Scott Lynda: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9569] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I take a call on the title which has been changed to the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill with the term “rehabilitation” having been added. I have to say while the term “rehabilitation” is used it is difficult sometimes to see how rehabilitation fits in with intellectual disability which is a permanent ongoing condition. What really fits in is support services putting structure and scaffolding around a person’s life so that that person can then behave in a more appropriate manner. 
 I am not sure that that is called rehabilitation; I always think of rehabilitation as helping individuals to engage in new and enriching ways. I suppose that if the amount of support structures necessary can be put around somebody then rehabilitation may be an appropriate term if behaviour can be changed. We know that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: In this debate could we stick strictly to the clause under discussion? It is the title clause clause 1. Unlike other debate over the last 2 days when we have ranged fairly widely this debate is narrow and must be kept narrow. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Yes I have heard that from Chairpersons before who then go on to let everyone else have a wide-ranging debate but I will stick to the title. I am sticking to the title because “rehabilitation” has been added to it. I am talking about the new title of the bill and whether it is appropriate to have “rehabilitation” added by the Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. The title was Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill which was very appropriate because that is what this bill is all about. 
The legislation covers those people who have an intellectual disability—I do note that the Minister has changed that definition even though we at the select committee spent hours and hours talking about the definition so we will be asking why it has changed—who are people born with an intellectual disability or who suffer a birth trauma and have an intellectual disability but it does not apply to people who suffer a brain injury for example a traumatic brain injury. They are not covered by this bill. So people with an intellectual disability are covered by this bill and the specific title for this bill needs to cover that. It needs to cover those with intellectual disability because the Mental Health Act no longer does. 
The title is the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill. The words “compulsory care” are important because that is what this bill is about. It is about taking those people who have an intellectual disability and who offend. We have taken out the non-offender group which was originally in the bill but these are people who offend and who therefore need compulsory care. It is very sad—extremely sad—to have people who have an intellectual disability being hounded by a community or coming before the law and being put in jail. So the whole point of this bill is to give compulsory care for people who have an intellectual disability in specific circumstances in specific facilities designed for them and with a care package that will be wrapped around them. 
Adding “rehabilitation” to the title relates to the parts of the bill where we have added needs assessment and rehabilitation plans. So having a rehabilitation plan for people can mean that they will be able to be released into community care rather than being in 24-hour permanent locked care. But as we know with the David Stephens case there are some people for whom that will never be able to be the case. Because of their behaviour their lack of anger management and the fact they do not understand the consequences of their actions they will have to be in permanent ongoing compulsory care as identified by the title of this bill. 
I do not think that we should in any way change the title. I have not moved any amendments or substituted anything for this title because it does determine in a clear and defined way what this bill is about. Compulsory care imposes limits on individuals and limits their freedom so that is why a specific Act of Parliament is needed.