Hutchison Paul: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9600] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 With a great deal of pleasure I do indeed say that I support the third reading of this bill particularly so because it has taken so long before it has finally got through the House. After all the genesis of this bill was in the 1980s and 1990s. At that time it took people like Law Commissioner Tim Brewer to urge that it was very important for this to come into being after some preventable tragedies had occurred in New Zealand. During that time more preventable tragedies have occurred. 
It seems quite extraordinary that even though the bill was introduced in October 1999 the Labour Government has chosen to look at other priorities such as introducing the Health and Disability Bill which has only perpetrated on New Zealand the most enormous conglomeration of unmitigated bureaucracy that our health system has ever known and instead it could have concentrated on bills such as this. 
However I must say that I enjoyed that early select committee and the cross-party collaboration and enthusiasm to see this bill progress. I must acknowledge my colleague Dr Lynda Scott for her very valuable work and of course Wyatt Creech the former Minister of Health. That Health Committee was indeed unique with the presence of the former chairperson Judy Keall. While I cannot say that I necessarily miss her unique articulations and iterations I can say that the House and the select committee are quite different without them. She was a woman of huge enthusiasm and I am always grateful to her for bringing my 97-year-old mother a bunch of flowers on her birthday when she was 91 or 92. However she did indeed have a lot of care that this bill should be well considered and that it should be brought through the House with due expediency and that has not happened. 
What makes me even more frustrated is the fact that here we see this Supplementary Order Paper that has redefined intellectual disability. I acknowledge that the Minister has explained the reason it has been redefined on a technical basis but there is a mistake. Clearly on one page we talk about a confidence limit of 95 percent but on the explanatory note we talk about a confidence level of not less than 75 percent. If the Hon Marian Hobbs had that sort of confidence level with her sweetcorn she would be getting into a hang of a lot more trouble than she is in already. I hope that this was merely a typo and that it will be corrected because it was fundamentally very very important. 
I am also concerned by the political correctness that has infiltrated itself into this bill. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The member is better than this. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: This is important because these terms unfortunately stick and they are unnecessary. The point is that the person in the street does not understand them. It is the same with this extraordinary need of the Labour Government to legislate for cultural correctness. We have this whole clause 23 “Cultural assessment” where not only is there the requirement to attempt to legislate culture ethnicity language or any religious or ethical beliefs but also the attention to Maori. 
We never really had the explanation as to why it is so necessary in this sort of bill. We are living in a truly multicultural society and while of course it is absolutely appropriate that families whanau and iwi are totally acknowledged and observed why does it have to be put specifically in legislation? I think that in 50 years’ time it will not be relevant. We have sort of gone through this little 20-year time warp where there has been this absolute subconscious knee-jerk reaction to have attention to something that will not endure on universal principles over a long period of time. 
I want to make just another couple of comments. One is to reiterate that one of the submitters who left me with a strong sense of concern about getting this bill correct—Kathleen Taylor—who had been through the situation of having an intellectually disabled child who had not offended was in absolute constant worry of that child offending but she could not find anyone to take responsibility when the going got tough. The plea that she made was instead of such a punitive bill she would like to see measures put in place to adequately support parents and caregivers to care for the disabled dependants in their own community. This would be a far less expensive option. With adequate levels of supervision dangerous incidents would be extremely rare. I think again of the forethought of Wyatt Creech and the National Government back in 1999 when they provided $50 million to ensure that some of those basic facilities would indeed be put in place. 
I note that the commentary states: “The following service development has occurred: Service specifications have been developed … The Clinical Training Agency has put out a Request for Proposal for the provision of a training course …”. Now that has not gone as well as it could but it was very important that it actually happened. “Negotiations are commencing with providers to build up capacity in preparation for services for offenders and Work is also proceeding on the planning for other community based services.” 
Now the sadness is that not all those things have come to reality. Phil Goff back in 1999 again said that the basis of this bill was providing realistic mental health services and facilities for those who were intellectually disabled and that has not happened. However I end by saying that I certainly do support this bill into the House. It is timely. It is overdue but it is certainly necessary. 
Bill read a third time.