Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Madam Chair thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the bill. Look I'd like to firstly acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston as the member in charge of the bill for bringing such a weighty issue before this Parliament one that's taken a considerable amount of work from members from across both sides of the House.I'd like to also briefly acknowledge the submitters. I think that during the select committee stage of the bill I heard probably some of the most harrowing and difficult stories from those submitters who came forward to share their stories and I would like to put it on the record to acknowledge that effort and how difficult that was—for those family members of victims as well. I'd like to also generally acknowledge victims of crime. This is a bill that's very much attempted to give greater justice to the victims of crime and to carve out greater space within the criminal justice system for the rights of victims.This bill is an ambitious one as it's taken on two very complex areas that I can see that the debate going forward in the House will cover and I'd like to outline those two areas. The first being balancing the rights of victims alongside meeting the needs of the legal requirements of the criminal justice system and doing that in a way that meets those needs but also provides for victims in the courtroom space. Secondly it also strikes a balance between the mental health needs of the offender and the needs of the victim and their family; improving the interaction between our mental health system and also our criminal justice system which is no easy feat.So as we've heard already from the member in charge of the bill this bill has already received a second reading. An important recap is to recap the legislative process to date as the passage of the bill has not been a typical one. The critical part of this bill has been the verdict that is read out in the courtroom. So the initial attempt was to address the verdict which was read out as not guilty on account of insanity" and those words "not guilty" were the words that were so hurtful to victims and families of victims who were having to hear "not guilty". When the committee initially heard those concerns of submitters we took advice and attempted to strike that balance between the needs of victims and the requirements of law.After the committee had reported back to the House as already outlined the Chief Justice wrote to the Attorney-General highlighting concerns regarding changing to the definition the committee had arrived at and that was "proven but insane". In particular there was real concern raised around using that word "proven" and that goes right to the heart of requirements for mens rea and actus reus in order for a crime to be proven. The Chief Justice emphasised the fundamental legal principle underpinning the finding of not guilty on account of insanity and that is that the defendant by definition is not guilty because of that mental element that mens rea and the element of the offence had not in fact been proven. On the other hand the central purpose of the bill outlined by the member is to avoid the victim and their family hearing the words "not guilty". So this was a difficult balancing act and at this point the bill was referred back to the select committee for a second time to have another crack at striking that balance and getting that right.So where the committee has arrived at is "act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity". While that's a bit of a mouthful the committee feels and has had good advice that that lands in terms of meeting those legal requirements for the criminal process as well as sitting well with victims of crime and those families who will be sitting in the courtroom when the process is heard. While it's been a difficult balancing act I think we've got there in the end.I'd like to acknowledge too the role of Simon Bridges who was the lead spokesperson from National who actually took his legal background and put it to good use by trying to assist in finding that middle road.The committee considered a number of options and what we've really arrived at now is we've completed that consideration and it's really pleasing to see that the committee has reached a unanimous position on the way forward. So this is where we are now.I'd like to continue on further if possible and continue here. I would like to continue by outlining why Labour supports the bill. I think it's important to have that there—Debate interrupted."