Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Thank you very much. That was a great speech from the member in charge of the bill Louise Upston. It's not often that we have nice things going back and forwards across this House so it's good to be able to take time to enjoy rare and exceptional circumstances. I think it's the content of this bill that has caused the unanimous agreement from both major parties in relation to an issue that's incredibly important.First and foremost I think Louise Upston needs to be acknowledged for not shying away from a tough issue. We've had many members' bills in this House that have significant issues that have been brought before and managed to change the law for the better and this one is exactly in that camp. Some of the best members' bills I've seen during my time in this House have come through the office door of an electorate office just as this one does. Real issues that come from the real day-to-day lives of New Zealanders—when the law is not working right they bring those to their local member of Parliament who is able to champion those issues and change the law for the better. So I would like to acknowledge the fact that we have a great democratic system that works well enough that we have that ability to have a one-on-one conversation with another human being and be able to take that forward and change the law to improve it for other human beings. I think it's testimony to the great democratic system we have.I would like to acknowledge those submitters. I've already mentioned in the previous stages of this bill that some of those submissions that we heard from sometimes the victims of those crimes themselves firsthand experience—we heard accounts of a harrowing rape a brutal rape within a woman's own home from a complete stranger who managed to break into her house. We also heard of the subsequent days weeks months and years of her process not only through the justice system but through her own rehabilitation her own rebuilding of her life after such a horrendous crime. No one can imagine how difficult it must be to be in a courtroom and to hear the words not guilty" after being the victim of such a brutal attack.So the fact that we have been able to traverse long long hours and long time at the Justice Committee to be able to provide a better way forward for victims of crime when the person who has been put before the court is declared to be insane or unable to be found guilty on account of insanity—to how we take into account the needs of a person who is within our mental health system and at the same time take into account the needs of the victim of that crime—is no easy feat. So I would like to say that it's been a big learning process for me to see how we can work together more effectively to make sure that we drive change that's lasting and that improves the processes that we have in place already in both health and in the justice system.As part of that I've been fascinated in the two key areas and that's first of all coming up against you know the legal requirements of mens rea and actus reus—the very fundaments of what it is in a guilty verdict and how we break that down in a way that meets the needs for the courtroom and the criminal justice system. How those very words which seem so basic to lawyers can be so offensive to the ears of victims and their family and to have a discussion around how that takes place with both lawyers and with mental health and health experts—debating that out how we take care of those needs. I'd like to see more debates like that in the future for New Zealand. I think it's a great area for us to look at how two separate worlds intersect and how we can provide more effectively for people in their everyday lives by having conversations that go far beyond just an Act that go far beyond what the requirements are in a textbook or a statute and how that filters down into everyday lives. So that's been a fascinating process.The other part of the process that has been a really intriguing one for me is seeing how the mental health system and how the justice system can work more effectively and I think we've done a great job at putting that forward.I'm going to quickly traverse through the stages of the verdict because I think it's important to keep that on the record to see where we've been. Where we started at on the spectrum of the verdict definition was first of all it started with "not guilty on account of insanity" and for the reasons I've already specified that was the whole purpose of the bill—that to the ears of victims and their family in the courtroom was so offensive. That was the purpose to try and change that. Where the committee initially landed was "proven but insane" and while we got advice and did a good job in that space of trying to balance we had the Chief Justice not agreeing with that. So after the bill had been reported back to the House we found ourselves in the unusual position of it being referred back to select committee for the Justice Committee to once again take into account that advice from the Chief Justice and see how we can provide for particularly that word "proven" that we were using and the fact that it could not be "proven" if there was no mental element or mens rea due to the mental health or a specified insanity of the person standing on trial. The Chief Justice emphasised the fundamental principle underpinning the finding of "not guilty on account of insanity" and that is that the defendant by definition is not guilty because the mental element of the offence has not been proven. As my learned colleague Duncan Webb was attempting to do earlier even changing the title of the bill in order for "offenders" to be removed and change that for "persons" because technically they are not an offender if they have not been found guilty—but I think we'd had enough time debating the infinite details of this bill and I encouraged him that we should just let the bill pass. I'm sorry but you know never to let an academic hold things up.So I think that the place where we've ended up is the right place and that was when there was consistent agreement from all the different corners of the world: legal mental health policy. Having a clear view that the act was proven—so by separating out actus reus and mens rea by just speaking about the act the act is "proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity". So I just guess I would like to note that this is a sensitive and incredibly important area of the law which requires a delicate and accurate legislative approach and I think that we've managed to do that even though it took two turns. It is good that the committee has had the opportunity to consider it fully and ensure that it will work as intended—as already spoken earlier to have that longer enactment date to make sure that we do have those alignments in place for when this law comes into force.I'd like to acknowledge those not here tonight. Simon Bridges—when in those long hours of debating on which of the several proposed definitions that we would adopt it was actually some of Simon's words to separate out "act proven" and having a hand in crafting that to achieve agreement. As the honourable member Louise Upston has already referenced there were many points along the winding pathway of this piece of legislation where we could have thrown our hands up and said it's too hard and walked away but we felt committed. I think for me I felt committed once hearing the stories of those victims hearing the trauma and the pathway to rehabilitation and having their lives back on track. We felt committed to finding an outcome that served victims and made our criminal justice system fairer to those victims. I'm really pleased to be seeing this law passed tonight so that we can stand by the fact that we've seen this done. I think we all put our political colours aside because it's been seen as a good way forward that provides an improvement to the existing circumstances. To be able to put that aside and move ahead with the best course I think is a good day for New Zealand democracy.Look I'd like to sum up by saying that we support this bill as the Labour Party because it sits well with our values. We have put in the time because we see it as promoting justice promoting transparency and also respecting survivors of crime and also their communities. I'd like to note that while this bill cannot undo or mitigate the things that people have experienced we really hope that it can alleviate some of the most difficult elements of dealing with an incredibly complex and challenging area of our legal system for people in the future. I'm proud and happy that the hours have paid off and that we can happily commend this bill to the House."