Dyson Ruth: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: 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:10200. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is with considerable disappointment that I rise to continue to oppose this legislation the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2). As the Minister of Health quite rightly said parts of this legislation progress an issue that has been around for two decades. I want to put on record again the offer that Labour made some time ago to the Hon Tony Ryall and that was to have an approach that ensured that this policy was sustainable—a policy that all parties signed up to that we could get agreement on and that we could have a lot of input into. Instead the Minister in an arrogant way and in a detached way has ridden roughshod not only over the family members and people who wanted to have an input into the detail of the policy but also over all other political parties in this House and indeed proper process.We have seen a process that is totally unacceptable as part of a Budget process. This is not a Budget confidence and supply move that required urgency. It did not require the urgent attention of the House. It did not need to be rammed through all stages under urgency. In my view the only reason that that was done was in order to secure the votes of the Māori Party. It has been covered up as a confidence and supply measure. It has been put through under urgency to avoid public scrutiny rather than to progress the substantive part of the legislation. I think that is something that the Hon Tony Ryall should be embarrassed about as should the members of his party.In terms of the substance of the bill we have had a pretty abbreviated debate on it frankly. It is very disappointing for example that I was not able to get a call on any one of my 10 typescript amendments to clause 4 because the Chairman of the Committee accepted a closure motion. That is very disappointing given that they were quite substantial amendments and it really reinforced the concerns that Labour had about this legislation.My amendments talked about for example the need for district health boards or the Ministry of Health itself to always consult with affected parties in the future if there was going to be any change to agreed family care policy. We talked about the rates that family caregivers would be paid and proposed that family caregivers be paid at the same rate as most other home support workers are paid. They are doing the same job and they should be paid at the same rate rather than the minimum wage.We talked about removing the extinguishing of rights that the Minister of Health has in the legislation so that the family members who are not covered by this legislation—the family members who care for disabled members of their own family who are not going to be paid—will now not be able to take a legal challenge to that continued discrimination. Labour wanted to have that extinguishing of rights removed from the legislation. There is no need for it.We wanted to make sure that people were still able to take a personal grievance case under the employment relations legislation. That amendment was thrown out as well. In fact I watched Tim Macindoe—I think he is the junior whip; one of the junior whips—rally his numbers to vote in opposition to my amendments and it was clear that he had not read one of them. It was clear that he voted on behalf of the entire National Government without a blind clue as to what he was voting on. I think that should be an embarrassment to the current member of Parliament. He may always do it but he should give his colleagues the credit of his position and read the matter on which he has been given the responsibility to vote. He is short-changing the position of junior whip.Also the Minister of Health refused to answer the many questions that we raised with him in the Committee stage of the bill. When we leave this place tomorrow night when we have finished urgency we will go back to our home centres—David Bennett: We’ll be here on Sunday.Hon RUTH DYSON: On Sunday? The House does not sit on a Sunday Mr Bennett. On Monday I am sure we will have approaches from families saying: “We heard that Parliament passed the family caregivers legislation. We want to know when we will be getting paid.” We will not be able to tell them not only when but whether because we have no idea from this legislation whom this is going to apply to. All we have got is a random number and then information in the advice that was given in the regulatory impact statement and the options given to the Minister which makes it clear that the Ministry of Health does not have a clue about the figures. They are a best guess. I am sure that the officials tried really hard but there is no way that we could rely on their figures.They are a darned sight better than what we got in the regulatory impact statement though. In my few years in Parliament I have never seen a regulatory impact statement of this quality. Look at this Mr Speaker. You missed some of the debate but just in case you would like to see it there are big areas blacked out. But wait there is more. Look at this page. Fantastic! The whole page of the regulatory impact statement is blacked out. And here is another one—an entire column blacked out. Go over the page and the entire section that would give this Parliament the information it needs is blacked out. On the next page the whole column is blacked out. On the next page the whole column is blacked out.Ian McKelvie: No!Hon RUTH DYSON: Page after page after page. The member of Parliament for Rangitīkei thinks it is funny. Well I want to see that member front up to the families of disabled people in his electorate on Monday morning and say that this is good information—that this is good information. It is blacked out the very information that members of Parliament need to determine whether or not this is a robust decision.Dr Paul Hutchison—I have always thought more highly of that member excepting this. That high expectation has now been shattered. National Party members one after the other after the other like sheep going to the slaughter are voting for legislation refusing to look at amendments and leaving family members who have been waiting for this decision waiting for this legislation in limbo yet again because not one member of this House including the Minister will be able to tell anyone next week or the week after or the week after or the week after who will be getting the payment.We know from information from the Minister—the only bit of information that he has shared and not directly to the House; we got it indirectly—that the operational decisions about who is going to get this money will not be made until September. Regardless of the fact that we have got the wrong day on the wall—because Parliament does that under urgency—I know it is May and I know there is a big space between May and September. That is another confirmation point that there is no justification for this legislation going through the House under urgency let alone going through all stages under urgency and not being referred to a select committee at all.So we have had a shonky process a process that has completely ignored all the parties who deserve respect and who deserve to have a say in this legislation. They have been cut out. We have had National members who are so keen on getting out of this building that not one of them even bothered to read any of my 12 amendments—not one of them. I could have put anything in those amendments and National would have voted against it. I could have had an amendment proposing to double the salary of National members and they are so stupid and so lazy they still would have voted against it.It is demeaning of the parliamentary process to have that sort of disregard lack of integrity and complete lack of respect for the families of disabled people. They are whom we are talking about. This is not a technical bill that fiddles around with some machinery; this is a bill that has a huge impact on New Zealand families who havedisabled members who went to the huge personal effort of taking their claim of discrimination through the Human Rights Review Tribunal to the High Court—Scott Simpson: Blocked at every step by Labour.Hon RUTH DYSON: —and to the Court of Appeal and won. That member should close his mouth breathe through his nose and wait till he gets a little more information about the truth instead of repeating the spin. Spin does you no good. You can have a robust debate only if you bother to find out the facts yourself—Scott Simpson: We don’t need that member pushing—Hon RUTH DYSON: And it is quite clear that that member who is another one who is going to be going to his home electorate Coromandel should be hiding his head in shame—should be hanging his head in embarrassment—because he knows zilch. He knows nothing about what has gone on in this process and has no ability to front up to families in his electorate and tell them the truth because we had no truth from the Minister. We know that no determinations will be made—