was that what they wanted to know is that the health system was adequately caring for and supporting those people in its care that some sort of change was happening as they were there. They really wanted to know that progress was being made.I do think there's a big question about whether the balance is right and these are very nuanced things in terms of what the influence should be going in but also what the scope of information is that comes out from those decision makers. I'm very aware of course that from a number of the submitters from victims themselves we heard about that sense of fear of just looking across the street and suddenly being struck by the accused. Interestingly there's some international literature that also suggests that often the accused don't want to be in that scenario either. So really it's finding the balance that protects them both and for this clause in particular it may be that the same outcome best suits both the victims of the family as well as the accused. Thank you.