Wall Louisa: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWall Louisa: 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:10191. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): I was just contemplating the judgment that the Court of Appeal made in May last year. What I want to highlight is this definition of the plaintiffs. They are “either family with adult disabled family members or adults with disabilities. The disabled family members have been assessed by the Ministry of Health as requiring support services.” So that group was discriminated against and we know that there are 5400 people in that group. And what we now know through this bill is that it will hopefully help 1600 family members. So basically 30 percent of the families that the Court of Appeal highlighted as requiring support are going to be supported.I will read through clause 4 and just look at the principles that are ingrained in this bill. New section 70A(1) says: “families generally have primary responsibility for the well-being of their family members.” New section 70A(2) says: “permitted by anapplicable family care policy or is expressly authorised by or under an enactment:”. And the third part of that in new section 70A(2)(c) is that it “stops … any complaint to the Human Rights Commission and any proceeding in any court if the complaint or proceeding is in whole or in part based on an assertion that a person’s right to freedom from discrimination” has been breached.The Court of Appeal assessed that 5400 New Zealanders were being discriminated against. What this legislation is trying to address is 30 percent of those 5400 New Zealand families. But in doing so the Government is going to say to the 70 percent of New Zealand families that will not be supported: “Hard luck. Sorry about that. In fact we’re not going to let you use the tools that brought us to this place in the first place.” which was to go through a court process that started in 2000. Really that is what this bill is all about.I guess what we on this side of the Chamber really care about is the 70 percent of New Zealand families who are being discriminated against in spite of the Court of Appeal decision. We on this side of the Chamber think that those 70 percent of New Zealand families have the right to be supported. I guess when you look at it within the context of overarching Government prioritisation it will give a little bit of money to families and people with disabilities and we all—the communities and everyone else out there—should say: “Hey thanks very much.” So actually to the Minister in the chair thank you very much for the 30 percent of New Zealand families of people with disabilities that this bill will assist.But I guess the challenge is this: what about the other 70 percent? What are we going to do as a Government as a society about meeting the needs of the other 70 percent? I guess in meeting the needs of the 30 percent what we have said is we will give them a minimum wage. Is that sufficient? I think you know of when I hear the pleadings of my colleague Catherine Delahunty particularly. She has been into these houses. She has worked with these families. She understands the circumstances that our most vulnerable members of our communities are living in. I think really that is the test of this House. That is the test of the tolerance that we have as a Government as a society in helping address the needs of one of our most vulnerable communities in New Zealand.That is what I really wanted to highlight in my contribution because I think the select committee process would have enabled a more thorough discussion and analysis about whether or not the needs of 30 percent of the families being met is sufficient. We could have talked about other things: not only giving them a minimum payment but actually yes valuing and acknowledging the work that our family members do. The alternative—institutionalised care—as we all know is so much more expensive. But rather than support families to the degree that they need so that they can live in dignity they can live with respect and they can live and can be valued and cared-for members of our community we think that they should be happy and satisfied.So Minister thank you for going part-way to meeting this community’s needs but I think we could have done better and I think that the process of Government would have enabled our communities to have a say so that we could actually hear about the consequences of this bill for their lives. That is what really is a travesty that we have not allowed the New Zealand people to have a say on this bill. Kia ora.