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:10173. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I want to rise to make a few comments about how this bill the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) fits in with the principal Act as outlined in clause 3: “This Act amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 (the principal Act).” My colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson made some points in relation to the purpose statement in that Act. Just to note the principal Act is actually a very significant one. It is the one that covers all of the provisions around the responsibility of the Minister of Health district health boards and other publicly owned health and disability organisations so it is a very large and important Act. My colleague Ruth Dyson referred us to subsection (1)(a)(ii) of the purpose section section 3 of that Act about “the promotion of the inclusion and participation in society and independence of people with disabilities:”. Her point was that this bill breaches those provisions. Again this would be another reason for ensuring that we have far greater scrutiny on this bill than the way it is currently being pushed through under urgency without adequate process and indeed without even suitable information for us through the regulatory impact statement.I want to talk about a slightly different provision that is also in the purpose statement of the principal Act which is section 3 as I said. I want to look at section 3(1)(a)(iii) which talks about “the best care or support for those in need of services:”. When I wasspeaking on this bill before I did mention that one of the exclusions in the bill is around who can provide care and be paid for it. It specifically precludes spouses or partners from providing that care. When you look at the principal Act the purpose section which talks about the “best care or support for those in need of services:” I have to say that I would imagine that in many many cases the best care or support for those in need of services could be provided by their spouse or partner yet this bill specifically precludes that. I am sure as I said earlier that many of us know how people are being cared for in their home by their spouse or partner and I want to acknowledge those people including my mother who do such an amazing job of caring for their spouse or partner often in very difficult circumstances. But my point is that this bill by amending the principal Act does not actually do what the purpose of the Act says. Maybe we would have a slightly different view on that if we knew what these blanked-out bits in the regulatory impact statement say.One of the provisions of the regulatory impact statement No. 43 is the one that talks about whether spouses of adult disabled people should be paid. My argument is that it could well be that spouses or partners are the best people to provide care or support for those in need of services as outlined in the principal Act. It is a fundamental part of the principal Act that that is one of the purposes of that Act. But in fact where the regulatory impact statement on this bill which amends the principal Act starts to talk about spouses of adult disabled people it says: “The views expressed through the consultation process indicate that if Government excludes these groups from payment it is highly likely that it will be faced with claims of unjustified discrimination under the [New Zealand Bill of Rights Act].” I want to know what is said after that. But when you look at the regulatory impact statement people in the House and watching on television will see that there are just a whole lot of blanked-out parts.Why is it that we are being told that spouses or partners should be excluded? How can we be confident that they are not the best people to care for and support those in need of services as outlined in the purpose statement of the principal Act? I would like it if the Minister would actually answer some questions on this bill because to date he has refused to do so. Yet we are expected to debate this bill and to have it pass through in urgency with a regulatory impact statement that is full of blanked-out pieces. It is an absolute outrage and it is made even worse by the fact that the Minister will refuse to answer the questions. So I ask the Minister specifically whether the bill which he is responsible for and which amends the principal Act—