Scott Lynda: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9513] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I am one of the members who was on the Health Committee that originally heard this bill. It was introduced by the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech in response to some serious cases. One was a lad called Stephens whose parents had tried to care and look after him. This young lad grew into a rather large adult who was very difficult to contain. He had an intellectual disability. But as Mr Goff said at the time the mental health legislation was changed intellectual disability was quite correctly removed from the definition of a mental illness. A person with an intellectual disability is quite different from a person with a mental illness. So we saw that there was a gap in the law and because of that gap this legislation has come forward. It provides the ability for a defendant who on the grounds of either mental illness or intellectual disability is unfit to plead to be put into different forms of care rather than prison. 
For someone who has an intellectual disability going to prison is a very serious event. Those people are vulnerable and are abused in a prison situation. I myself know of cases from when I was a geriatrician. I was seeing an elderly couple who were caring for their son. The mother had a stroke and the father who was in his 90s died suddenly. This man who was in his 40s all of a sudden had all his supports removed. His behaviour deteriorated markedly. Once his behaviour had deteriorated he started committing offences and he ended up in prison. It was a very unacceptable situation for such a vulnerable person. Under this bill when such a person is found guilty he or she can be cared for in an appropriate facility that cares for people with an intellectual disability and gives 24-hour cover and care. 
However I have to say I am staggered that the Hon Phil Goff has tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that is 44 pages long and has pretty substantial amendments. We have not had time to look at those. There is no select committee process for them. This legislation is a serious issue. It talks about what is happening with people’s lives—the ability to incarcerate them to take away their rights—about protecting society and about looking at how the mental health system works. Supplementary Order Paper 161 should not have been dropped on us at this stage. I ask the Minister of Justice how many years he has had to get these amendments before us. He has had 4 years to get these amendments before us so that we could look at them and so that the select committee could process them. But that has not happened. The Minister has just tabled these amendments. 
Members should look at the first amendment. It states: “To omit from  
subclause (1) 
 the words ‘Criminal Justice Amendment Act (No 70 1999’ … and substitute the words ‘Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003’.” What does that mean? Does the Minister actually understand the definitions? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Yes I do understand. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: I do not think the Minister does understand them. Does “mentally impaired persons” mean somebody with an intellectual disability or does it mean someone who has a psychiatric illness? The whole point of this bill—of everything we did in the select committee—was to ensure that those two definitions were never together because those who have a mental illness are totally different from those who have a mental disability. The Minister lumps them back together because he does not understand the issues. That is just an example of what happens when one tables a Supplementary Order Paper like this. I think it is absolutely unacceptable. 
We are talking about mental illness and people going into forensic care—not going to prison but going into forensic care because they have been found not guilty on the grounds of insanity. Let us look at the Paul Ellis case which was reported back today. This Government is totally failing New Zealanders in mental health—absolutely totally failing New Zealanders and their families. There were massive problems with the care of Paul Ellis whose family suffered the price. His father died because he was not listened to. Paul Ellis was released within 72 hours of his having been put under a compulsory assessment and treatment order. That should not have happened. I have a member’s bill that would have stopped that. It provides that people will be detained for 72 hours for assessment which allows time for the families to be involved in their care. Families know a great deal about people with mental illness. If they were listened to we would not have tragedies such as Mark Burton killing his mother Paddy. If Trevor Burton his father had been listened to that would not have happened. 
In 1997 National moved an amendment to require that families be consulted but that is not happening. It did not happen in the Burton case. It did not happen in the Ellis case. It is time that this Government took mental illness and mental health seriously. The fact that a Supplementary Order Paper is tabled just before an urgency motion just before we are about to debate the bill and after the Government has had 4 years to introduce those amendments shows what little respect the Government has for the needs of those with a mental illness and their families. 
When Paul Ellis was admitted to hospital the psychiatrist did not have time to assess him. He sought judicial review and the case came before a judge. The facts about his mental illness were not available to be placed before the judge. He was released and his father suffered the price. I think every New Zealander has huge sympathy for that case. These families are suffering. There have been nine cases like this in the last few years. 
We know that people with a mental illness generally are no more dangerous than anybody else. They have an illness. But there is a group of young men generally under 30 and often with drug and alcohol problems who do pose more of a risk. They must be identified and they must be able to be held by forensic services. It is no good our waiting when this bill becomes an Act of Parliament till they come before the justice system because by that time the public—generally it is the families—will have paid the price through murder and attack. That is why we must see some changes to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. 
The Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) that we have before us was differentiated from the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill. At the select committee—and I do not know whether my colleague Paul Hutchison who was on the committee with me remembers this—the Government tried to do something very sneaky. The Government tried to have suspended sentences of imprisonment abolished altogether from the bill. It tried to sneak that in. Does the member remember that? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I do yes. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: We talked about Carla Cardno and her stepfather who had threatened to attack the killer of Carla Cardno if he was released. The stepfather was given a suspended sentence. This Government tried to abolish that form of sentence without putting that amendment through due process. Once again it tried to sneak something through without due process—without those who are involved those who understand being able to look at and scrutinise the legislation and have their say through the select committee process. It was a very poor way to treat the select committee process. 
We will be supporting the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) because it was part of a National Government bill that looked at correcting many of the problems that occurred due to the fact that when intellectual disability was taken out of the jurisdiction of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act there was no further legislation to enable somebody with an intellectual disability to be put into a secure facility that was not a prison but provided care and rehabilitation for that person. Because of that we will support this bill. But this whole procedure of changing this bill with a huge Supplementary Order Paper is not acceptable. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us why he did that and why he did not consult.