Hutchison Paul: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9576] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 1 does indeed have some very substantial components to it. One has only to go to clause 5 to note that the term “care recipient” is once again defined. I recall Stephen Franks from the ACT party saying that this bill is absolutely inculcated with politically correct terms. One has only to go to the dictionary to note that the noun “patient” means “a person receiving care or treatment”. But oh no the terminology here has to be “care recipient” which is using two words for the price of one. That is very indicative of this Labour Government which is so keen on adding compliance costs and verbiage that signifies very little. 
It is also interesting that the adjective of the term means “having or showing patience”. Certainly when it comes to Part 1 the community has had to show extraordinary patience because after all it was back in 1997 that the courts were saying it was urgent that this bill be progressed. In 1999 under the National Government Wyatt Creech quite rightly introduced the bill to Parliament but under the Labour Government it has taken these many years before finally we have it back before us today. The terminology is highly important and it is once again a reflection of how this Labour Government will use two words instead of one when there is an opportunity to do so. It will sure as hang do exactly that rather than use the time-honoured word that people know and understand—such as “patient” meaning a person receiving care or treatment. 
I too want to focus for a moment on the meaning of the term “intellectual disability”. Once again if one looks at the Supplementary Order Paper the Associate Minister of Health Ruth Dyson has brought in without collaboration and without the consultation that did occur so well in the Health Committee one notices an anomaly. The officials might like to prick up their ears here because I see that the explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper talks about the change to the definition of “intellectual disability” and it goes on to say “(that is an intelligence quotient that is expressed as 70 or less and with a confidence level of not less than 75%)”. When one goes to the words in the bill—which I have temporarily mislaid—I think one finds that they talk about a confidence level of not less than 95 percent. Which is correct? 
Hopefully the Minister in the chair the Hon George Hawkins will take a call and sort out what this anomaly is all about. This is a hugely important definition. It is one of the nubs of the bill. In the depths of the night the Government brought in this Supplementary Order Paper which quite clearly has the words “a confidence level of not less than 75%”; yet when we go to the words of the definition in the bill we see that they talk about a confidence level of 95 percent. The Minister cannot have it both ways. It is time he observed proper process particularly when it comes to bills as important as this one. I hope he will take a call on this hugely central definition “intellectual disability” and confess that once again a mistake has been made because he has been sloppy—often there is sloppiness when a Supplementary Order Paper of this substantial note is brought in without consultation—or he will give an explanation of what it means.