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:10118. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin by acknowledging the families who took the human rights discrimination proceedings that have eventuated in this legislation coming in and acknowledge how traumatic it is for people to have to expose their personal lives in order to get justice. They did that and they are now being responded to by this legislation.It is a puzzle to me why we are ramming the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) through all stages under urgency because the payments do not come into effect until October of this year. There does not seem to be any need for urgency given that. The Minister of Health quite incorrectly stated that this is a major breakthrough and that this is the first time that there will be family caregiver policies but in his very legislation it specifically says: “the Crown and any DHB are and have always been authorised to adopt or have a family care policy and to change cancel or replace such a policy.” That is in the Minister’s legislation that we are debating right now. So there is already the ability for the Crown and any district health board to authorise a family care payment and they have in many instances. What the Minister has created is a new threshold for family care payment which will actually restrict the right of access of some who already meet the criteria.Some families who for example are in very isolated parts of our country—and in New Zealand we have a large number—and for whom it is very difficult to get a stable qualified appropriate caregiver have been able to get a family carer paid for to provide the support services that a disabled person needs. This new policy by saying that the family caregiver payment will be limited to those with high and very high needs—in fact it specifies that there will be only 1600 such people entitled to receive a payment—may well by the implication that the legislation is overriding existing policy limit the ability of district health boards and the Ministry of Health to be responsive to families’ needs and to pay family caregivers as they currently are able to do under existing criteria.I am concerned that in the rush for this legislation some of those “devil in the detail” points may well cause unintended consequences that mean that some families will be worse off than they currently are. I doubt very much that that was the intention of the Minister and I certainly doubt that it is the intention of any of the National caucus members despite what they are doing in housing. I am sure that none of them is intending that families will be worse off as a result of this legislation but with the very narrow criteria that is certainly a possibility.The other significant concern I have is that in this legislation it specifically says that the legislation “stops claims of unlawful discrimination being made concerning any care policy”. This stops future claims being made except for “any claim that arises out of a complaint that was lodged with the Human Rights Commission before 16 May 2013.” What is the date today? We know that in Parliament it is 16 May but in the real world where complaints are laid it is actually 17 May. So we are passing legislation that stops any future claim being made. That means that parents who are providing care currently and who are anticipating because of the Minister’s bold announcement that family caregivers would finally be paid that this would solve their problem will now have the detail of the criteria that only very high needs or complex needs disabled people qualify for this family caregiver payment. Today they will learn that they do not meet thecriteria for family carer payment and what is more that they are being stopped from laying a complaint with the Human Rights Commission about discrimination.This legislation says: “A claim that arises out of such a complaint may proceed but the remedy that may be granted is restricted to a declaration that the policy is inconsistent with NZBORA:”—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So the Minister is not only significantly limiting the criteria for payment for family caregivers but also saying that anyone who misses out who does not meet those criteria will not be allowed to take a complaint to the Human Rights Commission unless they are expecting just a note saying that their complaint is justified because the policy is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.That is a significant move that this Parliament is proposing to take and not at a normal pace. The Government is ramming the legislation through all stages under urgency and extinguishing people’s right to challenge the policy of the Government. I am puzzled by that. It is the only reason that I can conclude for the Minister deciding to take this legislation through all stages under urgency. There is nothing urgent about it. As he quite rightly pointed out this issue has been around and unresolved satisfactorily for a very long time. The policy decision to determine whether a family responsibility extends to caring significantly for adult disabled family members is a big and complex call and this side of the House has made numerous written offers to the Minister of Health to try to adopt an agreed position so that we could have a parliamentary agreement on such a policy rather than something that appears out of nowhere and is then rammed through all stages under urgency. In my view that is not the way to deal with a significant and sensitive issue—an issue that affects thousands of New Zealanders and one that is hard to take a sensible call on.I think the Minister has got it wrong and I think the Atkinson family who were the instigators of this legal action and who are being responded to might think that as well because although they will be compensated for their care under this policy albeit by agreement and not specifically under the legislation had they applied next week they would not meet the criteria. They have won their case. It has been to the High Court and the Court of Appeal. They have won it through New Zealand’s legal system but under the criteria that the Minister Tony Ryall has currently laid out in this legislation that family would not meet the criteria. Families like the Atkinsons all around the country will have heard about this legislation and think: “Thank goodness our issues are finally sorted and resolved.” When they learn the detail of the legislation they will be puzzled.It is a bit of a contradiction this legislation. It responds to the court case. The Minister trumpets it as being the first ever resolution of the issue of family carers being paid. He is wrong. In the legislation itself it spells out the fact that there is and has always been the ability of the Crown or a district health board to determine under whatever criteria they wish to that family caregivers can be paid—and many are around the country. What this legislation does is now set a very high level a very high threshold for meeting those criteria. My concern is that it may very well exclude some families who are currently getting paid. If the Minister in the Committee stage wants to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that clarifies that this will not extinguish any existing rights that families who meet the current criteria for being paid as family caregivers have I think that would certainly resolve that situation.This is a disappointing step because it is not as courageous as it could have been. It was not introduced with any discussion with other parties that I am aware of except those needed to get this bill across with a majority. I think this issue is bigger than just a parliamentary majority. I think it has been around for so long that across-party support would have very appropriate.The final concluding comment I want to make is my disappointment that this family caregiver payment specifically excludes spouses. In many relationships spouses are the appropriate people to provide care and in my view that is not a matter that Parliament should intervene in. That is a matter for the families themselves to determine.