Roy Heather: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Roy Heather: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9586] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 Many parts of Part 3 I would like to support. I feel they will make a positive contribution to the care of the intellectually disabled particularly in relation to compulsory care. I refer in particular to clause 21 which states that when discussing the needs assessment the coordinator is to consult with persons concerned with the welfare of the care recipient. That is much needed. The families must be involved as some of my National Party colleagues have pointed out. Clause 21 also refers to the need to consult with the welfare guardians of the patient—I must say I still have a great deal of difficulty with the term “care recipient” which does not exactly roll off one’s tongue. But the intention of that clause is I think very good. 
But I would like to speak particularly to clause 23 and I thank Sandra Goudie for mentioning it now. In his second reading speech Stephen Franks talked at length about the cultural assessment aspects within this bill; and clause 23 brings out the point I want to make particularly. Sandra Goudie did read out subclause (1): “The co-ordinator must try to identify the care recipient’s culture ethnicity language and any religious or ethical beliefs.” It is very sad in this day and age that we have to legislate for things of this nature. Coordinators particularly clinicians have a lot of training now in cultural aspects of care and many—most in fact now—have incorporated those features into the assessments that they do on all patients not just the intellectually disabled ones. Certainly in the area of mental illness this is now common practice and I find it extremely sad to think that we need to specifically spell out that we must take into account factors that might be very important in people’s lives. 
I refer now to subclauses (2) and (3) of clause 23 and I ask the Minister whether she could tell us—I am not living in great hope because she seems to be studiously ignoring any other requests I have made for an explanation—why in fact Maori have been singled out in this clause. Subclause (1) mentions different cultures and ethnicities but in subclauses (2) and (3) only Maori are singled out. Is there something we are missing? Is it only Maori who actually have cultural expectations and important cultural aspects that should be considered? What about Samoans and other Pacific Islanders? What about Asians? Counties-Manukau now has patient advocates and interpreters for the Asian communities. Do Asians not count when it comes to intellectual disability? Are their needs not as great as anybody else’s? I would like to know why they have not been specified. 
Sandra Goudie made a very good point. She said that ethnicity should be referred to generally not by a specific ethnic group or breakdown. That is a very good point. As a result of that I just cannot accept this clause as it stands and I have put forward an amendment to have it omitted from the bill completely. If it were reworded the way Sandra Goudie explained it perhaps it should be included and maybe she would like to put forward an amendment. I would have found that much more acceptable but if this clause is to stand as it currently is then ACT New Zealand will not be supporting it—we will ask for it to be omitted—and we will not support this part if in fact it stays in the bill. I say that with sadness because I feel that other clauses in this part do deal with valid concerns. 
I ask all parties to think about legislation of all sorts that has been brought before the House of late. Cultural assessment of all sorts has become a trend with this Government. It is becoming a very big part of its bills and also we are seeing the specific singling out of Maori. We should in this country have one law for all people not race-based law. What we are seeing here is again a perpetuation of the push towards the promotion the singling out of separate ethnic groups within our society. What that does in effect is cause separatism not a united New Zealand.