Walters Vanushi; Dean JacquiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to take a call in relation to the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. I first want to acknowledge the contributions across the House today and I do think that when we are all echoing a similar message across the House it's clear there is a need for change. The sentiment in the House today also reflects the sentiment at select committee where we worked really collegially together to ensure that we got the best bill that we could coming into this process. So I just want to reflect that as well. I do want to reflect on the contribution of Louise Upston the member in charge of the bill who I know has been advocating in this space actually for a number of years now and—as my colleague Arena Williams has also acknowledged—the advice and information that we received from multiple departments in relation to this bill.This is a bill that aims to ensure the equivalent treatment of victims of legally insane offenders with other victims of crime and it also seeks as colleagues have outlined 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.Now as a member of the Justice Committee I do want to reflect on the submissions made on this bill which have had a significant impact on my thinking in what I consider to be a complex area of law—as they should. We listened to the most horrifying accounts of what has happened to some individuals and to their family members and also the impact of our justice settings on their lives. As members have outlined we had a number of submissions in relation to this bill—a significant overwhelming number in support of the bill; a minority who supported the intent of the bill but believed it should be carried out in a different way; and a smaller group—actually quite a small group—who opposed.I want to spend some time on some of the key issues that we considered at select committee and actually reflect on the tensions we heard because I don't believe that this is an easy straightforward set of changes that we're making; these are hard changes that touch on some significant tensions. The changes do address the rights of people who have suffered sometimes the very worst of things done to them and their family members but it also does address the principles on which our criminal law frameworks are built. I also think that it touches on an overlap between areas that in my view are sometimes siloed in our legal system.Firstly I want to acknowledge those submitters. There were several who submitted on their own behalf and several who submitted because their family members had gone through these horrific experiences. We received submissions about home invasion about rape and about experiences akin to what I would call torture and we heard about the devastating impacts on individuals who'd gone through these sometimes unspeakable experiences. The acts described were horrifying to hear about and I can't imagine what those individuals and families went through or actually what they continue to go through. But what I was aware of as they spoke was the profound courage of those individuals and families who not only told their stories but were also seeking through really respectful and really reasoned arguments to be acknowledged and to be heard as part of the justice and health responses when these horrific acts do occur.The other thing that I reflected on as we went through the select committee process was that this is an area of overlap between the health and the justice system. It's an issue that occupies a really complex sensitive and in fact an often grey space where health issues intersect with justice issues. While it's easy to say that these are two distinctly separate areas of law in reality we know that this isn't the case. Mental health issues too often exist within a justice framing.I did want to touch on the Attorney-General's report going into this process which hasn't yet been touched on by other colleagues where he in part considered section 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which is the rights of persons deprived of liberty to be treated with humanity and dignity. The view of the Attorney-General was that any limit on that right should be rationally connected and proportionate to the objectives of the change.He was referring when he considered this to the release of individuals into the public space and the ability of the victim to be heard. He noted that the victim's views are not determinative and that there doesn't appear to be a legal requirement to provide a substantial amount of personal information to the victim. He notes that the bill's victims' rights provisions are consistent with the requirement that persons deprived of their liberty under mental health legislation be treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity. And I do think that that's important to note.I did also want to touch on one change that the bill itself makes which is the requirement for notification to the victim when an insane offender is being considered for a leave of absence. Now this is an issue that was highlighted several times by submitters who felt like they weren't considered as relevant to this process as it stood and often—as a few people have mentioned this evening—were surprised to find out retroactively that their offender had been granted leave. Several of those individuals reflected on the fear of that. One particular who I recall described how she found out the individual had been granted leave by seeing him across the road. So the proposal is that the Justice Committee examine section 50 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act which provides that the Minister of Health may grant a leave of absence to a special patient from a hospital into the community subject to conditions specified in the section. The committee decided that the bill should require that victims of persons found insane be notified when the special patient is being considered for a leave of absence. This is an absolutely critical piece of the bill and was significantly important to submitters.As I reflected on the number of submissions that came to the committee I wanted to speak about one in particular which was the Chief Victims Advisor to the Government. She noted that there was significant harm and ongoing trauma and fear that these individuals suffered which was the same as individuals who had been offended against by someone who had not been found not guilty by reason of insanity. She also referenced international law which again I'll mention as it hasn't been referenced in presentations tonight. He referenced the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and the Abuse of Power which sets out New Zealand's obligations to allow the views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of the proceeding where their personal interests are affected. In her submission at the very end she ends by saying that New Zealand has an opportunity now to develop legislation policy and practice that both acknowledges the offender was mentally incapacitated but also provides a voice for victims which is critical.I'm going to end by saying again that I don't believe that this is an easy area of reform. It does require balancing between victims' rights and those of the accused but also a nuanced approach that recognises there is an overlap here between the justice space and the health system. There is much to do as my colleague Nick Smith has mentioned in way of preventative action as well on this front. So I thank once again the submitters on this bill to select committee. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Nicola Grigg—five-minute call.