Hutchison Paul: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill — Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill — Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9568] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill which is be renamed the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill. The very existence of Supplementary Order Paper 160 is an indictment on the increasing arrogance and carelessness of the Labour Government in the way that it has handled what is indeed a very sensitive and important issue. 
In saying that I note that the Supplementary Order Paper appears to have some changes in it that are important and were stressed by the Health Committee back in 1999 and 2001 as being important: for instance the change in the definition of “intellectual disability”. I certainly hope that the Minister the Hon Ruth Dyson will take a call to explain why that particular definition has changed because the select committee went to considerable trouble to ensure that it was reasonably and tightly confined. I believe members wished for a margin of error of about five whereas now it is expressed in a different way. An intelligence quotient is expressed as 70 or less with a confidence level of not less than 75 percent. 
 This is the sort of thing that Mr Benson-Pope must also take seriously. A Supplementary Order Paper has been brought in under urgency without the collaboration and communication that was the spirit of this bill when it was first reported to the select committee and there are some changes. I think it is hugely important that the Minister take a call to clearly explain that sort of change. 
I too would like to pay tribute to the enthusiasm of Judy Keall as chair of the Health Committee. I have mentioned that she has a unique and distinctive way of articulating herself but she was particularly sincere in ensuring that this bill was progressed. Once again there is a huge worry that that was back in 1999 to 2000. I want to refer to a press release of January this year: “Sex offenders bill gathers dust”. The fact of the matter is that once again the Labour Government has not put a priority on a hugely important bill. It has brought it in under urgency with a Supplementary Order Paper that has some significant changes which hopefully the Minister will explain. 
I note that the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill was introduced by National in 1999 in response to concerns that Barry Ryder who has a 17-year history of sexual offending would be released back into the community. It is one of the problems of this very sensitive and difficult area of the mentally and intellectually disabled that the press latches on to the highly spectacular cases but does not concentrate on the detail and the importance of the majority of individuals who are caught up in this legislation. There is also the anguish of the parents of children who are non-offenders but who know that they are a time-bomb in terms of their potential for offending yet there is a lack of adequate facilities to look after them. Again one of the very important and thoughtful contributions made by Wyatt Creech and the National Government was to put aside $50 million to ensure that as this legislation finally came into being there would hopefully be provision to cater for it. 
In terms of the background commentary the importance of the bill is encapsulated by the fact that as introduced it sets out the limits that can be imposed on the freedoms of people who have an intellectual disability and are in need of compulsory care. Prior to 1992 people with an intellectual disability were included in the definition of “mental disorder” under the Mental Health Act of 1969. It was absolutely obvious that there had to be a dramatic catch-up in this legislation which was clearly inappropriate. This bill certainly does that but the huge indictment on the Labour Government is the fact that it has languished for so long. 
I note that the commentary points out that the specific exclusion of people with an intellectual disability does create a legislative gap resulting in limited options being available to the courts for dealing with people with such a disability. For some that has resulted in inappropriate placement in prison mental health services or discharge into the community. Once again I go back to the Simpson report on psychiatric illness within the prison system in New Zealand. It points out just how substantial and serious untreated mental illness is within our prison system and how serious is it that this Labour Government—despite all its rhetoric from the 1990s—has not moved seriously to correct the findings of that extremely important report from Dr Sandy Simpson back in 1999. 
I think it is also important once again to point out the pleas from parents who were submitters to this bill. For instance Andrew and Kathleen Taylor wrote of the problem of lack of adequate resources: “For several years now we as parents of a child with special needs have been encouraged to believe that the care of our children should happen in the communities in which they live. We have been encouraged to embrace ‘mainstreaming’ and ‘inclusion’ in education and leisure. We were promised adequate levels of support. Institutions were a thing of the past. Now it appears that our children can be incarcerated if authorities feel that they ‘appear to pose a risk …’ without them having committed any offence.” They go on to state: “Instead of such a punitive bill we would like to see measures put in place to adequately support parents/caregivers to care for their disabled dependents safely in their own communities. This would be a far less expensive option. With adequate levels of supervision ‘dangerous’ incidents would be extremely rare.” 
I want to end by saying that it was the Hon Phil Goff who 4 years ago said that the nub of this legislation was in providing adequate facilities. That has not happened under this Labour Government and it is high time that this bill has finally appeared before the House. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority agreed to. 
Bill to proceed. 
Name changed to the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill.