Turner Judy: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill — Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
Turner Judy: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill — Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9565] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future in support of this bill which was introduced in 1999. It sets limits on the freedoms of a small but identifiable group of people with an intellectual disability who are in need of compulsory care. 
Intellectual disability is defined as a learning disability that limits day-to-day functioning and skills. Unlike mental illness it cannot be treated. Intellectually disabled folks are permanently impaired with significant deficits in two or more of the following—I list these because even today in the debate it seems that in some members’ minds there is confusion between mental health and intellectual disability—communication; self-care; home living; social skills; use of community services; self-direction; health and safety; reading writing and basic numeracy; leisure; and work. 
The legislation covers two similar groups. The first group is of those who enter compulsory care from the criminal court and who due to impairment require specialised care and attention. The second group is of individuals who are no longer subject to the criminal justice system but who still require compulsory care of some kind. United Future supports the Health Committee’s recommendation to deal separately with individuals who have an intellectual disability but no history with the criminal justice system. 
The new strategy for deinstitutionalising the care of individuals who are intellectually and mentally impaired has meant a difficult time for everybody involved in the transition. Many clients have been successfully reintegrated into the community and now enjoy a quality of life that is vastly improved. However it is also true that a number of recipients have not been able to make that jump and will always need some form of institutional care. It is interesting that on 12 July last year the  
Dominion Post 
 noted the opening of a secure unit at Porirua Hospital. That 10-bed unit is for offenders who have an intellectual disability and it is the first unit to separate intellectually disabled offenders from mentally ill offenders. 
In 1977 when those provisions were mooted it was estimated that nationwide between 50 to 100 people would be subject to the provisions of the proposed legislation. Current figures are unclear but I draw to the attention of the House a speech I gave last week in the general debate regarding the increasingly large numbers of children born with brain damage due to foetal alcohol - related causes. There is growing and convincing evidence that our prisons are full of people with intellectual impairment directly related to foetal alcohol conditions. Even this week I have had contact with the Foetal Alcohol Support Trust which was very worried about the imminent release of a recently diagnosed foetal alcohol syndrome prisoner in relation to where he could be safely housed. That man’s mother was terrified of what could happen. 
That case highlights the need for increasing resources for the diagnosis of these more subtle intellectual impairments and for better resourcing of appropriate care facilities. It is not about turning back the clock but about recognising that the numbers needing compulsory care may be larger than we realise. However United Future welcomes the change in thinking this legislation represents. No longer can people be conveniently managed; instead they are to be viewed as people with rights to quality of life and opportunity to reach potential like everybody else. We are very happy to support this bill.