Jones Dail: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9549] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It is quite remarkable how the Labour Party tries to shoot itself in the foot. If it is going to talk about former Ministers of Health not speaking to this bill where is the Prime Minister? She is a former Minister of Health so why is she not speaking to this bill? Her legacy as a Minister of Health was the Bottrill case. The botched-up Bottrill case was her legacy to the health system. It took the Privy Council to sort that one out. There was a hepatitis problem and it took the subsequent Government to sort that one out. The former Minister of Health in the Labour Party the Rt Hon Helen Clark was one of the worst Ministers of Health we have ever seen. It is not surprising that she is not here to speak on this bill.  
Mind you it would be the greatest surprise if she were here because we rarely see her in this House after 4 o’clock on any particular day. I mean 4 p.m. not 4 a.m. when some of us are present. The Labour Party must be in absolute disarray for the Labour member from Invercargill to be talking about former Ministers of Health. That has given me a grand opportunity to attack his leader as a failed Minister of Health. He would have been better off keeping his mouth shut on that issue. 
As far as this bill is concerned we have had a bill thrust upon us that has placed you in a situation of some embarrassment— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not to be brought into this debate at all. 
DAIL JONES 
: I apologise. 
This bill is called the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill and we did not know it was to be called that until Tuesday. For over 4 years it was the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) and it was in a totally different form from the one before us in the House today. We have this incredible situation developing now in this Parliament where the Labour Party decides that it will take urgency on a number of issues and then during the course of urgency tries to slip in enormous Supplementary Order Papers some of which are bigger than their original bills and change their form quite dramatically. There was a time I seem to recall when the Government of the day was very cautious about the introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper and a good deal of time would be spent in caucus discussing whether it was possible and whether it was an abuse of parliamentary procedure. 
This minority Labour Government has no concern for Supplementary Order Papers. Just in the last day—and we are still in Tuesday 21 October—we have had substantial Supplementary Order Papers in respect of the Retirement Villages Bill the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill and now this Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7). It is an arrogant abuse of Parliament by this minority Labour Government and those of us who have seen its arrogant abuse of the constitutional process and the way it rammed the Supreme Court Bill through this House are no longer surprised by anything it does. 
The Ellis inquiry report came out yesterday and it was a classic example of why someone should have been kept in remand and not let out into society. Here we have a bill that shows absolutely no regard for the Ellis inquiry and any report on it. That report might as well be burnt now because this minority Labour Government says it is not interested in its outcome. Regardless of the facts of that case the Government will compound the issue by legislating to ensure that the problems contained in the Ellis report continue to a much greater extent—because that is what this bill does. 
United Future members sit there and support a bill that will allow mentally deranged insane people out into the community on bail. Do members know what will happen when someone gets killed as a result of this bill? A United Future member will ask the Minister of Justice why it happened and the Minister of Justice will say that it was the judge’s fault. The judiciary will be blamed and there will be this struggle between United Future and the Minister of Justice—as if United Future were being tough on law and order—and the Minister of Justice will come back and say: “Oh no no. It’s the judge’s fault.” 
 Why would the judge be given the option to do it? I say to United Future that Parliament should make that decision—the buck stops with us. United Future should not have a little ping-pong game with the Minister of Justice pretending that they are hard and tough on law and order asking why that is happening and what the Government will do about it and having Mr Goff say that it was all the judiciary’s fault. This bill should not be supported. People who are insane and who have committed criminal acts should not be allowed out into the community while arrangements are being made for their care. That is what this bill does and that is what United Future supports. Of course the Greens will support it. The Greens opposed bodily samples being taken from people. The Greens will oppose anything that is tough on law and order. As far as the Greens are concerned this bill makes it easy for people to be out in the community regardless of whether they are insane and have committed criminal acts. 
The Minister raised a ridiculous argument relating to the Human Rights Act. In the original bill if people had committed criminal offences and their positions were being considered they were not remanded on bail but in custody. They had to be under care and supervision. The Human Rights Commission made a submission on the bill. The select committee came back and insisted that there be a mandatory provision in respect of care and custody. That matter has been considered. The Minister has obviously not read the report from the Health Committee. 
Of the members of the Health Committee who supported that view some are still in Parliament—not Judy Keall of whom the Government is taking no notice nor Phillida Bunkle but people like Steve Chadwick the Labour member for Rotorua. What has she to say about it? She sat on the Health Committee that came up with the unanimous view that when people have committed criminal acts and are insane they should be kept in mandatory custody. Now she is voting against that. She has been told to change her mind do what she is told and go the way that the Minister wants to go—regardless of the facts and regardless of the present Ellis inquiry. 
Dr Paul Hutchison stood up and opposed the legislation. I commend him and Dr Scott for the way they have conducted this matter. It is quite in contrast to some of the ways that National Party spokespeople have conducted other matters in the House during this urgency. They have done an excellent job on this bill. Sue Kedgley supported mandatory custody provisions while she was on the select committee. She will change her mind today for the Greens and go with the Labour Party because that is what suits the Greens regardless of the care and welfare of the people of New Zealand. Mita Ririnui will always go the way the Labour Party wants to go. He was on that select committee and one would have thought he would know better but no whatever the Labour Party tells Mita Ririnui to do he will do. 
One of the things the Minister mentioned during his speech was that new procedures were involved. If new procedures are involved for the justice system I would have expected the courtesy of a select committee hearing to allow the New Zealand Law Society to make submissions on the new criminal procedures in court. I would have thought that the Criminal Bar Association should be invited to make submissions as to whether those new procedures were correct. They are the experts on the issue. Instead the Minister wants to rely on some departmental official—who has never appeared in court in his or her life—in preference to the New Zealand Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association. 
I predict that before very long we will have the same problem that we have had time and time again in the House with bills being rushed through. The Minister will say he wants to amend a bill that we have just rushed through and could we support the matter in a Statutes Amendment Bill. That is going on now with matters from before the last session. We will get a request as we do time and time again from the Hon Rick Barker for amendments to a Statutes Amendment Bill. I say to the Labour Party that if amendments to the Statutes Amendment Bill arise out of this rushed legislation I will advise my caucus not to support them. 
New Zealand First is getting sick and tired of rushed legislation and enormous Supplementary Order Papers and then having the Labour Party come crawling up and saying that it had made a mistake asking if we could support something in the Statutes Amendment Bill rushing it through the House because X Y and Z said so and saying that if we did not do so then it was our fault—not Labour’s fault—for rushing legislation through. We have had this situation time and time again. 
There are probably only a couple of other minor matters on the Order Paper. New Zealand First hopes that urgency can be finished before 1 o’clock. We are looking forward to question time this afternoon. That is the real issue before the House. We hope that the old parties—the Labour Party and the National Party—do not continue urgency beyond 1 o’clock to prevent New Zealand First from once again showing up the minority Labour Government for the useless Government it is—as set out in this legislation.