Dyson Ruth: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9595] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank members and past members for their contributions as the bill has passed through its various stages since first being introduced to the House in October 1999. In particular I thank the members of the Health Committee under the chairpersonship of Judy Keall for their considered examination of all the issues in the bill and for preparing the bill to be reported back to the House. I also acknowledge the Minister of the time the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech for introducing the bill. 
Until 1992 Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act gave the courts the ability to consider offenders who have an intellectual disability under the Mental Health Act. Since 1992 the courts have not been able to do that because of the legislative gap between the mental health legislation and the Criminal Justice Act. Having been properly excluded from the definition of “mental disorder” people with intellectual disabilities were also excluded from the coverage of Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act. That meant they are currently liable to be treated inappropriately by the courts when they appear on criminal charges. These inappropriate placements include being sent to prison being detained as special patients in mental health facilities or receiving a non-custodial sentence. 
The Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill is linked to this bill as it provides the legal mechanism by which people with an intellectual disability who have been charged with or convicted of offences are diverted to the compulsory care system. With the passage of both bills the legislative gap that has existed since 1992 will be closed and the courts will be able to make appropriate dispositions that provide for the care and rehabilitation of people with intellectual disabilities who offend. 
For the purposes of the bill the definition of “intellectual disability” is primarily based on one developed by the American Association for Mental Retardation. The association’s definition has recently been updated and the Supplementary Order Paper agreed to by the Committee of the whole House brings the bill’s definition into line with that latest version. I would like particularly to commend the work of the Health Committee which gave appropriate and very helpful consideration to improving that definition. 
The bill sets out the process for assessing people assumed to have an intellectual disability with special assessors provisions for second opinions and the input of members of the person’s family and community. There are three ways in which a person can become subject to the bill: through the criminal courts through a prison manager or through the director of the area mental health service. The Family Court can impose compulsory care under the bill only after completion of a needs assessment and a care and rehabilitation plan. The bill further provides for regular reviews and reports on the appropriateness of continued care and people may be released from compulsory care in a number of ways depending on how they first entered the system. The bill provides for two levels of care either supervised or secure based on the person’s assessed risk. It contains a number of mechanisms to ensure that the rights of intellectually disabled people are protected and further contains a number of statutory powers of compulsion to require the person to comply with his or her care order. These include the requirement that the person accept properly given care and comply with every lawful direction given by his or her compulsory care coordinator or case manager. 
There are provisions for specified people to use reasonable force for restraint detention or transportation. There are also powers for seclusion and medication. Those powers are balanced by specific safeguards against their abuse. They include court reviews of the terms and conditions of compulsory care 6-monthly clinical reviews independent monitoring and the opportunity for intervention by a High Court judge. In addition to those Part 5 guarantees people several specific rights including but not limited to information relating to their assessment and care order; respect for the care recipient’s cultural identity; independent health and disability advice as well as independent legal advice; and company to receive visitors and to receive and send mail. 
The main changes recommended by the Health Committee pertain to the definition of “intellectual disability” the removal of non-offenders from the original legislation and the inclusion of “Rehabilitation” in the title of the Act. Again I would like to commend the work of the select committee and I support those changes. 
Considerable progress has been made in setting up the infrastructure for the compulsory care regime. Each of the four regions within the Ministry of Health has established a regional intellectual disability care agency and has appointed staff who will now be able to carry out the care coordinator’s role as established under the legislation. Hospital level secure services are still at an early stage of development. The bill will provide the courts with appropriate options for the referral of offenders with an intellectual disability into a care and rehabilitation regime and in doing so will close a legislative gap. 
In addition to thanking the select committee I also want to place on the record my thanks to officials and to parliamentary counsel for their considerable assistance with the passage of the bill. It has been a particular pleasure to have the consideration and support of nearly the entire Parliament on this important issue and I commend its further speedy progress.