Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Chair. In terms of outlining the main core reasons why we are supporting the bill which is important to outline in this debate it reflects the same values that Labour has in those areas of victims' rights. It promotes justice it promotes transparency and it also respects survivors of crime and also their communities. I think it's important to note that this legislation cannot undo or even mitigate the things people have experienced and those victims of crime have experienced. However we do hope that we can alleviate some of the most difficult elements dealing with this complex and challenging area of our legal system for people in the future and to note that the aim of this bill is to better align the treatment of victims of offenders found legally insane with victims of regular offenders in the justice system which has been a difficult but worthwhile task that's been done.This Government supports legislation that respects the rights and the needs of victims of crime and also at that same time keeps the public safe. This bill is consistent with our work to improve victims' experience of the justice system. It is also of utmost importance that survivors of crime are not revictimised through the justice process while the offenders' rights and obligations are also met.I think it's important to outline some of the key changes in the bill that've been undertaken by its two trips to the select committee and to underline some of the work that's been taken in Parts 1 2 and 3 of the bill. In terms of Part 1 of the bill the amendments to criminal procedures that in particular looks at those around mental health and trying to create that alignment between the criminal justice system and also those needs of people who have mental health concerns. Under Part 1 some of those issues relate to the Report by the Director of Mental Health on the defendant's continued detention" and also "When victims must be notified of impending decisions under section 31 or 33" and that's covered off under clause 7A in Part 1 of the legislation.While we've also discussed already covered that using the new verdict will assist in doing this there's also consequences following finding of a new verdict and one of the Chief Justice's concerns was that the bill would be unclear about what the consequences of a finding of the proposed verdict would actually be. So the committee therefore unanimously recommended adding a new section which is 20(1)(c) to provide that a judge must acquit a defendant on account of their insanity if this finding was made. This would be consistent with the consequences following the Act's current verdict of "not guilty on account of insanity" and would also reflect the language currently used in describing the consequences of the verdict.The committee also recommended providing proposed new section 20(1)(b) that in finding that an act was "proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity" a judge is required also to explain that meaning of the finding to the defendant which is an important change in making our court processes more transparent more understandable not only to those who are before the court but those who are supporting a victim through the process. This change is designed to help ensure that the defendant and others in the courtroom understand the verdict.Also there's been some really good improvements in terms of what the bill aims to do. The bill as already stated aims to ensure the equivalent treatment of victims of a legally insane offender with other victims of crime. It also seeks to develop a more victim-centred approach when the court is considering cases involving defendants found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of insanity. So the key ways under Part 1 that that is done is through renaming the verdict of "not guilty on account of insanity" to "act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity". [Time expired]"