Goudie Sandra: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9572] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 As I look at the title “Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill” I think: what about making it the “Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation or Not) Bill”? It must be remembered that rehabilitation will not always be possible. Earlier on I talked about Barry Ryder whose case was a key one in helping to bringing about this bill. It was recognised that Barry Ryder could not necessarily be rehabilitated and the judge said that without doubt he was most likely to reoffend. The first question asked by the parents was about why experts thought that he could ever be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation will not necessarily be an option. Therefore the bill could be called the “Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation or Not) Bill” or the “Rehabilitation Where Applicable Bill”. Rehabilitation is not absolutely always something that can be achieved. I would like to acknowledge our concerns about “rehabilitation” not being defined. I think definition is absolutely necessary and I acknowledge the words of Pita Paraone in recognising that. It is to be hoped that the Minister will ensure a definition is provided perhaps in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper before the bill goes too much further. 
Pressing on with regard to whether “rehabilitation” should be in the title—I see you leaning that way Mr Chairperson—I will stick to the title and explain about rehabilitation not necessarily being achievable. Justice Chisholm in his prognosis for Barry Ryder said: “In my assessment you represent an extremely high risk of reoffending.” When Ryder was unaccompanied and not being supervised he was caught by an adult with a boy in a secluded area by a school with a knife a tube of lubricant and a book about anal intercourse. Ryder has ruined the lives of four boys and the judge has said he will likely reoffend and that it is likely he cannot be rehabilitated. 
I bring members back to the title which is about rehabilitation. That may not necessarily be achieved and I think we need to be realistic about that. Much as we might all like to see people being rehabilitated when they are a danger either to themselves or to the public through no fault of their own but through circumstance bringing it about rehabilitation as identified in the title is not necessarily always achievable. I raised another case earlier about a woman aged 33 who went into violent rages. Because she went into those rages her parents could not find an agency that would care for her. This was a real concern and a problem. I do not know whether that person can be rehabilitated but in terms of the title possibly not. Who knows? The one thing that was of real comfort to the parents was that she did find a secure and safe environment at the Kimberley Centre. That was something they were most appreciative of. They were also appreciative of the expertise of the services that were provided at Kimberley. Any rehabilitation that may have been able to take place would have been provided for at Kimberley and in that case it was a positive but in the case of Barry Ryder it was definitely a very clear negative. Having the word “rehabilitation” in the title is a bit of a concern but because we are so supportive of this bill we will not agonise unduly over the title. As I said before it is to be hoped that a definition for the term “rehabilitation” will be provided in the bill by the Minister before it goes much further. I think it is absolutely necessary that we do have a definition of rehabilitation and we look forward to that being the case.