Scott Lynda: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
Scott Lynda: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9546] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I think this absolutely demonstrates why things like this should not be rushed. Even the Speaker has to go and find the new wording of this bill which will become a separate Act of Parliament. The way this has happened with this Supplementary Order Paper being introduced is really unfortunate. We do not accept the Minister’s explanation. We do not accept it at all. Previously the Health Committee had worked together on the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7)—a bill that we agreed on and supported. However because the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill did not have a chance to be perused by the select committee we cannot support it. Even members of the House have not had a chance to look at it in any detail. We cannot support it so we will vote against it—and that is unfortunate. 
The Minister Mr Goff said that with regard to the provisions he has added there is no risk. The bill contains major changes to the way the criminal justice system applies to people who have an intellectual disability or mental illness. How can Mr Goff say there is no risk when he has changed the requirements? He has removed the current requirement: “Persons found unfit to stand trial or who are acquitted on account of insanity must be remanded to a hospital or facility while inquiries are made to determine how they should be dealt with.” Just imagine the scenario we see every day: somebody is found not guilty on the grounds of insanity or intellectual disability and there are no beds. What happens when there are no beds? What will the judge do then? Maybe that person will be sent back to his or her family. The family can look after the person. Is that not what happens every day of the week in the mental health services? The family can look after the person—provide the care without support. Bail would be granted and the family will have to look after the person. 
We know that judges work very hard in this country and do their very best but not all judges have very clear knowledge about mental illness or intellectual disability. They are not trained for that. There are cases like Paul Ellis on whom a report was released yesterday. Paul Ellis went into a mental institution and two doctors said he needed to be assessed. There must have been sufficient evidence for that. He came up before a judge within a day because there happened to be a gap and he was told his rights. What did the judge do? He released him. He released him because people with a mental illness can appear very sane at times. They can hide their paranoia and the distress that is going on in their minds. He was released and his father paid the price for that and died. 
Mr Goff has come to this House with this Supplementary Order Paper that allows people who have been found not guilty on the grounds of insanity or intellectual disability to be discharged on bail to the community rather than be remanded to a hospital or secure facility while inquiries are made to determine how they should be dealt with. No one says that once an appropriate care package is put in place the ability may not be there to rehabilitate people back into the community. We are not saying that; we are saying that the Minister cannot stand up and say there is no risk. He cannot make those sorts of substantial changes without anybody in the sector having had a chance to look at them. Unfortunately on those grounds we are not able to support the bill. 
When we were going through the select committee process an attempt was made to slip in a proposal to amend suspended sentences of imprisonment. We state in our report: “Occasionally Government departments will propose substantive and significant changes to bills after select committees have finished hearing submissions. We disapprove of that practice.” Everyone on the committee agreed with that response with regard to trying to slip in something after the select committee process. And what do we have here? We have a Supplementary Order Paper that is slipped in in urgency at the last minute. Not only has the select committee not had a chance to scrutinise it nobody working in the actual field has had a chance to scrutinise it. It may be that there may be agreement on it but who knows? Nobody has had that chance of perusal. We find that very disappointing. 
We stated in our report on the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7): “Committees are not simply vehicles for Government amendments to legislation: they are committees of Parliament with a duty to scrutinise legislation and provide for public input so that New Zealand is provided with the best legislation possible reflecting a wide range of interests.” That is a principle I uphold. I think that the way the select committee process works is excellent. It allows all New Zealanders to have a say and the process with this bill is simply and utterly bypassing it. The bill that was before the select committee was a very good bill because we all worked together to try to improve the situation of the assessment treatment and care of people who have a mental illness or intellectual disability. 
 We extended the number of days somebody could be remanded to a hospital or care facility from 7 to 30 because that was determined to be the most suitable way of dealing with cases. Inquiries need to be made. I have been promoting a member’s bill to make amendments to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act because families need to be involved. Sometimes with people who have intellectual disabilities it takes time to find their families and to try to put together knowledge about what has happened. 
A lot of the changes made by the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill and this Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill were driven by particular cases including the Barry Ryder case. Mr Ryder had been in a mental institution but when the law was changed so that those with an intellectual disability no longer remained under mental health care he was released. The bills were also driven by the case of a young man called Mr Stephens whose family had struggled and struggled to care for him. He also had been in mental health care but had a mental disability. So a differentiation needed to be made. 
One of the very first jobs I had when I left school was to work at Porirua Hospital. At that time there were a lot of people with intellectual disabilities who were cared for in mental institutions which were inappropriate places for them. They needed specialised care. The law was changed in 1992 which made clear the difference between mental illness and intellectual disability. But then there were gaps in the system which is why this bill and the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill were needed. It is unfortunate that this legislation which was introduced in 1999 has taken so long until 2003 before we get to debate it in its final form. It has been sitting on the Order Paper for 3 years and I thought it would never see the light of day. I am very pleased it is here today because it was a National Party bill to begin with. It was a National Party initiative and in 1999 we allocated $18 million to develop services for people with an intellectual disability who need to be kept in a secure facility who need 24-hour supervision and who need to be kept under that sort of care either because their behaviour has deteriorated or because they are unaware when they strike out at somebody or behave in a way that is socially inappropriate to the rest of society. 
Most people with an intellectual disability are living good lives within our society these days and that is great. I am very pleased that that has occurred. But there are those—and it is a very small group—who do need specialised care. It is good that the $18 million has been used over the last 4 years to develop those services. We would have supported the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7). However it is unfortunate that because of our lack of time to scrutinise it we cannot support the Criminal Proceedings (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill. We will have to vote against it.