Robertson H V Ross: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10158. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for the meal break.Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: In the 4 minutes and 7 or so seconds that I have remaining I would like to turn members’ attention to the amendment in the name of Ruth Dyson that refers to clause 1. It would amend clause 1 with the following: “This Act is the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Lower Pay and Removal of Human Rights) Amendment Act 2013.” which is to be fair a much more accurate reflection of what this bill actually does.Although we have talked about how you know it seemed like a really good idea and it seemed like the Government was responding appropriately to the needs offamilies of people with disabilities what we have actually found out of course is that the legislation does three things two of which are referred to in this amendment. The first thing which is not referred to in this amendment is the fact that it severely limits exactly who is eligible for these payments and that is certainly not what the families were expecting.The second thing it does is it actually tells those carers that they are going to be stuck on the minimum wage. That is what they are going to be paid: $13.75 an hour. If someone was doing this as a job and taking care of someone who was not a family member let us be honest the rates are not that flash—it is not exactly the highest-paid job in the world—but they are significantly better than this. The response we have had from the people who will be affected by this bill is that it is just such a miserly approach. If the Government could have found just $1 or $2 more an hour then that might have made it just a little bit easier to swallow for the families of people with disabilities who are looking after those people.So what we have got here is a lower rate of pay than what people could expect to get if they were working in the disabilities sector and if they were caring for someone who was not a member of their family. That is the only difference. There is no difference in the nature of the work. There is no difference in the difficulty of the work. If anything it is probably more demanding because they are taking care of these people 24 hours a day 7 days a week. It is not something that you would go and spend 8 hours a day at work doing and then go home and leave it all behind until the next shift. It is not like that at all. In fact these people in many ways are even more committed than the incredibly dedicated people who are out there working in the disabilities sector. What does the Government say? It says that their contribution is not the same—is not as good—as the contribution of those people who are carers for a living.The second aspect of course is that it is a removal of human rights because what it says to people is that if you have got a complaint or if you have got a concern and you were thinking about taking this issue to the Human Rights Commission that right has gone. So you are OK if you did it yesterday the day before yesterday or any day before then but from today onwards it is all over. It is all over and that frankly is nothing more than simple discrimination—absolutely unjustifiable discrimination—and even Chris Finlayson the Attorney-General said that. He said that it is absolutely unjustified to have that discrimination in this law.So I certainly support the amendment to clause 1 proposed by Ruth Dyson. We need to make sure that our legislation is appropriately titled and that people can get a full understanding of what is actually being done right from the beginning. If this bill had the title suggested in this amendment then people would be able to far more easily see through the spin—not that they are not. Minister Ryall I am afraid that all the efforts are not going to work because people are seeing through this and people know—