Beaumont Carol: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBeaumont Carol: 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:10167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): This is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this bill and I am very pleased to be speaking on clause 2 the commencement clause of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2). I am going to be speaking in favour of an amendment put up by my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson about changing the commencement date. At the moment the clause says that the bill will come “into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” However the amendment would see that this could not happen until the bill has been to the Health Committee before its third reading. I have to say that I think that is so important. We cannot in all conscience see this bill commence before there has been a select committee process. I urge National members to reconsider their position on this.Caring is a critical issue. I do not think that anybody in this Committee would deny that. So many people of our population are involved in caring for family members. Iguess that everybody sitting here can probably think of such instances within their own families. Certainly in my case my mother who lives in the Minister of Health’s electorate is a carer and she cares for my stepfather. Without her he would not be living at home. I want to acknowledge those carers actually because I think that their needs and concerns are the voices that should be heard.That is why I think that the commencement date needs to be delayed until after a select committee process. Those carers both unpaid and paid carers need to be able to look at what has been proposed here and say what they think about this and say whether or not they think as I and my colleagues do that the response of the Government to this particular matter is too limited. It is limited in a number of ways. It is limited in the payment that is going to be offered to carers. It is limited in terms of who can be paid—in particular I note the exclusion of the right of a spouse or partner to be paid for caring for an adult. I think that it is really important that we have a genuine discussion about that because often carers are in fact a spouse or partner.The commencement clause needs to be changed as is outlined in the amendment so we can have a good look at those kinds of issues. For those listening to or watching this debate we are having forced through here at the moment under urgency through all stages a bill that will take away people’s rights to challenge discrimination—a bill that is such a fundamentally important one about the rights of carers who are playing such an important role. The process is just fundamentally flawed.This does require more consideration. I am sure the Minister if he actually was standing up and responding to any of this might point out that there has been a consultation process and therefore it is appropriate to have the commencement as it is in the bill. However I would point out to the Minister that that consultation was at a very general level. It did not actually consult about the specific provisions of this bill and the conclusions that the Government has come to which as I say limit the payment and limit who is eligible to receive that payment.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Order! It is the starting date—CAROL BEAUMONT: And so it is important that we support—and again I urge members opposite to support—our amendment to clause 2 the commencement which says “This Bill can only be submitted for Royal Assent if the Bill has been submitted to the Health Select Committee … prior to the Third Reading.” I just want to continue to justify that position. I think it is important when we put an amendment up around a clause like the commencement clause that we justify why we are doing that.In addition to the reasons I have already said—and others have mentioned this—we have a regulatory impact statement that is an absolute outrage. It is a disgrace. I am showing people who can see this debate a page that I am particularly interested in. It is on the issue of why spouses and partners should not be eligible to be paid for caring. We need I think a select committee process to have a conversation about that. In the regulatory impact statement it says: “Spouses of adult disabled people parents and other resident family members do not have the option of being paid family carers despite many having extensive”—and I would agree with that—“caring responsibilities.”The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!CAROL BEAUMONT: Well I just say Mr Chair that we need to know what the information is here. Why is the response to that blanked out? If we extended the commencement date till after a select committee process—