Lees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: 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:10143. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Look there have been a lot of political statements made like the one made by the previous speaker Scott Simpson who spoke not at all to the bill the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) but just spouted a few political statements. He is learning well from the Minister of Health—let us be honest. I think the nature of the debate has been governed by the fact that the proper process for considering legislation has been completely curtailed.This is a house of political debate. This is where we debate the broad policies and where there is often a bit of robust hurling of barbs at one another. It is at select committees of course where we sit down as a group—this bill would I imagine come to the Health Committee which is one of the better-functioning committees under the chairmanship of Dr Paul Hutchison and where the members actually genuinely want to do what is right for the health and well-being of New Zealanders. We may not always agree on the broad policy but we give submitters a fair hearing. We listen intently to what the official advice is and we take our time in comparison with some other select committees to really consider our inquiries and the legislation that we look at.Ordinarily this second reading debate would be an opportunity to come back to Parliament and discuss what submitters had come to tell us at the select committee. But of course the submitters who would be the people who will be directly affected by this bill have had no opportunity to do that. There has been no select committee process. There has not even been any consultation with them just as there was no consultation with other parties in Parliament and just as the Attorney-General’s report and the regulatory impact statement were dumped on the Table at the last minute—actually after the last minute. They are supposed to arrive at the same time as the bill and they did not and that is an outrage.I want to share what I think would be the words of one submitter because we have been contacted by people who will be impacted on by this bill and here is the kind of thing that we are getting. The initial reaction was really positive. It was the reaction that I think the Minister was hoping for—that everybody would have the wool pulled over their eyes and think that this was the solution that the sector was looking for. And that was the initial reaction: “Positive recognition of the obligation of carers … not legislating away … getting started … focused on highest needs first.”It all felt really positive and the first paragraph that we received from this person was incredibly positive. But then comes the second paragraph which reads like this: “But … but … but …”. There are so many buts in this legislation. The big negative they say is the minimum wage—the fact that family carers are going to receive less than other carers doing exactly the same job exactly the same work and with exactly the same passion. Actually you might argue that the family carers will have more passion for their own kin but that is the situation. They are stuck on the minimum wage. This person says: “There will be anger amongst many people and this will be seen as very unfair and mean-spirited.” and I have to concur. This legislation is unfair and it is mean-spirited. “Even going for the industry average of a dollar or two more would have been seen as more acceptable without breaking the bank.” That is what this person had to say. “Many will also be very upset at the exclusion of spouses and partners being eligible.” I think this person is right. “Why is it that they are excluded?” they ask. “Perhaps because of implications for over-65s but it will rankle deeply with the people.”So the Minister has failed. The Minister said that this is all about politics. It is always about politics with Minister Ryall. What he has been trying to do is get the politics rightwithout actually doing the job properly but he has been found out. He would be found out if the bill went to a select committee. He knows that. That is why he has forced the bill through under urgency but I am sorry Mr Ryall the people are not as stupid as you believe they are and they have figured it out.I will read more of what this person says: “Together with these issues what is emerging is it gets worse hour by hour.” In other words they like us are looking through the bill they are looking through the regulatory impact statement—what of it they are allowed to read—and they are looking at the Attorney-General’s report which says this is an unjustified contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and they are seeing this legislation for what it is which is an attempt to appease people who have an absolutely justified claim without doing the job properly.As Annette King pointed out doing the job properly would cost just $17 million more than what this bill will cost the Government. I appreciate that people out there listening will go: “Seventeen million dollars? That sounds like an awful lot of money.” Anybody would like to get their hands on $17 million. But the truth is that for the health budget and for the Government’s overall budget $17 million is not a lot of money.Later on in this passage of urgency we are going to pass legislation—well the Government is going to attempt to pass legislation; I have to admit I am probably conceding defeat already—that will increase fuel taxes. That increase in fuel taxes is going to generate $20 billion more money than the Government needs for its roading programme—$20 billion more than the Government needs for roads. Yet it cannot find $17 million for the families of people with disabilities. Does that not just tell you where this Government’s priorities lie? Does that not just tell you where this Government’s priorities lie?John Hayes: We don’t photocopy dollar notes. It doesn’t grow on trees. It doesn’t grow in the Manawatū River.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: John Hayes has perked up all of a sudden. Perhaps he realises just what a bad deal this is for people with disabilities and for their families—and for their families.John Hayes: No it’s not. It’s a damn good deal.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: John Hayes says that this is a damn good deal. Well he needs to go and talk to the families affected the people who are already contacting us because they have figured out that this is a swindle Mr Hayes. This is a swindle and nothing more from this arrogant Government which does not believe in democracy. It is pushing this bill through under urgency without providing Parliament with the full information and it is forcing us to try to pick the details apart and get to the heart of it.I have to admit that when we first saw that the Government was going to take action on this we thought that was great. It had taken it a while. The court case was actually completed a year ago and the families gave the Government a year—they voluntarily gave the Government a year—to sort this out. And the Government has taken a whole year and again that shows you where those families lie in this Government’s priorities. The Government was not prepared to act straight away. It messed around it sat on its hands and now it is putting the bill through under urgency because it knows it is at risk of litigation from the families. It took a whole year—Ian McKelvie: Haven’t you got a split call?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No Mr McKelvie. I get my full 10 minutes on this one. I also want to say that we have a genuine question. We have a genuine question—if the Minister of Health could just put his props down for a second. Here is a genuine question. How does the employment relationship between the Ministry of Health the person with the disability and their carer work? I am concerned—and we on this side are concerned—that if the direct employment responsibilities are between the personwith the disability and their carer that raises significant issues for the person with the disability. They do not have an army of human resources managers behind them to make sure that they get that relationship right. They do not have the support or the advice that the district health board or the Ministry of Health would have. It is a genuine question because reading through the bill and reading through the analysis and the supporting material I just cannot tell exactly what the situation is.So when we get to the Committee of the whole House I hope that the Minister will clarify that situation because we may want to make changes to that employment relationship to try to get this right. We disagree with the Government on this. We do not think that this is the full package. We do not think that this is the answer. But we do want to do our best to try to get it right for them and I hope that the Minister takes that consideration on board amongst the other issues.