Lees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: 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:10189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I have to say that the people ofRangitīkei would be very disappointed to hear that Ian McKelvie’s only contribution to the debate this afternoon was to try to shut down that debate. I suppose that is a reflection of this Government’s attitude towards democracy and transparency. I am sure he will be pleased to go back to his electorate and talk to people about the way he voted today and his contribution to today’s debate.I would like to refer to a couple of the amendments in the name of my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson. Both refer to new section 70D(3)(c) in clause 4 which refers of course to the rates of pay that the carers can receive. One of those amendments is to ensure that the rates of pay may not be lower than the minimum adult rate of wages payable to workers set under section 4 of the Minimum Wage Act 1983. I think that is a reasonably important principle actually. Just because people are caring for a member of their family just because they are actually doing this because it is a 24/7 commitment that they have to someone who lives in their household or is another member of their family does not mean that they do not get the same rights and privileges that everybody else in New Zealand should receive when they are at work.An important concept that I think we have to ensure is clearly laid out in the legislation is that at the very least the minimum wage should be the minimum rate of pay that carers can receive. But I think that that really is not enough. Merely ensuring that they get the minimum wage should not even need to be reinforced by the Opposition. The Government should be making that statement clearly without the Opposition having to make that point. But what is actually even more important is the other amendment which also refers to new section 70D(3)(c) and would ensure that the rates or ways of setting the rates of payment for support services provided to family members are equal to the rates that they could expect if they were caring for someone who was not a member of their family.I think the concept of equal pay for equal work is a good one. It is not one that National buys into unfortunately which is probably why it is missing from the original legislation. But I think that members should be happy to sign up to this because it is a solid concept that all members should be able to sign up to. I do not understand what it is about having a familial relationship with the person whom you are caring for that somehow changes the nature of the work. It is just as hard and just as much commitment is required.Tony Ryall is rolling his eyes and tut-tutting. He does not understand why it is that people who are caring for someone who is a member of their family should not have the ability to get the same rate of pay that they would get if they cared for someone else’s child. Tony Ryall does not understand that. Tony Ryall thinks that those carers should just work for whatever the minimum is that the Government is prepared to give them. He thinks they should be grateful that the Government is even prepared to cover them. In fact of course as we know many people will not be covered by this. This is not the comprehensive response that people were expecting.So I suppose in Tony Ryall’s mind if you are lucky enough to be one of the 1600 who qualify for this—and goodness knows exactly how the Government is going to determine whether or not a person qualifies to be one of the 1600—you ought to be grateful. Those people ought to be grateful if they are lucky enough to be one of the chosen 1600. I suppose that is where Tony Ryall is coming from.Well we come from quite a different perspective on this side of the House. We believe that this should have been the comprehensive response. We believe that the approximately 5400 people who could be covered by this legislation should be covered by this legislation and we think that the rates of pay that are acceptable in the care sector ought to be given to these families low as those rates are. I think we all accept that the rates of pay in the health and disability care sector are not what they ought to be but let us start at least at that starting point.