Wong Pansy: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9556] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I do not think I need to use the word that is banned in this Parliament. I think that even the public would know what a load of untruth that statement was. How did the Opposition delay this legislation? This necessary and important legislation was introduced into the House in 1999 by the very capable Minister of Health under the very responsible National Government in 1999. It was examined by a very diligent very good Health Committee that had on it esteemed colleagues like Dr Lynda Scott Dr Paul Hutchison Roger Sowry and others. Those members are very capable. They examined the legislation improved it and made it more workable. But when was it reported back to the House? It was reported back in 2001. It sat on the Order Paper for 2½ years but Ms Jill Pettis says the Opposition delayed the passage of the legislation. The Supplementary Order Paper was introduced in this House last night at 11 p.m. I think the public would be very concerned that a junior whip in a minority Labour Government had not bothered to read the legislation and could not say a thing about it. She could not tell us what was in the 44-page Supplementary Order Paper. 
The delay in the passage of this legislation—legislation that is very necessary—was entirely the fault of the minority Labour Government. Last night we were told briefly by the Minister the Hon Phil Goff—when trying to explain to us the reason for the late introduction of a 44-page Supplementary Order Paper which is about the same size as the original bill—that “things have changed”. The legislation that this bill is part of no longer exists; therefore the legislation had to be amended to become a stand-alone bill. Of course none of us was surprised. Only the minority Labour Government would have thought the world stood still for 2½ years while the legislation languished on the Order Paper. But things have moved on. 
The senior Government whip is chipping away. I wonder what message his constituents sent him to Wellington to deliver because he never seeks the call never makes any constructive comments and just chips away. He has nothing to show for his representation. Last night we were told that apart from this Supplementary Order Paper being necessary to re-format the legislation to become a stand-alone bill there was substantial change. In the original legislation there was a requirement that when persons are found unfit to stand trial or are acquitted on account of insanity they must be remanded to a hospital or facility while inquiries are made to determine how they should be dealt with. We were told by the Hon Phil Goff that changes have to be made to the legislation—that it cannot be made compulsory—otherwise it would breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in respect of human rights. We knew that the Health Committee had examined the original bill that had this compulsory requirement. It was cleared by the Human Rights Commission and I understand that the legislation also passed the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
How can the Minister come to this House in the third reading and say—after the Health Committee had received and heard submissions from the Human Rights Commission and the bill had satisfied the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—that those requirements in effect need to be changed; otherwise they would be in breach of various pieces of legislation? It is simply not credible to accuse the select committee of not doing a proper job; nor is it credible for the Minister in the House to accuse the Human Rights Commission and other officials who cleared those provisions contained in the original bill. It remains a mystery to the House why the Minister brings about that change in the eleventh hour without disclosing to us the real reason behind it. If the Minister does not explain in full to us about the changes I am afraid further grievances will be caused mentally impaired individuals who as we have heard recently and throughout the last 4 years have been brought before the court for conduct that at that stage they cannot be held responsible for. There was public outrage. The public always blames the individual because they find it frustrating. 
This change puts the hard decision back to the court instead of a clear message being sent by this Parliament to say that while inquiries are being made those individuals should be remanded in a secure place to protect themselves from themselves and to protect others from them. The Minister once again is taking the easy option. He has put the difficult task and decision on to the court. I find it extremely disappointing that this necessary piece of legislation which was introduced to the House 4 years ago and examined by the Health Committee with diligence and responsibility has came back to the House after sitting on the Order Paper for 2½ years and then has had major changes introduced to it without the reasons for them being properly explained to the House. When in future a similar tragedy happens I hope the Minister will remember what he has done. I think the situation is very unsatisfactory on two grounds: abusing the parliamentary process and bringing in substantial changes without Parliament being briefed in full. So it is with extreme disappointment that I have taken part in this third reading of this bill.