Scott Lynda: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill — Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
Scott Lynda: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill — Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9559] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on one of the first bills I worked on when I became a member of Parliament in 1999. It was a pleasure to be able to come to Parliament because then it had no members who were medical doctors. I had the slogan: “Put a doctor in the House.” and it was good to be able to be part of the Health Committee and work on a bill in an area on which I had quite bit of knowledge and experience in my past life as a nurse and a doctor. 
In 1992 changes were made to the Mental Health Act as we have heard. Those changes meant that people with an intellectual disability were no longer covered by the Mental Health Act. My very first job was working as a nurse-aide at Porirua Hospital. In those days in the 1970s psychiatric hospitals were very large institutions that had within them a large number of people with intellectual disabilities. As those hospitals closed down those with an intellectual disability were placed in the community. It was recognised that there is quite a difference between someone with an illness due to a mental health problem and someone with an intellectual disability. The cause may have been congenital—people may have been born with an intellectual disability. Excluded from this bill are those who acquire brain injury either by accident or by stroke. The bill does not cover those people. Those types of situations where there is challenging behaviour are still not covered. However the bill did fill both a legislative gap and a service gap in the community. 
The bill was introduced in 1999 by the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech. At that time it had two sections to it; one was for offender groups and the other was for non-offender groups. The aim of the bill was to determine that intellectually disabled persons who had committed a criminal offence and who could not be held responsible for their actions could be placed in permanent care and have a secure environment. 
It is always interesting that specific cases often drive a need for legislative change because they demonstrate so clearly where the gaps are. One of those cases was that of David Stephens. His parents were having a very hard time trying to cope with David’s care. David had an intellectual disability. He was a very big lad and as he grew older his behaviour deteriorated. When he was able to be cared for under the Mental Health Act he spent time at Tokanui. Mr and Mrs Stephens described this time as being probably the best time because he was managed. However when he was released from Tokanui they could not cope with him and there was nowhere else appropriate for him. 
The Stephens were the very first submitters to the select committee and they appeared before it in person. They said they supported the intent of the bill that provided protection of a legal status for someone with an intellectual handicap who has offended or who is in danger of offending. We heard from intellectual disability groups from around New Zealand from the Human Rights Commission and from civil liberties groups that those who have not offended but who have an intellectual disability are entitled to the same rights as any other person. I had to agree with that. I had to agree that just because a person may have an intellectual disability and behave in a way that is strange to those viewing that person perhaps in the street it does not mean that that person is likely to commit an offence. Luckily in today’s society people with an intellectual disability are living within our communities and people have a lot more understanding than they used to. 
However the select committee decided that it would be only those who had committed an offence who would come under the jurisdiction of this bill. At that time the National Government put in a large bucket of money—to the tune of $20 million—to go with this bill to develop services. I am pleased that although it has taken this Government such a long time to get this bill before us—and we are pleased to have it here today at long last—the fact is that that money has been spent to develop services for people with an intellectual disability who commit an offence. 
Because the non-offender group was taken out of this bill there also needs to be good wrap-around services for people whose behaviour is deteriorating. That can happen for a lot of reasons but generally it is because of the stresses and changes in a person’s life. I remember a case of an intellectually handicapped young man in my own hometown. His mother had a stroke and his father died. They had cared for this young man their son who was in his 40s by the time I got to meet him. When his whole support structure collapsed and the scaffolding in his life fell apart his behaviour deteriorated markedly and he ended up in the criminal justice system. That was totally inappropriate for someone with an IQ of probably around 70. 
I have been reading the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by Ruth Dyson. She has changed the definition of “intellectual disability” and I am very disappointed about that. The Health Committee spent a lot of time looking at the definition of “intellectual disability”. We did not want it to be a rigid IQ of 70 or below because many other factors can come into it when looking at someone with an intellectual disability. A person may have a slightly higher IQ but have very very poor social skills. If the definition of “intellectual disability” is tightened up as in the Supplementary Order Paper then one excludes people from being able to be cared for under this bill and I have some concerns about that. If members look at the bill they will see that the first 90 pages have all been struck out. So through the select committee process we did make major substantive changes to the way the bill works. 
The submission from the Stephens pointed out their distress and the trauma was relieved when their son was admitted to the Kimberley Centre. But he would assault staff and leave to go off down the road. There was no law by which they could put him in a secure facility and take away his right to be free to walk wherever he chose. David assaulted somebody in the street and in the end they used I think the Protection of Personal and Property and Rights Act to contain him in a secure environment. As I have said the millions of dollars that were put up by the National Government to back this bill have been used to expand services within the community markedly during the last 4 years while we have waited and waited for this bill to come to this House. 
The changes we made to the legislation by excluding the non-offender group were supported by the Society for the Intellectually Handicapped. I talked to Barbara Rocco the other day a former chair of the society and told her that this bill was in the urgency motion. She could not believe it. She said: “I will hold my breath and just wait because I have been waiting for so long for this bill to be passed trough Parliament.” So she will be very pleased that we are debating it today. Hopefully we will see it through its Committee stage and third reading because the National Party will be supporting it.