New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. It is worth taking an opportunity to set out to members exactly what this legislation does. It is part of the Government’s solution to the challenge proposed by the Court of Appeal under the Atkinson case. It does move the boundary between family and taxpayer responsibility in respect of the care of each other, but the Government believes that it lands in a fair place that balances the various interests of those who are being cared for, those who are doing the caring, and taxpayers in general.

As I said earlier on, this bill comes to this Parliament after, really, 20 years of consideration by Governments of both sides. We know that in 2001, when the Hill case first came to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, it was considered by the previous Government. The previous Government began a series of papers and considerations. It had a number of reports and discussions with Ministers. A number of strategies were kicked on and kicked on every year. It culminated in 2008 with the Carers’ Strategy and Five-year Action Plan.

In 2007 the Labour Government considered paying family carers, and in the strategy documents that it considered in 2008 the Labour Government expressly decided not to proceed with paying family carers—in April 2008 the Labour Government expressly decided not to pay family carers. Labour was supported by the Greens in that Government, and Labour expressly decided not to pay family caregivers. In fact, the Labour Minister of Health instructed officials to oppose this case at at every step, and that action was supported by every Labour Cabinet Minister. The Labour Government instructed the Ministry of Health—even before then, it was clear the ministry was to oppose this—to oppose the Atkinson claim every step of the way.

I know that this is a political chamber, and I know that the Opposition will never support any legislation that is part of a Budget, but I do have to say it is galling to hear the crocodile tears from the former Ministers who expressly decided not to pay family carers—expressly decided not to pay family carers. In fact, Mrs Dyson said this: “We have to have a sensible debate about what are legitimate family responsibilities—what you should do because we are a caring, loving member of the family, and then what is actually work you should get paid to do.” Then, when asked about paying family carers, she said that top of her Budget bidding list was more money for equipment services—more money for equipment services. She was not interested in more money for family carers. I know we are going to get political speeches today. I know the Opposition will never agree with Government legislation—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. It is a convention here that we do not use the words “lie” or “liar”, and I ask the member to desist from using those phrases in the future.

Who was it?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It does not matter.

Oh, OK; they will not admit it.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Dyson.

Oh, Dyson! The member who said family carers—

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members are to be addressed as honourable members or by their full name.

The Hon Ruth Dyson told disability groups that she thought it was important, but when asked whether family carers should be the top priority, she said, as the Associate Minister of Health, that the top of her Budget bidding list was more money for equipment services.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Not family carers.

Not family carers. I know we are going to get the political speeches, but it is galling that members of the Government that expressly decided not to pay family carers are now saying: “Oh, when the health Budget doubled, we might have—”. Well, they do not really say. They have not addressed why they never paid it. The argument has been “Oh, it was very complex.” Well, what about the years of reports that they got? What about the years of resolutions in Cabinet? It came to nothing, because the Minister of Health at the time expressly instructed ministry officials and Crown Law to fight the Atkinson claimants every step of the way.

I can advise the House that this bill protects the interests of the Atkinson claimants. Those Atkinson claimants who wanted to be on an interim payment arrangement are, and those Atkinson claimants who are prepared to accept back payment to the Court of Appeal decision date have been paid. There will be a remedies hearing in respect of their settlements prior to the Court of Appeal decision, so those people who wanted to be paid under this arrangement in the interim are currently being paid. What I have to say to that—

💬 Hon Annette King: Have they been paid?

The ministry advises that those people who wanted an interim payment received one. I am not going to engage with Annette King, because she was the Minister in a Government that expressly decided not to pay family carers—not to pay family carers. So it is all politics today. It is all politics.

What this legislation does is it proposes that the Government invest $72 million over the next 4 years in order to pay wages to family carers who care for their resident adult disabled children. This addresses the crux of the claim put forward by Atkinson. The focus of this will be on the 1,600 families whom we assess as having high or very high needs. Those people will be able to qualify under policies that will be in place from 1 October 2013. That is pretty important. Policies are going to be developed and people will have the opportunity to be supported in this way. It is recognition from this Government to respond to the Court of Appeal case. We know that there will be many people who believe that they should be paid too, but this respects the decision of the courts, and also the longstanding tenet of Governments of all colours that families are primarily responsible for each other, and that will still remain a very, very important part of this legislation.

In the debate ahead I think it is right to look at why it has taken so long for Parliament to get to this position. It is right to look at whether we are striking the right balance between the interests of the families, the carers, and taxpayers. I think we are. I think we have landed in a fair place—a fair place that recognises the concerns of the courts but also makes sure that we as taxpayers are able to make a contribution that we would expect to be made in this situation. The reason why the bill is going through under urgency on this day is that it is important that we do not settle these matters on an individual basis before tribunals or courts. We need to have a policy in place that deals with the concerns of the courts with the Atkinson claimants’ case and proceed from there.

I know that the debate will be full of bluster from the other side—bluster from the other side—but members should remember when they hear that bluster that those members are the people who, in the times of plenty, decided to do nothing. They expressly decided not to pay family carers and expressly decided to tell the ministry to oppose it every step of the way.

💬 Hon Annette King: 11 years of National—did nothing.

Oh, now it is 11 years of National. Look, it is all politics from Annette King—it is all politics. When she was in charge, she did nothing.

These people are currently being paid nothing, and from 1 October we will have a scheme in place that supports family carers, those who are caring for their disabled adult family members, in a way that is respectful of the huge contribution that they are making to the care of their loved ones.

Can I just begin my comments by saying to the Hon Tony Ryall that actually this is not about politics; this is about the quality of the policy decisions that have been made in relation to a matter that has, as the Minister of Health quite rightly said, been live as a topic of debate for 20 years, 11 of which have been under a National-led Government of one form or another. So it is a bit rich for the Minister to say that the Labour Government did nothing when this is now his 11th year of having this matter on his plate.

This New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) should be an issue where a lot of discussion is had between the many parties that make up this Parliament, carers in the community, and family members who are affected by this policy to see whether we have got it right, because this policy is not straightforward. This bill is a determination by this Parliament about the caring responsibilities that should naturally go with a family and that where the threshold is reached, that that caring should be paid for out of taxpayer money. That is not always an easy call.

The determination that the Minister has made is that a very high threshold of need has to be met before a family is entitled to be paid. I do not understand why that threshold would be at all relevant. If it is a matter of rationing the money, then the Minister should be upfront and say that. If it is because he genuinely believes that parents who look after their disabled adult daughter or son are not entitled to be paid for that because they do not have much of a need, then I think he is wrong. I think that in terms of a public policy position it is absolutely wrong.

But the worst thing is that this Parliament is debating this legislation through all stages under urgency without any opportunity for us to hear from the families who are affected. These are families who subjected their personal lives to public exposure by going through the Human Rights Commission, to the High Court, and then to the Court of Appeal. They deserve better respect than this rushed legislation is giving them, in my view. I do not think it would be much of an effort to have even a shortened period of consideration by a select committee.

The reason the Minister wants this to go through all stages under urgency, without any member of the public having an opportunity to have a say, is that this bill extinguishes the right of family members who will not be allowed to be paid under this family caregiver policy and who will not meet the criteria to go to the Human Rights Commission and have a case heard against the Government. I think extinguishing rights is not something that this Parliament should do at any stage, let alone by ramming legislation through all stages under urgency. It is wrong to do that to family members who just want their work supporting their disabled son or daughter, or husband or wife, or parent, recognised.

I do not understand why the Minister decided—instead of explaining to the members of Parliament who are so interested in this legislation the rationale behind this public policy, behind extinguishing the rights of those families who are excluded—to spend the whole of his time attacking the former Government. How is that going to progress thinking and rigour in this debate, which affects so many families who, frankly, deserve better? They deserve better consideration and they deserve respect. They are certainly not getting that from the National Government.

There will be time in the Committee stage for amendments and questions to the Minister. I hope he answers the questions, because it is going to be the only time that we will have in which to have any questions addressed. In his first reading speech I thought I heard the Minister specifically exclude spouses from the consideration of being paid as a family caregiver, and I think that is wrong. I do not think that this Parliament should determine who in a family provides care for one of their own family members. I think that is a determination that should be made by a family. Why, as a parliamentarian, should I, Tony Ryall, or any member of the National Government say: “No, this is wrong. We won’t be paying you as a husband or wife, but we would pay you as a son or daughter or parent.”? Why would it be our determination that decides who receives that payment? The report of the Attorney-General—which actually has got nothing blanked out, so I would recommend it to colleagues to read—specifically includes a spouse as being a family member under this legislation. That point is actually quite important, and I am confused as to the reason that the Minister said the spouse was excluded, and yet the Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Finlayson, has clearly included spouses in his report on this legislation.

I want to move just briefly to the regulatory impact statement. This is an opportunity for all members of Parliament to see independent consideration of the impact of this legislation. Normally, it is a pretty robust process. I have seen some regulatory impact statements that are a bit weak, but this one looked like it had a lot of pages, so I got quite excited. I thought we were going to have a very good analysis of this legislation. Looking through it, I have never ever seen a regulatory impact statement like this before. Look at this. It is blanked out—it says “legally privileged”. And on the next page, this whole page in the regulatory impact statement is blanked out. How are we to judge the quality of this legislation based on the regulatory impact statement when the whole of this page is blanked out? On the next page, the contents of this column are “legally privileged” and blanked out. Page after page after page has blanked-out information.

This is the information that Parliament is entitled to have so that we can have a proper, robust debate based on facts. What we have got is a regulatory impact statement that has page after page after page blanked out. Here is another whole page blanked out. No wonder the Hon Tim Groser is hanging his head in shame. We would never see that Minister bring a regulatory impact statement to this House with page after page after page blanked out. We are not able to have a robust debate. This goes through the entire document—through the entire document page after page is blanked out and is “legally privileged”. It is Parliament that makes the law of our land, not some bureaucrat based in a department down the road blanking out information that we should be entitled to have. How do we know about the robustness of this legislation if we are not even entitled in this Parliament to have the information and, therefore, have a proper debate?

This is one of the most important issues in the disability sector, and, as the Minister quite properly said, it has been a live debate for over two decades. A number of family members took this case to a Human Rights Review Tribunal hearing. It later went to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal. I was very pleased when the Minister of Health decided not to take it further but to call it quits. I thought the Minister of Health would then work with other parties, work with Carers New Zealand, and come back to this Parliament with a robust, agreed, sensible decision.

When the options that have been considered by the Minister are looked at—they are contained in the regulatory impact statement on one of the few pages that is not blanked out—we see that this whole issue could have been addressed for the 5,400 family members, family carers, of disabled people. This could have been totally addressed for a mid-point cost of an estimated $65 million a year. That is actually not a lot of money in the scheme of things. The Minister has boasted that he has addressed it for $92 million over 4 years. That is only $23 million a year. I think that the family members who are excluded from this because they do not meet the very, very high threshold that the Minister has imposed deserve better. In my view they should have been considered in this payment, and they certainly should not have had their rights to take a case of discrimination to the Human Rights Review Tribunal extinguished by this legislation.

Again, it is a privilege to be speaking on this bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to repeat what I said in the first reading—that it was only this morning that a prominent disability spokesman said that the sector will be relieved that a resolution has at last been agreed on. This undoubtedly is a fair, pragmatic, and compassionate resolution to a longstanding, challenging, and complex situation.

It is indeed a little rich to hear the Hon Ruth Dyson go on about consultation. We heard both that member and Annette King saying this morning that they wanted—and they offered—cross-party consultation. But really they are indeed saying this far too late, given the context of their own response to the human rights ruling in 2001. The fact is they did not respond. The fact is that in 2005 they—this was Annette King and her fellow Cabinet Ministers—explicitly stated there would be no consultation with other parties. This was supported by the Greens—this was supported by the Greens—and then again, in 2008, the Labour Government expressly decided not to pay carers. Again, it was a Government propped up by the Greens.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: You’re better than this, Paul.

Well, I thought the member would be better than this. Indeed, there has been a veil of silence from the Labour-Green coalition regarding consultation, which is what I am talking about, until suddenly they find themselves in Opposition and then they start saying: “Hey, look. That’s what we really wish.”

I was interested to hear Annette King say: “Let’s look at the history, because over these two decades we have deinstitutionalised the places where disabled people were left, often left to wallow and not be cared for properly.” We have always agreed with that. Indeed, some of those packages that have been replaced are very, very reasonable ones, although of course there will always be the requirement for reform. In that consultation process that the National Government went through last year—it was a wide consultation process; I think there were something like 264 submitters and something like 12 meetings around the country—there were examples of the sorts of packages that were available for people through the system in New Zealand. Often that is not realised.

One of the classic examples was of an adult who had a rare progressive neurological disorder and used a powered wheelchair, living out in the country with her parents. Her support package is $106,000 per year, together with total additional funding of $43,000. That may not be as much as her parents would have liked, but it is a realistic package, given the amount of money and resourcing that we have in New Zealand.

So I want to end by saying that the Government is indeed balancing the interests of those being cared for, their families, and the taxpayers.

It has been an interesting debate so far from the members of the Government, particularly the Minister of Health, who does not particularly like to listen to the debate and so minimises the time that he has to listen. If he wants to talk about politics in this issue, I would say that he is a Minister who is well known out there in the health sector as a walking political slogan. Most of what he says is political slogans.

I was interested in the contribution from a number of members on this bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2). Rather than debating the issues, they wanted to spread blame around. Well, I will give the Minister credit for saying that this is an issue of 20 years’ consideration, Mr Hayes—20 years of consideration: 5 under a National Government, 9 under a Labour Government, and then you have got another 6 under a National Government. So if we are going to throw some blame around about what was not done before Labour became the Government, well, let us go back that far in history, Dr Hutchison. I noticed you did not do that. Let us stick with the issues.

Let us start with the regulatory impact statement. I ask the members of the Government whether they have read it. Have they read it? Not one of them has read the regulatory impact statement. Do they know what a regulatory impact statement is for? You see, a regulatory impact statement is provided to the Parliament—to the Parliament, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, and you will appreciate this point—to inform members of what a bill is about. It is, you would say, a neutral way of providing information about a bill to the Parliament. It is something that the public can then read to get a very good understanding of what a bill is about.

But when you receive a regulatory impact statement that has been so heavily edited that anything that would give you some of the guts of what this is about has been crossed out, then we have a problem. You know, this blacked-out page I am holding is just an example from the regulatory impact statement. It would be better used as a draughtboard than the provision of information for the people here in the public and in this House. Probably what it shows is that it was rushed legislation—very rushed legislation. Work had not been finished.

The reason I can work that out is that as late as yesterday the Minister was advising the media that operational details of the policy were still to be finalised and would be available by September 2013. So the operational details of this policy are not available to this House. They will never be available to the public of New Zealand. Why? Because this bill is going through Parliament, through every stage, under urgency today. Does that mean the public have a say? Do they get to look at the operational details? No, they do not. They see absolutely nothing about this bill, because it will be passed under urgency.

Why urgency? I know that the public will ask that. Why urgency, when it does not have to be passed until October 2013—this year—and the operational details will not be available until September this year? Why could this bill not have gone to a select committee chaired by Dr Paul Hutchison, who I am sure would have enabled people to come and have a say. I suspect he did not have a say on this at all and heard about it at about the same time as everybody else.

We have heard from the Minister and others that the sector is pleased with these decisions. Well, I think we should read a bit of the feedback that has come in from those who do represent those with disability—a big negative. I will read them out. “Big negative—the minimum wage. Why would those who are caring for a disabled family be paid less than other carers? Are they worth less, do they do less? Why would they only be paid the minimum wage?”

Secondly, they were very upset at the exclusion of spouses and partners from being eligible to do the care. Have members opposite met with Carers New Zealand, an organisation that represents hundreds and hundreds of carers around New Zealand? Nobody has met with them. If they met with them, they would find out what the average age of a carer is in New Zealand. It is around 80—80 years of age. Let us have a look at Mr Cliff Robinson, a man who is caring for his two disabled children. He said he was looking for a half-decent scheme today. He got a half-baked one.

Here he is in this photo. Do the members opposite have any idea how old this man is? He is 75 years of age and is the father of two children, who are very disabled, aged 43 and 40. Spouses or partners would not eligible to look after them. [Interruption] Have a look at your own bill. They could not have spouses looking after them. So Mr Robinson can look after his children, but he could not look after his wife if she were in the same situation.

The third thing is there is a very high threshold of need. Have a look at the threshold of need that was provided by the Minister’s office to the media—but not provided to this Parliament so that we could look at the threshold of need. In addition, let me read this to the members opposite: “In addition, the Government did all this without any engagement with carers in the policy design or systems that will be used. One person got on the technical advisory group, but they had to only respond to questions from the Minister.” That is what has happened with this bill. It is an absolute disgrace. I just cannot understand why this Government is carrying out this bill in this way.

In the few pages that do exist in the regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Health put up a number of payment options. It made payment options under three different categories. What we find is that the Government said it has been very fair. It has taken the mid-point—$23 million a year, covering 1,600 highly disabled people. That is what it said was being fair. Do you know, it had to move down only one column and it could have provided care to 5,400 disabled people? The difference in that payment is $17 million a year—$17 million a year—to provide care to 5,400 disabled people. Think about it, members opposite. Think about those people. Think about what they face every day.

💬 Ian McKelvie: That’s $17 million more than they’ve got now.

It is no good yelling out now. Think about it, because you were not consulted before. I know this is hurting. I know it is hurting, because members opposite understand that what I am saying is right. Why, for $17 million, would you not include 5,400 disabled people? That is what I call mean-spirited, and so will the rest of the community. One thing the community understands is that when you are looking after a family member who needs 24-hour care, 7 days a week, there is no let-up, except for a little bit of respite the Government generously offers every now and then. There is no let-up. It is like caring for the most dependent of young people. The Government could have chosen option 3C—mid-point. Difference from what the Minister chose? Seventeen million dollars.

I am also interested—and we will get on to this later in questions to the Minister—in the Attorney-General’s report to Parliament. I did not find it until this morning. I am not sure whether other members did, but I suspect that, like the regulatory impact statement, the Government was not in a hurry to provide it to Parliament. I think it is interesting that on the last page of his report, the Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, said that new section 70E appears to limit the right to judicial review because it would prevent a person from challenging the lawfulness of a decision on the basis that it was inconsistent with section 19(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. On balance, he concluded that that limitation cannot be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That is from the Attorney-General—that is what he has said. We will look closer at this, because this is Parliament’s Attorney-General, a member of the National Government, providing that advice, and he has obviously not been listened to.

It is indeed ironic that this bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2), which supposedly addresses historic discrimination, turns out to be a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It suggests poor law at best, and it also suggests a deeply cynical attitude to what discrimination actually means. What it means for the status of the Human Rights Review Tribunal will certainly be debated by lawyers and will, no doubt, end up in more painful litigation. However, I just wanted to address some of the arguments in the context behind the bill.

I do not claim to know everything about this issue. I have been involved in it only for the last 4 years. I think that rather than blaming each other and talking about who did what to whom, let us all acknowledge that Parliament has not dealt well with these families, Parliament has not addressed the issue in the past, and Parliament has been dragged, screaming, to this point through the courts. Nobody looks good. Let us just be honest instead of pretending that anybody can hold their head up. None of us can. Why not be real about it?

As for compassion, no one, especially not me, thinks that we have a monopoly on compassion. I am sure that everyone in this House knows somebody who has an experience of disability and caring for people with disabilities. But what is interesting is where the action is. If we have all this compassion, if we understand Cliff Robinson’s case so well, as everybody seems to, where was the action? I have been working with Cliff and the families for 4 years trying to get a response, and compassion is fine, but action is what the families want. Sympathy and empathy are all very well. Action—money to pay your bills in order to live with dignity while your family members also live with dignity—is what they want from us.

I think that is what we owe them, and that is why this bill does not meet the needs of the people who so bravely went through the court case. They have not all been paid. They have been given an interim payment. They have been told that it might not be until October before they get a remedy. So although they are explicitly protected in the legislation, no one else is protected. That is why this legislation is such a serious matter.

Let us look at the context behind the Government’s arguments. Apart from the fact that it wanted to protect itself fiscally, which is really the only thing that the bill is clear about, the rest of it will be debated in ghastly family group debates between the Ministry of Health, the district health board, and the families themselves, who are not always in the best position to advocate. They bring many stories to the Greens about their ability to advocate complex issues around care with providers. It is not simple. They are the experts, but they are treated as if they are trying to rip off the system if they try to get paid for what they do.

I am thinking about a family I have been working with. They have a 14-year-old son who has multiple health issues, 24/7 care, and who has chosen to stay at home. He said this directly to me: “I must stay at home with my family.” He wants his mother to be his carer, but in order to do that the income of the family has been drastically cut. So this family may or may not be able to get the money. It will depend on their ability to negotiate with the Ministry of Health, and it will depend on whether the Ministry of Health and the district health board think that they are liable, and whether they get in this capped amount of $23 million per year. It is very difficult for families to prove that.

Because of Government policy towards this, there has been a fundamentally suspicious and punitive approach towards people caring for family members. It is as if they have to be spied upon because they might be ripping off the system, rather than acknowledging that what they are doing is a really, really important job. It has cost them, in many cases, their own health, and their mental health.

But one of the Government’s arguments is that families should do it for nothing. The debate was about natural care. Minister Ryall continues to say that that is a tenet of the Government’s bill. “Natural care” is a wonderful-sounding phrase. Natural care is what we do when we raise our children. It is what many of us did for our elderly parents when they needed support in their home as they got older. It is what many people do for family members—whānau ora, natural care. But there comes a point in natural care where a line is stepped over.

The stories that are being told to me about people who live in the other world are not natural care. It is not natural care for adults to have to wash and take care of, control, manage, feed, deal with, and support some family members. We need to put the person with the disability at the heart of the matter. If the person with the disability chooses to be cared for by a family member, many times it is because they feel safer with that person than with carers on a 4-hour roster. People might have a 24-hour roster where the carers change every 4 hours. They have changing carers. They do not know those people all the time, so they actually trust—not surprisingly—their family member more.

The Government’s argument was that this could distort relationships in families. Of course it could. Power exists in all relationships, especially between disabled people and their carer, whether they are a family member or an agency. It does not matter. The reason that that is always going to be a risk is that people with disabilities are at the bottom of the heap, and their status in our society is the lowest possible status that you can have. Their ability to advocate for themselves is severely limited by the barriers that we create, not because they are incapable of articulating their needs, but because we are incapable, in many instances, of giving them the support to say what it is that they need.

I met with a number of groups in the last 4 years that said we need change. They said we need a cross-party approach towards the issue of paying family carers so that the person at the heart of this is protected at all times and has the ability to choose. A number of the people I met were saying that their young people want to live independently but they cannot find a safe set-up. I know there are safe, independent set-ups. They are more expensive than exploiting someone at home, but in my town, for example, there is a very good trust called the Lifestyle Trust, where they have 25 houses where young people and other people, some with complex intellectual impairment in particular, who want to live independently, are supported. But if, like Cliff and his family and others, they choose to stay at home, their carers should be able to earn a living wage.

One of the most reprehensible and depressing aspects of the bill is saying that the people who do that work do not have to be paid what the outside carer gets paid. So you are setting up a bizarre anomaly where someone who might get paid 8 hours a day to look after a family member is paid one rate, and then the carer will come in and get paid more. I guess you could call it progress, because at the moment they are paid nothing, but, actually, what that does to their human dignity is that, after all the struggle, after all the court cases, and after all the bitterness and debate, they are still being told: “Your work is not of value. The caring that you do for your family member—you should do it for love.” Love is very much involved in the sacrifice that is being made, and love should not be exploited, and workers who are family members should not be exploited.

That brings us to the issue of spouses. Actually, it is up to the disabled person as to whether they want their spouse to care for them, not their mother, their father, their brother, or their cousin, but this law appears—and we should clarify this with the Minister—to not allow that. It makes an artificial distinction between who can be paid, and whether they are a spouse or not. It does many other things as well. It is interesting, given that Whānau Ora is supposedly the flagship of the Government along with the Māori Party, and it is potentially a liberating policy, but whānau ora means that the whole family are involved in an issue and their needs are met and we recognise what families are trying to do together.

I think that putting the disabled person at the heart and putting the whānau ora principle into this would have resulted in a very different piece of legislation. It is very, very sad to see the discrimination that comes in in this bill, which the Minister, of course, has not mentioned. He has not mentioned the fact that in the bill it explicitly states that people will have no right to complain—none whatsoever—either to the Human Rights Review Tribunal or the courts. So what this bill is saying is: “We have come up with an inadequate solution without proper consultation, and now we are going to shut it down—end of story.”

No more will people be allowed to complain. No more can they go to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Those cases that did not get on the list are over, and these people will be desperate, but no more will they have the right. I am amazed at a law that actually says: “You will not have a right to take any kind of case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.” I think it is really churlish, when they have lost—and they lost a number of times in court—to say: “We are not prepared to even allow people to say any more. That is the end of the story. If you fail to be accepted through the assessment process—no more. Go home. Look after your family member for nothing, or put them into a residential care facility that may or may not be acceptable to them, but that is the end for you.” More will be said. We are against the bill.

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) in its second reading. I just want to acknowledge the work of the previous speaker, Catherine Delahunty, in terms of her support for Cliff Robinson and his family. Cliff Robinson and his two children are constituents of mine in the Coromandel electorate, and it is fair to say that Catherine Delahunty has been a staunch advocate on their behalf, and I thank her for that.

This is a good bill. It is an important bill. Today is a day of pride for the National Party and the National-led Government, but it is a day of shame for the Labour Party and its former health Ministers and their teams during the 9 long years of the previous Labour Government. Really, as we get through this second reading debate, there is really just one question that should probably be asked and answered: was it the Hon Ruth Dyson who, during her term as the Associate Minister of Health in those years of Helen Clark’s administration, pushed for a carers’ package, and was it, actually, the former Minister of Health Annette King who pushed back and opposed it? I support this bill.

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 right without 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.

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.

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?

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 person with 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.

The previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, blamed the National-led Government for not paying for family carers. The fact is that the previous Labour Government decided not to pay a single cent to family carers. In April 2008 that decision was made. Well, the Labour Government decided to forget that fact. It was convenient, deliberate—that is indeed a disgrace.

As I said earlier, the core of this matter is the balance between the responsibility of the Government and that of families. The Government is currently spending over $1 billion a year on a wide range of disability support services, including home and community support services, residential care, support for high and complex needs, equipment and home modifications, supported independent living, and also care support and respite care. This bill is another effort of the Government to provide better services to disabled people while using taxpayers’ money carefully and responsibly. The previous Labour Government felt helpless and did nothing on this issue. The National-led Government actually is now acting on this matter. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call.

Kia ora. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion about the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2). I just want to pick up where my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway left off. I think the select committee process would have provided a really good opportunity to discuss issues such as were highlighted by the Ministry of Health in its own discussion document, where it said: “the court’s decision may have broader implications for other … funded disability supports and for family carers of other people receiving government-funded support …”. I mean, we all know that this is a reaction to the Atkinson and Others case. This case has been going since 2000, so it was in its 12th year when, on 14 May last year, the Court of Appeal made its decision. That judgment was very clear. It said, basically, that the Government—the Ministry of Health—was unlawful to discriminate against someone because of their family status.

I think that is actually the critical question that the select committee process would have been able to go through. I reiterate what my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has said. The Health Committee is an incredibly well-run select committee. I think that the way we engage with each other is very much evidence-based, and it is very much about trying to work collaboratively, and I think this is an area and an issue that we could have worked collaboratively on.

The reality—as John Forman, who is the chair of the Carers Alliance, said—is that there is “disappointment that spouses and partners of disabled people were specifically excluded …”. That really is the criticism that I think I want to focus on. We have been through a process, a legal process, that said the Government was discriminating. The case was taken by parents, and I want to acknowledge the parents. I want to acknowledge Peter Atkinson on behalf of the estate of Susan Atkinson. I want to acknowledge Gillian Bransgrove, Jean Burnett, Laurence Carter, Peter Humphreys, Clifford Robinson, Lynda Stoneham, Stuart Burnett, Imogen Atkinson, and their counsel, who have fought for their right to be supported in their support of their disabled adult children.

That was the context of the case, but the reality is that the principle applies to other people in other situations, and that really is the issue. The Government really is selling short family members in similar situations who are caring for adult members of their family who have a disability. So to delimit it in the way that it has done really is a breach of how this House operates. If we had been able to go through a select committee process, we would have been able, I think, to resolve and reconcile some of the other challenges that that Court of Appeal decision has highlighted. For me, that is the fundamental flaw in the process that we are going through.

It is very sad, and I know that the chair of our select committee, Paul Hutchison, is always very concerned about evidence, about principles, and about why the Government makes the decisions that it does. I am sure he would have welcomed our select committee hearing submissions on this particular bill. For me, that is the fundamental issue. That is what I want to highlight. Yes, we are going to resolve the issue for some families who have disabled adults, but this does not resolve the issues for all families who have members who have a disability. I think we have lost that opportunity, and I think to say that the fiscal implications should drive what we do is wrong. Kia ora.

I rise to speak again, so soon after the first reading, in the second reading of this bill, New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2). In the first reading I spoke about why this is a feminist issue. I would like to speak just a little bit more about the economic model that this bill is a demonstration of.

I was at the Public Health Association Budget day breakfast this morning and one of the economists at that meeting was talking about the counting-for-nothing model and how that has contributed to child poverty and growing inequality in this country. He noted that provision 6.28 in Household Surveys and the National Accounts explicitly excludes from our national accounts the preparation of meals, the care of children, the care of sick and the infirm, and transportation.

The consequence of that exclusion—and this bill is such a demonstration of the thinking behind that exclusion—is that the Government can focus on the external economic growth model as if it has nothing to do with our families. It can say: “Well, if we put all of our focus and our effort into growing business, then we may have enough money as a country not to have to introduce these fiscal constraints that deny people their very rights and allow the Government to discriminate.”

But that kind of thinking is the same thinking that says that earthquakes and pollution and prisons grow our economy and that the increase in GDP from those evils is something we want to strive for. It separates out and ignores the very well-being of every person in this country in their homes, in the places that I believe most New Zealanders feel actually count. The very focus around this means that the impact of any of these little bits of social spending is completely, in the words of this economist, swamped by the policies that drive social inequality.

In this case it is the inequality between men and women, and the inequality between disabled and abled people, who, through their loss of choice and control and funding for their families, are entrenched into poverty because this Government, and the very model that it is working in, says that they do not count. The lives of these people, the hours, the love, and the care, count for nothing in the Government’s economic model. I think that is morally bankrupt and I think New Zealanders deserve something better.

The Government is saying that this is a good deal. Well, it is a bloody good deal for the Government and its model. The Government is getting the benefit of all of these people’s work for nothing, virtually—for a token. We see this again in the income support area, where the Government has allowed for 7,500 people to get the supported living payment for the care of the sick and the infirm—which is care for people who would otherwise be hospitalised—and they are being paid below the poverty line. For those families, that is what that means. They are being guaranteed an income below the poverty line so that the Government can save on the extraordinary costs of hospital care, because they love their family members and want more for them. That is the economic model that we are being fed as a positive for our communities. What a joke. It is offensive.