Hutchison Paul: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9554] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this very important Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) which is now known pretty belatedly as the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act of 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Bill—quite right at this stage of events. But it is shortly to become an Act—and I believe in many respects quite inappropriately. This legislation undoubtedly deals with the hugely important area of the intellectually disabled and the mentally impaired. As I said earlier in the Committee stage the differentiation the diagnosis of those areas and the definition of them is hugely important. It is problematic and it has exercised a lot of thought over a lot of time to try to get legislation that meets the requirements. 
In fact if one goes back historically one finds it is interesting to hear what New Plymouth Crown solicitor Tim Brewer said back in 1997. He regarded this as one of the changes to the then law that he was determined to promote after the brutal murder of 12-year-old boy Dane Gibson by his parents at their Inglewood home in 1994. During the trial both the defence and the prosecution agreed with the psychiatrist that the couple were both insane at the time. Way back then Mr Brewer said: “I very much welcome that finally something has been done that will save witnesses and juries the unnecessary anguish of having to consider in detail awful events about which there is no contest on the issue of insanity.” 
This law change was first introduced in 1999 under the Hon Wyatt Creech. It is of great import regarding this bill that the Health Committee which dealt with it did work in a multiparty fashion. There was collaboration and goodwill and I believe that the time of the genesis of the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) certainly demonstrated members’ willingness to respond through the parliamentary process to a situation that was problematical difficult and sensitive and they did that well. 
But is very interesting to note in the commentary on the bill the point made by I think in particular Judy Keall who is known to have a unique way of articulating herself. The commentary states:“Occasionally Government departments will propose substantive and significant changes to bills after select committees have finished hearing submissions. We disapprove of that practice.” Yet here we are 3 to 4 years later with the Minister of Justice Phil Goff introducing a substantial Supplementary Order Paper No. 161 under urgency without any consultation with or any information having been given to the other parties that had previously collaborated so well on this very important issue. When we asked the Hon Phil Goff to explain why he did that he was absolutely unable to do so. This bill demonstrates quite clearly an abuse of the parliamentary process by the Minister of Justice and by this Labour Government. 
I want to refer to one of the other speeches on this bill made back in 1999 by the Hon Phil Goff when he said—and he had been talking about the very concerning David Stephens case that appeared in the Hamilton District Court—“What was the judge to do? Would he put the person in jail? Was he to put the person in a facility designed for the mentally disordered? He did the latter but he said that that was quite inappropriate and that Mr Stephens ought not to have been in that facility.” He continued—this is what the Minister of Justice Phil Goff said in 1999—“Again I ask the Government having put this legislation before the House having put a companion measure before the House whether the facilities are there so that those who are intellectually impaired or mentally impaired can be placed somewhere where they are safe personally where the community is safe from actions they might take but which is not a prison designed to punish or a mental hospital designed to cure an illness. That is the key question that arises out of this legislation.” We have had 4 years of this Labour Government—which pointed out that the key question arising in respect of this legislation is the provision of mental health facilities—yet we have a mental health crisis in this country because of that Government’s absolute negligence in this area of mental health. 
Just a few minutes ago we heard Mr Mark Peck the member for Invercargill wittering away inanely about why the various spokespersons from National have not taken part in this debate. He must be reminded that a former Minister of Health the Prime Minister has had nothing to say about this legislation. That shows how much she cares about mental health. She is the person who when in Opposition was very concerned about mental health facilities. Yet we have a mental health crisis in New Zealand right now. The Minister of Health has not partaken in this debate. That shows how much she is concerned about mental health—and we have a mental health crisis right now. 
David Benson-Pope 
: She’s in New York. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well that is the problem. Four years ago when National was in Government the Labour Opposition was saying that there was a problem with mental health. Yet every day we hear huge concerns being expressed about the lack of mental health provisions in this country and that falls fairly and squarely after 4 years on this dilatory Labour Government. 
I want to refer to the explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper which is extremely out of order in having been— 
Jill Pettis 
: He’s gone very quiet. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Once again we are hearing some very inane iterations from the Labour Government benches on this hugely important bill—particularly where we have an explanatory note that is so misleading. One of the points of that Supplementary Order Paper which has been put in under urgency is that it is to:“remove the current requirement that persons found unfit to stand trial or who are acquitted on account of insanity must be remanded to a hospital or facility while inquiries are made to determine how they should be dealt with. Instead of the mandatory remand provision the Supplementary Order paper gives the courts the option of remanding such persons on bail.” 
We have heard time and time again about the injudiciousness of such a move in the present climate in New Zealand. We have had desperately tragic cases occurring yet once again this Labour Government is prepared to put through a Supplementary Order Paper in a great deal of hurry in circumstances where the Opposition had been totally prepared to collaborate with it. Instead the Government has put something in that Supplementary Order Paper that will probably put the lives of New Zealanders at risk in the future. It has made the point that the paramount consideration must be given to the public and has failed to point out that it is also hugely important that enormous account is taken of the individual concerned.