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:9585] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Again I acknowledge the fine efforts of my colleague Dr Lynda Scott and I acknowledge Wyatt Creech who introduced this legislation in 1999. They made sure that funding was put aside for that purpose and it is absolutely critical that we do have people who are trained in this field. It is vitally important that diagnoses and needs assessments are done appropriately and specifically to the individual. That is hugely important to the parents and to the welfare guardians of people with intellectual disabilities who are being assessed within the ambit of this bill. Funding is absolutely critical in ensuring that we do have the trained personnel and the specialists necessary to make those assessments. One person has made a substantial submission in that regard and has some concern about the need to ensure that there is ongoing funding for people such as service providers and caregivers and to make sure that they are appropriately trained and can handle those difficult behaviours. 
Certainly there needs to be a secure environment for people like Barry Ryder who need to have an eye kept on them for 24 hours. The moment one takes one’s eye off someone like Barry Ryder he will reoffend. That was the opinion of the judge and that was the concern of many of the parents of victims who were so traumatised by him when he went out into the community. His assessment was done and unfortunately at that time there were not the provisions that this legislation will provide. It is absolutely imperative that we have the funding necessary to train people to do those appropriate needs assessments and this bill will certainly make sure that people like Barry Ryder will not be out in our communities and will not pose a danger either to themselves or more particularly in Barry Ryder’s case to others. 
Parents of 45-year-old persons who are like children and are 6 foot 2 and incredibly strong will also be comforted by knowing that their needs assessment of their children will be accurate and that they will have the care and attention that is needed. Although the families are required to be involved with all of the assessments etc. I did not see very clearly where welfare guardians are incorporated in the legislation except in clause 21 which states: “During the needs assessment process the co-ordinator must make all reasonable efforts ...” and I just wonder what that means. I would hope that they would go to the nth degree to make every single effort to ensure that welfare guardians are contacted and involved in the needs assessment process because they have a particular understanding and knowledge of the care recipient—the new term—and it is absolutely imperative that they be involved in that needs assessment process. They are particularly concerned about the ongoing care and protection of their charges if they are not their biological children. 
I also draw members’ attention to clause 23 “Cultural assessment”. Another member of the House Stephen Franks expressed some concern about cultural assessment and I think there could have been more appropriate wording. Clause 23(2) states: “If following the assessment under subsection (1) the co-ordinator considers that the care recipient is Maori …”— more appropriate wording would have been “considers that the care recipient is of particular ethnicity and the care recipient agrees with that assessment the co-ordinator must try to obtain the views of any suitable person”—rather than just any suitable Maori person—“or organisation concerned with or interested in the care of persons who have an intellectual disability from within that particular ethnicity.” It is important that we look at the range of ethnicity that exists.