King Annette: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: 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:10150. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): It has been a very interesting first and second reading of this New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) because I have noticed that the Minister of Health has spent a lot of his time scuttling in and out gathering evidence against the previous Government. He has been rummaging through the Ministry of Health’s drawers to try to find anything that he can throw at the Opposition. I would say to the Minister that he might have been better off spending his time providing us with information about this bill before he brought it into this House.I want the Minister to tell us why the regulatory impact statement was not available until today and why so much of it has been blacked out. Why have the public of New Zealand and the members of this House who rely on a regulatory impact statement to have an idea what the bill is faced page after page after page blanked out taking away information. Everybody knows that a regulatory impact statement is there to assist the House to have a debate about an issue. The Minister must have approved a regulatory impact statement that took out vital information that we could have used in this House—that his own members could have used. I would like to know why we face that—I cannot remember a regulatory impact statement like that. The regulatory impact statement for example on Better Local Government was a real shocker against the Minister of Local Government at the time Nick Smith but he did not go through it and cross out the bad bits he did not like. I will give him credit for that. He allowed the information to be put there for us to argue against for the select committee to look at but this bill is not even going to a select committee. Why was there no effort made as was offered last year by members of the Opposition to work with them on this issue?As the Minister said when he started off in a very steady way this is a very complex issue spanning over 20 years. And then as the debate went on he had his members’ and his own speeches becoming more narrow and more narrow throwing a bit of blame around. He has been the Minister for 5 years—5 years the Minister of Health. In 5 years he could have done something so it is no good holding up pieces of paper saying that Labour did not do anything because National was the Government 9 years before we became the Government. Did it do anything on this issue? No it did not. It made no decisions on it and this Minister has been forced to make decisions that he did not really want to make. He can hide his face behind paper and he ought to hide his face behind paper because what you get out of his press statement I think is very interesting indeed. What he actually says is that the public of New Zealand expectfamily members to look after their own family. Well in the main they do but there is one part of our society where we say we need to give particular care and it is those who are not able to look after themselves.The bottom line for this Minister has been all about money. When you look at the options the little bit of the paper that we can read you see that he did have some choices. I happen to know that the choices that the Ministry of Health is providing to him at the moment on carer policy he does not like at all. He certainly did not like the options that it put up. Why did he not choose one of the options under option 3C or option 2C because the difference in money is $17 million a year. You would have gone from 1600 people with disabilities being supported to 5400. Would that have been such a huge impost on the Government’s coffers? It certainly is not when it can throw money around for private schools and it can throw money around to advertise to sell off our State assets at $1 million—$1 million for an advertising campaign. It was about priorities. Why could he not have settled for an option that would have been more expensive but not greatly so when you look at the entire health budget?I would also like to ask the Minister what consultation he had with those who are the carers because we happened to receive this morning information from those who do caring. They say that they had very little involvement at all. They did not engage the carers in the policy design or system. Why not Minister? In fact you had one person on the technical advisory group who was allowed to respond only to a series of questions from the ministry. That comes from the carers themselves. It is no good shaking your head Minister and denying it. They happen to know what happened to them. They happen to know what consultation they had. He is calling them a liar. I do not believe the carers of New Zealand are liars. That is what happened to them. There was very little opportunity for them to look at this policy at all and in fact I believe it has been so rushed that that is why the regulatory impact statement has not been properly completed. The Minister does not need to rush it. Tell this Committee why when it will be implemented in October this year he needs to put it through urgency in this Chamber. Why not try to work across this Chamber and get agreement on it so it could put in place for the future—not something that he decides to do? But it is very much the way this Minister works. He knows everything—he knows everything. He is an authority on everything. He does not need the assistance of the carers of New Zealand. He does not need the assistance of the members of this Committee because he is all knowledgable.I have to say it is also very disappointing and maybe he would like to tell us why it is that when carers are going to be paid they get to be paid the minimum wage. The ministry did not recommend the minimum wage; it recommended around $16. So why has the Minister said that it will be the minimum wage that will be paid? Why are these caregivers to be paid less than other caregivers? Are they less competent? Are they less important? Are the issues they face less troublesome for them? Would the Minister like to respond to why they will be paid the minimum wage? Maybe the Minister would also like to tell the Committee about the operational details of this policy because the operational details of this policy—Minister is it correct—will not be ready until September this year? Can the Minister answer that? Will the operational issues not be ready until September this year because that is what your office said yesterday? They will not be ready until September so we will not even know how it is going to operate. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what he classifies as very high and high needs. Which sort of disability will be included in the high to very high needs? I would like him to explain exactly the sort of person who would have high to very high needs. Would they be people with physical or neurological disability? Would they be people with muscular dystrophy? Whom has he decided will be those with very high needs?I believe that the people of New Zealand deserve answers to questions like this today. They need to understand that this is the only opportunity for debate on this bill which is going to affect many people’s lives. Today is it. The next hour or two is the time allowed. That is it. That is all this House has. Instead of spending time rummaging around trying to attack the Opposition answer some questions about the policy. Put some answers on the table Minister instead of just playing your usual game of being a know-all and wanting to play the political game on every issue. He could have worked with the Opposition. He could have worked with all parties. You have heard it from the Greens you have heard it from New Zealand First and we had a statement put out last year saying that we would work on this issue. There was not even a phone call. When did we hear about this? Yesterday. When did we get the bill? Yesterday. When did we get the regulatory impact statement? Today. When did we get the Attorney-General’s report on it? Today. That is the level of consultation and information that is being provided to this Parliament. To treat the Parliament with that sort of contempt is just not good enough.But let us face it what else would you expect? What else would you expect from a Government that has become so arrogant that it knows exactly what everyone needs and believes it knows what people who are disabled need? Do not worry about it Government members know. Well they do not. They have been asked to address an issue. What does a person who has got two disabled adult children a 75-year-old man looking after his own children who are 45 and 43 say? He thought he was going to get a half-decent scheme. What does he say he got? A half-baked one. That is the problem—a half-baked scheme because the Minister of Health was not prepared to take the time to consult properly with the carers and to work with other parties but wants to shove it through this House under Budget legislation and urgency.