Goudie Sandra: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9591] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I turn to clauses 63 and 64 which refer to the placement of care recipients. As we have already covered Part 4 I remind members that care recipients can be placed within a mental facility if no other facility is available for them at the time. That needs to be recognised because if the Ministry of Health also accepts responsibility for removing people from safe care it must also admit responsibility for the outcome. So if there are no purpose-built or professionally staffed facilities other than mental health facilities those are the facilities that will have to accommodate care recipients. It is to be hoped that we will have an adequate number of facilities available for the purpose that this bill intends. 
I would now like to draw members’ attention to clause 65 which refers to when a care manager may grant leave. This is where it starts to get a little bit confusing in respect of the definitions for care recipient and special care recipient which are used quite a lot in the legislation. It would seem that the definitions are not too dissimilar. The care manager may grant leave for a 2-week period. They can go on holiday. I look at the case of Barry Ryder and I am thinking: are we going to send Barry Ryder on holiday? It would certainly have to be a supervised holiday because it would be absolutely atrocious to give people like Barry Ryder a 2-week holiday. I can see clause 65 being the area that could cause us some problems. There could be a failure in the system that could cause us problems and more of the sorts of things that happened with people like Barry Ryder. As we are aware and as I have mentioned previously on a number of occasions the judge said that Barry Ryder was likely to reoffend and clearly whenever he went out into the community without supervision for any period of time he went out to reoffend. He could not help himself. He was not a person who could be rehabilitated to any degree in order to provide the necessary level of safety and comfort for the community. So clause 65 “Care manager may grant leave” is a concern. It is to be hoped that before that leave is granted a substantial amount of consultation will take place with all parties including the welfare guardian. I am sure that there will be some concern about that. 
The Minister may also authorise leave for special care recipients. Again while I am sure all due care would be taken I see that as an area where there may be a substantial shortfall and where the real close care and security of not only the care recipient but also the public at large could be put severely at risk. We have seen that in the case of Barry Ryder. He was supposed to have been monitored and supervised but he was not monitored and supervised to the degree necessary and he offended to quite a horrific degree. So I think it is absolutely vital that in making any of those determinations about leave—where the care manager is going to grant leave for whatever purpose—cognisance is given to the absolute safety of all the persons involved be they the care recipient the service providers the caregivers or the public at large. That is absolutely vital. 
I would like to go back to the placement of care recipients. It is to be hoped that there will be sufficient accommodation for care recipients. We are closing down a lot of institutions—such places as the Kimberley Centre. We can see that Kimberley has deteriorated to quite a degree but I understand— 
Ron Mark 
: Deliberately. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes deliberately. 
Ron Mark 
: Deferred maintenance. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Absolutely! But when we look at Kimberley its grounds and its environment we see that it really is a community within itself. That I think is a vision and it could be a really good vision for a secure environment.