Scott Lynda: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9531] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I know it is very late at night and all of us would rather be home. However here we are debating the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) which is about to be turned into separate legislation by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper—that is the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill. There is one part of this Supplementary Order Paper that we do not like and it is having 44 pages dropped in the House the day before this debate. None of us have had a look at it. How many times have we seen this type of behaviour before? 
Problems occur when those on the select committee the public out there plus those who work in the particular industries have not had time to scrutinise the Supplementary Order Paper. This is all about looking after people who have an intellectual disability or mental illness and when found to be insane or unfit to plead will be released on bail. How many psychiatrists have had a look at these changes? How many people who work in the area have had time to look at them? Probably none because certainly no members of the Health Committee have had time to look at them. It is absolutely unacceptable that this Government should be trying to rush them through the House when no one has had a look at them. 
The explanatory note to the bill talks about the court having the option of remanding persons on bail in the community or deciding whether they have to go into a secure facility. That is a major change and it is in clause 23 “Court orders”. The Minister said there was no risk. How can he possibly say that when we are talking about a person who has been found unfit to stand trial because he or she has been determined to be insane or unfit to plead? If that were the case surely those people should then be in a secure facility until they can be appropriately assessed and placement made in an appropriate facility? Whether or not those individuals are clinically insane due to a mental illness they should go into a secure forensic facility so that they can get appropriate treatment and an appropriate care plan. If it happens to be somebody who has an intellectual disability and therefore does not understand his or her offending does not understand the social consequences cannot take responsibility for the criminal act in which he or she has engaged that person also needs to be in a secure facility with access to an appropriate care plan. 
With this Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) and the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill National put its money where its mouth was. It put in $18 million to set up facilities that could care for people with an intellectual disability who come before the courts who actually are in a position to not be able to take responsibility for a criminal act and therefore need secure care. It is just beyond me how the Minister can stand there and say that there is no risk. Why was that person before the courts if there was no risk? One does not come before the courts unless there is some act that breaks the law. 
We will not be supporting this bill and that is unfortunate but the Supplementary Order Paper cannot be supported. In the select committee we worked so well together on the original Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) to try to get a good piece of legislation that would deliver for New Zealand. We had discussions about the two levels of offending and about the definition of health assessors. This was quite a debate because it determined whether one needed to have a psychiatrist decide mental illness and intellectual disability or whether psychologists could do the job. The Royal Australasian College of Psychiatrists submitted that assessment reports should be from psychiatrists if the issue was one of mental illness and psychologists or other experts if the issue was intellectual disability.