Logie Jan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 26 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11277. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.JAN LOGIE (Green)to theMinister of Health: Does he agree with the Attorney-General’s advice that the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) unjustifiably limits the right to judicial review; if not why not?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):The Attorney-General gives advice to the House as a law officer in order to inform debate. I am advised that reports under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act by the Attorney-General that legislation appears to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act have been issued about 60 times since 1990 under all Governments. Although the Government noted the Attorney-General’s advice the Government was satisfied that the limitation of any right to judicial review was appropriate in this case having regard to the need to manage the balance between family and taxpayer responsibilities and to support an effective and fair policy for payment of family caregivers.Jan Logie: Taking that as a no on what basis does his view on the rule of law hold more weight than that of the Attorney-General the Law Society and many legal luminaries such as Professor Andrew Geddis?Hon TONY RYALL: The Government’s view carries weight because it enjoyed the majority of Parliament behind it and it was because this Government had to deal with the issues raised by theAtkinson case. Those issues about making decisions about the use of public money are rightfully decisions that should be made by Parliament and not by the courts.Jan Logie: Is the Minister aware that by removing the right of judicial review gutting all domestic appeal provisions family carers can now go straight to the United Nations Human Rights Council to have a discrimination case heard on the international stage?Hon TONY RYALL: The legislation of New Zealand has a myriad of examples where there is discrimination. New Zealand superannuation discriminates on the basis of age. The jobseeker support allowance discriminates on employment status. In respect of the matter with the family caregivers the Government had to take action in this way because we need to be able to start paying the carers of family members as quickly as possible without delay by the courts.Jan Logie: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That did not answer my question at all.Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a fair comment on this occasion. Would the member please for the benefit of the Minister repeat the question.Jan Logie: Is he aware that by removing the right of judicial review effectively gutting domestic appeal provisions family carers now can go straight to the United Nations Human Rights Council to have a discrimination case heard on the international stage?Hon TONY RYALL: Yes they can apply. I hope those family caregiver case people might actually observe that New Zealand is one of only three countries in the world that will pay wages to family members to care for other family members. Behind the Netherlands and Sweden New Zealand is one of only three countries in the world taking this action. We are investing $92 million over the next 4 years to support an estimated 1600 family caregivers to care for their family members.Jan Logie: Considering that discrimination was proven at the New Zealand Human Rights Review Tribunal the High Court and the Court of Appeal will he admit that as well as entrenching discrimination against some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders he has also exposed his Government to legal risk and international shame due to the removal of all domestic appeal provisions?Hon TONY RYALL: I do not agree with that. I think that internationally New Zealand is viewed as one of only three countries in the world that are going to pay wages to family caregivers—$92 million over 4 years. And remember that a party in Government that that member supported expressly decided in 2008 not to pay family caregivers. This Government has.