Scott Lynda: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Scott Lynda: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9590] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Under Part 5 “Status and rights of care recipients” we are looking at the requirements to accept care. We are talking about taking away the rights of somebody who is being compulsorily cared for and entrusted to a care manager so it is important that care recipients are consumers under the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights. Just because those people are under a compulsory treatment order does not mean that they do not have the same rights as any other patient to be treated with care and respect and given an appropriate level of services. 
Many clients with high and complex behavioural support needs may be able to be managed in the community. The aim has always been to have the least restrictive environment for those patients. However we know that there are some who need to be in a restricted environment so it is a matter of getting the balance right—assessing when a care recipient needs to be under much tighter and more restrictive care and when he or she with support services can return to a community setting. 
We see that balance between the rights of individuals and their families and the rights of the community to be protected in the area of mental health as well. It is always a balancing act to try to get those rights in the right balance. Part 5 talks about the rights of care recipients but we must not forget the rights of the community to be protected. The Barry Ryder case of course was an extreme example in which young boys’ lives were tragically ruined by one person who needed to be in a restricted environment. That is why we need to see this bill progressing today and I will be pleased when we have the third reading and it becomes law. However people under compulsory-care orders have a right to medical treatment. 
We talked quite a bit in the Health Committee about how somebody could liaise with his or her family. The fact is that there will not be a huge number of those sorts of care facilities for people who need a restricted environment so people are likely to be cared for in a place away from their families. We talked about their rights to use the telephone to legal advice to company and to receive information from their families. Those people also have the right to communicate with others whether that is the Health and Disability Commissioner district inspectors their own lawyers their own doctors or specialist assessors from whom they have sought a second opinion about their condition. The care recipient will probably not be the person asking for that—it is much more likely to be his or her family. It is also important that the people caring for someone in a restricted environment have the ability to manage their care so this bill involves the rights of the carers as well as the rights of the individuals cared for. 
There are sizable specific powers over care recipients in this section. In very specific situations they can be put into isolation if their behaviour deteriorates out of control and they are a danger to themselves or others. A care manager may isolate care recipients if it is necessary to prevent those persons doing themselves or others harm. But there will be strict guidelines on how that can happen. Clause 61 talks about the restraint of a care recipient. Restraint must be used only on very rare occasions but sometimes it is needed and a care manager may restrain a care recipient if it is necessary to prevent that person endangering the health and safety of himself or herself seriously damaging property or seriously compromising the care and well-being of others.