Hutchison Paul: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9589] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Clearly Part 4 is again getting into the machinery and teeth of this bill because it deals with the compulsory care and rehabilitation of inmates and former special patients. I note that clause 29 refers particularly to “Application for assessment of inmate and former special patients”. I am once again reminded of the work done by Dr Sandy Simpson one of New Zealand’s most eminent psychiatrists back in 1999. He really pointed out for the first time the enormity of the problem of psychiatric patients and those with intellectual disabilities—or a combination of both—within our penal system. Unfortunately it is a very real problem that neither the mental health facilities available in New Zealand nor its prison system have been able to cope with at any stage. It is a huge problem it does require focus and maybe the Minister will take a call and for a moment outline what she is planning to do to bring this issue forward because it is a very serious problem for New Zealand and certainly requires to be dealt with. 
However Part 4 does attempt to provide a mechanism whereby inmates or former special patients can apply for assessment. It is a fairly rigorous process and by its very nature it must be. In fact every application under clause 29 must be accompanied by a certificate from a person who is either a medical practitioner or a psychologist and who has examined the person to be assessed within 3 days immediately before the date of application. Again the time sequence is absolutely all-important. 
I am a little concerned in that I understood earlier on that the Royal Australasian College of Psychiatrists did advocate that there be either two psychiatrists or—in the case of an intellectually disabled individual—a psychologist making sure that the findings are appropriately peer-reviewed but I do not know whether this provision actually ensures that that happens. A lot of this assessment work can be extremely hard to be objective in and I think there is considerable use in having peer review and quality control mechanisms in place all the time to ensure that these assessments are carried out expertly and also within time. 
I refer to clause 34 where once again “Timing for and place of assessment” is emphasised. In fact the assessment of a proposed care recipient must take place within 7 days after the receipt of the application under section 29. In many respects it would be better to emphasise that the assessment should take place just as soon as possible and not necessarily within 7 days. As I mentioned earlier with the practical delays that inevitably occur from time to time preventable tragedies have often occurred. Rather than putting it the way it is—“within 7 days”—I think there would be some sense in having those time limits very much directed towards efficiency and expediency throughout. 
I note in clause 36 “The fact that an inmate who is charged with or convicted of an offence is also a proposed care recipient or a care recipient”—and my word there are those two terms again; four words for the price of two; they just seem to pop up all over the place with this politically correct Government—“does not—(a) prevent the inmate from being taken to—(i) the trial or hearing of that offence; or (ii) any sentencing for that offence;”. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 160 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 4 as amended agreed to.