Ryall Tony: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRyall Tony: 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:10178. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): It was clear in the court decisions with regard to theAtkinson case that the court believed that there had been a failure in the process that the Crown since the court case was lodged in 2001 had undertaken in the development of the family care policies of the various institutions of the Crown that operated such policies namely the Ministry of Health and the district health boards. So as a result of the court decision and the Government’s decision not to appeal the Court of Appeal decision it was very important that we undertook a publicly defensible process in respect of the development of the legislation. The core procedures of that are here in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2).That involved the Government setting up a technical advisory group in order to provide sector input into the development of the consultation process and the options for consultation. A very wide public consultation process was run in 2012 and feedback was incorporated into this policy. There were 12 regional workshops two hui and one Pacific focus group with a total of 273 people attending these consultation meetings. There was also a meeting with the plaintiffs and with the Consumer Consortium. In addition to the face-to-face meetings 619 written submissions were received and the Ministry of Health worked closely with the other agencies in support of developing this policy.Members have asked why the policy is aimed specifically at disabled people in high and very high needs situations. Well the Government has to meet the costs of paying family carers of disabled people receiving health-funded support from within the existing health and disability funding. Targeting the policy to people in very high and high needs situations enables that funding to be targeted at those with greatest need. This is consistent with the views of the carer and disability communities expressed through the consultation with 68 percent of all submitters and 71 percent of family carers favouring the payment of family carers and disabled people with high or complex needs if targeting is to be used. Further the system that we propose for the payment ofdisabled people and their families is also a result of combining the various elements supported by people during the consultation.Clause 4 is the operative clause. What it essentially does is indicate that the Ministry of Health and district health boards can have and always have had family care policies. Those family care policies are able to discriminate on the basis of a number of areas in order to facilitate the policy. Government social policy has always discriminated. Indeed you get the unemployment benefit or the job seeker allowance only if you are unemployed or a job seeker. You get superannuation only if you are of the age of entitlement. You get the child care allowance only if you are of a certain age or are in a certain position. So discrimination has always been innate.What is clear from the court case is that in order for the Government to be able to operate a fair and reasonable family care policy we do need to have the ability to discriminate and we believe that that is a fair basis on which this legislation is being provided. Coupled with that is $92 million over the next 4 years. That is a very significant and fair investment that we are making in the health and disability sector. I pick up on the point that Mrs Delahunty was making; it is a health and disability sector and we think this will be a very significant investment.This is the third time that any country in the world has agreed to pay family carers’ wages for caring for other family members. No countries in the world do what this Parliament is about to do other than the Netherlands and Sweden. So this is a very significant move. Previous Governments have ruled this out—previous Governments have ruled this out—as recently as April 2008.Clause 4 of the bill is the operative clause. It will enable the district health boards and the ministry to establish family care policies as indeed they always have and to have the ability to put in place what the Government wants to happen in order to support the families of those caring for some of our most vulnerable in the community with the very substantial investment of $92 million over the next 4 years.I know that one member in this House described $17 million as minuscule. I have to say that in the tight financial times our country has had since the global financial crisis the investment of $92 million is actually a pretty fair response and is part of the Government’s solution to theAtkinsoncourt case.