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:10171. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am definitely seeking a call on clause 3 which deals just with the fact that the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) which we are moving through under urgency at the moment amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 which is thereafter referred to as the “principal Act”. In speaking to this clause I want to draw attention to two anomalies two irregularities two inconsistencies that had this bill been a regulation would have been drawn to the attention of the Regulations Review Committee and would have led to a disallowance motion. Unfortunately it is not a regulation; it is an amendment to the legislation but having an amendment that iscompletely at odds by its very nature with the principal Act is really a very strange thing for Parliament to be doing.The first reason that I say that is outlined in the preliminary provisions of the principal Act in the purpose statement and it is in Part 1—in particular in section 3. That particular part of the principal Act the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 says this: “The purpose of this Act is for … the promotion of the inclusion and participation in society and independence of people with disabilities:”. This very amendment works in exactly the opposite direction. It excludes not only people with disabilities but their families and any other members of the public from discussion about the significant changes that are being introduced here.Further on in the principal Act it goes on to say in the purpose statement section 3 that the purpose is “the best care or support for those in need of services:”. Again this amendment that we are debating works in exactly the opposite direction of the principal Act. As I said if this was a regulation we would be taking it to the Regulations Review Committee and it would be saying that we should have a disallowance motion attached to this because you cannot have a regulation that is contrary to the primary legislation. Here we have an amendment bill that is absolutely at odds with the primary legislation as outlined in section 3.Further on in the principal Act the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 it outlines the responsibility of the Minister of Health. That is outlined in Part 2. It talks about the need for determining a health strategy. Slightly off the topic but just when I was researching this it does refer to annual reporting against the Disability Strategy which I note has stopped. So that is another breach of the principal Act not dealt with by this amendment. Returning rapidly to section 3 it also talks about relevant consultation which is described not as a “should be done” not as a “nice to have if you can do it” but outlined in Part 2 of the principal Act as the responsibility of the Minister. The Minister of Health the Minister responsible for this amendment legislation has in the primary Act the responsibility to consult. Again we are seeing exactly the opposite of this.This bill is not a Budget measure. This bill does not require any urgency. This bill does not actually come into effect for some time. The only part of this bill that is “required”—to abuse that term even more than the Minister has—is the extinguishing of the rights of family members to take a case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. That is an abuse of the parliamentary process as well as being completely at odds with the primary legislation. In Part 2 of the Act the responsibility of the Minister clearly outlines that in any change to the Health Strategy or health policies or the Disability Strategy there is a need for consultation. That is in the primary legislation that this bill amends and there is nothing in this amendment to the primary legislation that allows let alone entitles consultation on these very matters.So both the purpose statement of the primary legislation and the responsibilities of the Minister as outlined in Part 2 are actually being breached by the purpose and the process of this amendment. This bill is at odds with the primary legislation.