Fenton Darien: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFenton Darien: 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:10127. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Well this is a morning for learning new words from the previous speaker Scott Simpson. What was it? “Obstification”? “Obstification” yes. Is there a dictionary in the House? Is there a dictionary in the House? Let us look it up.Iain Lees-Galloway: He learnt it when he was getting his “edumacation”.DARIEN FENTON: He learnt it when he was getting his “edumaction” yes—very very good. Anyway I am pleased to take a call on this New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) although I do so with great disappointment. I think itis a very miserly measure that is being rushed through the House this morning. The Government is clearly reluctant to pay. This bill is full of reluctance full of extinguishments of rights full of excuses and full of ifs buts and maybes.The worst thing about it is the fact that it is being rammed through under urgency when the people who are most affected by this—that is the disabled people and their families—will have no opportunity for input. They will have no chance to have a say about how this will affect them. They will have no chance to come along to a select committee and tell their stories. What is sad is that there will be no chance for the members of a select committee to gain some understanding of the issues that face disabled people and their families. What is worse is that the Government has ignored offers of cooperation from other parties. We have called on the Government to put aside the court case which it did eventually. We called on the Government to cooperate with other parties in order to find a solution that the whole Parliament could support. Last year the Government put out a consultation document that I believe was clearly designed to pre-empt any decision making. Although the Government boasts about the fact that it had workshops and things all around the country it was very clear from the messages that the Minister of Health was giving back then that this was going to be a very very limited solution and that it would be heavily targeted.While I have been sitting here I have been thinking about a disabled member of my family. People who have disabled members of their family will understand this. My auntie was severely disabled. My grandmother used to carry her around on her back. She carried her around on her back. She got up in the middle of the night and looked after her. She did not put her in an institution like so many people did in those days; she looked after her. She taught her to read. She taught her to catch the bus so she could go to town. She taught her to understand money so she could use the little pittance she got. I think that was exceptional in those days but I know the toll that that took on my grandmother. I know that it contributed to her dying sooner than she should have because that was years—that was a lifetime—of struggle for her. Even when Peggy my auntie went into a residential home once we stopped putting people in institutions it was still a burden on my grandmother. There was still that responsibility. So I want to pay a tribute to my grandmother and my auntie and to all of the families who are in this situation of having a much-loved disabled family member whom they do their best to care for to keep at home and to remove the responsibility from others including the State to care for them because they love them and want to give them the best possible chance at having a decent life.One of the things I am concerned about in this bill is the proposal to pay the minimum wage. The proposal is to pay effectively half of what private carers are earning as the Minister has said. As Catherine Delahunty said this is entrenching a new discrimination another pay inequality—and we know all about those. I am also very concerned about the responsibility that goes on families. We support individualised funding but there has to be support put in place for family members who are employed by their disabled adult children so that they are able to manage the responsibilities of being an employer which is essentially what they will be or one of the choices that they have. But as I have said paying the minimum wage is I think unacceptable. I think the families will be very disappointed. I think it shows how this Government values the support and the contribution they make in caring for those very disadvantaged people.Mind you it is not surprising because we had a Budget this week where carers came off worst—actually third-best; not just second-best but third-best. Rest home money—yes there is more money for aged care but there is nothing in the Budget that addresses the low income the critical pay issues in aged care. There is something about trainingbut nothing about addressing the fact that most residential aged-care workers are on the minimum wage or just above—nothing about that. The former Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor did a very extensive report on the critical issue that is facing us with caring for an ageing population but there is nothing in this Budget that even recognises that there is a problem.There is nothing for home-care workers many of whom actually care for both disabled people and older people. There is nothing for home-care workers who are now having to go to court as well to claim the minimum wage for the travel they have to carry out between clients. They go to one home the clock starts ticking and they get paid the minimum wage for the hour they work. Then the clock goes off again they get in their car and off they go to another place which could be miles and miles away. But they get no recompense for that except a measly allowance if they are lucky. They are now going to court to challenge the Government about paying the minimum wage for the period of time that they have to spend on the road in between jobs. And so they should because so many other people who work in the health care sector or other sectors actually get paid for every hour they work whether it be going between jobs or not.There is another group of carers who are currently taking a case to court as well. They are the carer relief workers. They are the carer relief workers who are employed—well they are not employed but they are funded through the Ministry of Health and district health boards. They are paid $75 for a 24-hour period—Barbara Stewart: Really?DARIEN FENTON: —for a 24-hour period—$75. They are pursuing a minimum wage case as well. But guess what? The Ministry of Health and the district health boards are arguing that they do not employ them so they are not responsible for paying the minimum wage. The disabled people they care for the people whom they provide respite care for are the employers according to the Ministry of Health and the district health boards but they are responsible it is hands off not our problem pass the buck and put the responsibility on to the disabled people who are the employers.That is what worries about me about this bill too. I think we will see more of that buck shifting going on to the people who are most vulnerable and who need as much support as possible not only in their choice to employ somebody from their family but also to make sure that that support person is paid properly and that their employment relationship is able to be managed. That is a very very important issue in this bill that I want to see some more discussion on at the Committee stage.Going back to how I started can I say that we are disappointed with this bill. We are particularly disappointed that it is going through three stages today under urgency. I know that it is a step in the right direction but it is a drop in the bucket. The process is awful and the information that the Opposition parties have been given about the background to this bill with the regulatory impact statement like this is outrageous—it is outrageous. But we are used to that under this Government—we are used to this under this Government. Its process is awful. I think it is disrespectful to the carers the adult carers of disabled people and it is disrespectful to New Zealand. Thank you.