Faafoi Kris: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: 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:10159. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2). I understand that because we are going right through all stages of this bill and there is going to be no select committee process—which is something that we on this side of the Chamber think is unfortunate—the debate around these clauses is going to be wide-ranging. I did want to start around the amendment from the Hon Ruth Dyson that my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has spoken about which would replace the title as it currently stands. It would have the legislation entitled “New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Lower Pay and Removal of Human Rights)Amendment Act 2013”. Iain Lees-Galloway did a brilliant job of talking through some of the semantics of the new wording that the Hon Ruth Dyson has put through.One of the major concerns that I have about what is contained in this bill and it is in the subsequent change in the title from the Hon Ruth Dyson is that there is an ability to not only pay those family members who are caring for those of their loved ones who have disabilities the minimum wage but to pay potentially even lower rates than that which is concerning. I understand that that is in clause 4 of the bill that has been put before us and I think that is why the Hon Ruth Dyson has put forward an alternative title to this bill that more accurately reflects what is contained in terms of the conditions of this bill.The second half of her amendment to the title of this bill is around the removal of the ability of those families who think they are getting a rough deal to have a right of appeal on human rights grounds. As Iain Lees-Galloway said in his speech we are talking about family members of people who have disabilities and some of them have given up their lives to make sure that their family members are properly cared for. The best that this Government can do is to offer them the minimum wage and to take away their right to complain or put forward an appeal if they feel that they are not getting the same deal that someone who is doing a similar amount of work—or the families feel they may be doing an even a greater amount of work—is getting paid to look after those people with disabilities.I think this is an unfortunate trend that has come forward from this Government because in other pieces of legislation there has also certainly been a trend for this Government towards same work less pay—same work less pay. That has definitely been the case for the youth rates that the Government has brought in. It has certainly been the case for our younger people. You have to question the amount of compassion of members on the other side of the Chamber when you have got family members who are looking after their loved ones with disabilities and the Government will not compensate them at the same level as other people staff who are working for other organisations are paid. It will not pay them the same amount of money as those other people even though there is a family connection and you do have to question the level of compassion.As I said this is clause 1 the title clause. Iain Lees-Galloway has talked about some of the alternative titles for this bill. I think that another title for this bill could be “The Government Again Wriggling Out of Its Responsibilities Bill” because this is another way that this Government has tried to look like it is taking action on something but it is doing the complete opposite. It is washing its hands of its responsibility—its fair responsibility—towards those who are looking after their family members with disabilities in their own homes. We saw in a previous bill that the Government has tried to wash its hands of the responsibility of Housing New Zealand tenants. The Government plans to kick 3000 Housing New Zealand tenants out of their houses. We see that again with this bill because the Government is trying not only to wriggle out of its responsibility to pay those people who are looking after their family members with disabilities but also to take away their right to appeal that decision by the Government.This House still says that today is 16 May but as of yesterday those people who think they are not getting a fair go under this legislation are not going to have the ability to go and appeal against the conditions that this bill will put them under. There was no select committee process for this bill so another alternative title we could have for this bill is the “New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Lower Pay and Removal of Human Rights and Zero Scrutiny From the Public) Amendment”—