Wall Louisa: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWall Louisa: 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:10145. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion about the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2). I just want to pick up where my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway left off. I think the select committee process would have provided a really good opportunity to discuss issues such as were highlighted by the Ministry of Health in its own discussion document where it said: “the court’s decision may have broader implications for other … funded disability supports and for family carers of other people receiving government-funded support …”. I mean we all know that this is a reaction to theAtkinson and Otherscase. This case has been going since 2000 so it was in its 12th year when on 14 May last year the Court of Appeal made its decision. That judgment was very clear. It said basically that the Government—the Ministry of Health—was unlawful to discriminate against someone because of their family status.I think that is actually the critical question that the select committee process would have been able to go through. I reiterate what my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has said. The Health Committee is an incredibly well-run select committee. I think that the way we engage with each other is very much evidence-based and it is very much about trying to work collaboratively and I think this is an area and an issue that we could have worked collaboratively on.The reality—as John Forman who is the chair of the Carers Alliance said—is that there is “disappointment that spouses and partners of disabled people were specifically excluded …”. That really is the criticism that I think I want to focus on. We have been through a process a legal process that said the Government was discriminating. The case was taken by parents and I want to acknowledge the parents. I want toacknowledge Peter Atkinson on behalf of the estate of Susan Atkinson. I want to acknowledge Gillian Bransgrove Jean Burnett Laurence Carter Peter Humphreys Clifford Robinson Lynda Stoneham Stuart Burnett Imogen Atkinson and their counsel who have fought for their right to be supported in their support of their disabled adult children.That was the context of the case but the reality is that the principle applies to other people in other situations and that really is the issue. The Government really is selling short family members in similar situations who are caring for adult members of their family who have a disability. So to delimit it in the way that it has done really is a breach of how this House operates. If we had been able to go through a select committee process we would have been able I think to resolve and reconcile some of the other challenges that that Court of Appeal decision has highlighted. For me that is the fundamental flaw in the process that we are going through.It is very sad and I know that the chair of our select committee Paul Hutchison is always very concerned about evidence about principles and about why the Government makes the decisions that it does. I am sure he would have welcomed our select committee hearing submissions on this particular bill. For me that is the fundamental issue. That is what I want to highlight. Yes we are going to resolve the issue for some families who have disabled adults but this does not resolve the issues for all families who have members who have a disability. I think we have lost that opportunity and I think to say that the fiscal implications should drive what we do is wrong. Kia ora.