New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill

I move, That the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

This bill amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. The bill repeals Part 4A of the Act, which provides the legitimate policy framework for funded family care policies. By repealing Part 4A, we will be removing the discriminatory elements of the current legislation. This will result in our disabled people and their family carers being treated fairly, their human rights being upheld, and—alongside a full package of funded family care—much improved family and whānau wellbeing.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Health, the Hon David Clark, as well as the Hon Julie Anne Genter, who assisted with this legislation before it was handed over to me.

Part 4A provides for the Crown and district health boards to have family care policies to pay resident family members to provide personal care and household management support for their eligible ill or disabled family members. However, when Part 4A was introduced in 2013, the then Attorney-General found that the limitation to rights and freedoms in Part 4A could not be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This is because Part 4A of this Act allows the exclusion of certain resident family members from being paid for providing support and prohibited claims to the Human Rights Commission for family care policies; that was wrong. That’s why the parties of our Government have been so committed to repealing Part 4A and undoing a shameful legacy of the last Government. It is the right thing to do and our coalition Government is delivering on this commitment.

In July of 2019 the Prime Minister announced changes to the funded family care, including repeal of Part 4A. This repeal will allow the Crown and district health boards to continue to implement lawful family care policies. Resident spouses and whānau of eligible ill or disabled people under 18 will no longer be excluded from being paid under these policies. The repeal, alongside fairer pay rates and greater choice in employment models, will help support better standards of living and agency for disabled New Zealanders.

This repeal of Part 4A will also enable future complaints about the policies to be made to the Human Rights Commission on the basis of human rights discrimination. The Human Rights Review Tribunal and courts will be able to hear complaints. This legislative change will ensure consistency with human rights law and uphold New Zealand’s commitments under the United Nations convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to treat disabled people equally and to uphold human rights.

This bill will address a petition presented to the Health Committee in 2018 asking the Government to repeal Part 4A and stop discriminating against family carers. The select committee process will enable people with care needs, affected families, and other stakeholders to make submissions and have their voices heard by the committee, and I encourage the public to do so. There was no opportunity for submissions to be heard by people when Part 4A was introduced. We acknowledge that that was wrong.

The prohibition by the previous Government on fairness and others challenging what families and carers see as discriminatory legislation was an act that has brought national and international concern by the disability and carer communities. The introduction of this bill, to repeal Part 4A, is how we begin to right that wrong. Our Government is committed to making Aotearoa New Zealand a place where disabled people, their families, and carers are treated with respect, fairness, and dignity.

This is a short bill that will make a very large difference in so many people’s lives. As such, I don’t need to take up any more of the House’s time. I am pleased to be able to present this bill here today. I strongly commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the National Party and as the new spokesperson for disabilities. The National Party will support the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill in its first reading and through to select committee. We look forward to the process of the select committee where we will be able to hear from legal experts as well as the disabled community about the effects of this legislation and also its changes.

National does recognise the crucial role of the families in providing care and support. It did so, because in 2013 it introduced this piece into the legislation that we are about to amend. It was under this National Government, previous Governments had the opportunity, but the National Government saw fit that it should be—in fact, it was one of only three countries in the world at that time, the Netherlands and Sweden, and so New Zealand was the third to be able to introduce what they call a funded family care policy to ensure that families could be recognised.

What will be challenging is the fact that not all things are equal. There are many discretions that we have in legislation that mean that not all people are entitled. So just because someone is able does not always mean that they meet the criteria and are able to and are entitled. So hence the reasons why there was a cautionary element in regards to Part 4A of this bill. So we look forward to the discussion and the conversation around that. We are supportive of what will be, I think, an important element to continue to support the care packages for the disabled community.

We know the objectives of this are to change Part 4A, and, in particular, what is being recognised inside of that, around the framework, around the role that the Attorney-General in 2013 had highlighted, where he had stated that Part 4A could not be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and that Part 4A allows for an exclusion of certain resident family members. We don’t resile from that. We think it’s important that discretion is held. It’s important to do that. We have an ageing population. We have healthcare facilities that at the moment are at full capacity. So, therefore, wherever possible, where the appropriate relationship with carers, with family members, is there to provide that support and that care, then there should be some ability to allow the Government to fund their role—or responsibility, in this case—especially to their loved ones.

So, we don’t intend to speak too long. We support this to the first reading and into the select committee, and, again, to have the conversation. I would again want to preface this, though: while the Minister has said that this is important, it will be a small change that will also have a big impact, I want to have a cautionary measure that while we may want to do this because it’s the right thing to do, it’s the way that we would do this; discretion has to be shown. We want to be able to allow for the funding of family members but at the same time too, care and concern in how we do that is critically important to us as well. So, we commend this bill into the House.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. This year marks 20 years since Peter Atkinson and Susan Atkinson, Gillian Bransgrove, Jean Burnett, Laurence Carter, Peter Humphreys, Clifford Robinson, Lynda Stoneham, Stuart Burnett, and Imogen Atkinson took a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. The complaint, essentially, was about parents of adult children with disabilities being excluded from being recognised as carers, and, therefore, receiving support from the State. That drove them to go to the Human Rights Commission. That then drove a Human Rights Review Tribunal decision. It was appealed by the Government to the High Court and then the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal said that the ministry’s policy of not paying parents where a non-family member would be paid was discriminatory on the basis of family status. Further, the discrimination was not justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That drove, in 2013, the National Government to create a piece of legislation to actually limit them and also limit the ability of parents, whose children had disabilities, going to the courts to seek redress.

Twenty years later, my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa, whose name this bill is under, is coming to rectify that massive injustice. It’s incredibly humbling, I suppose, for the National Party to come here tonight and support that legislation, because the guts of their opposition, can I say, was that it was fiscally unaffordable. That’s what Minister Ryall said when they pushed that bill through in one day in 2013. So it’s wonderful that they’ve joined us tonight in working to rectify.

What Clifford Robinson said—50 years he’s been looking after his disabled children—was that all good things come to those who wait. So thank goodness this House finally will ensure people like Mr Robinson—who has been looking after his two adult disabled children for 50 years—are going to be recognised for the contribution that they make to our society in being carers.

So I commend this bill to the House. I can’t wait, as the chair of the Health Committee, to hear from those parents and for their stories to be given space to be heard so that we can fully acknowledge their contribution to New Zealand society. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill. The legislation, as we’ve heard, that was enacted in 2013, effectively, did three things: one, close family members of the disabled were to be unpaid; two, those who were not close family members were to be paid—to be paid at the minimum wage level; and, three, as we’ve heard, there was no recourse to the Human Rights Act or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Now, there were a number of reasons supporting the thinking, the information, and the circumstances at the time. We’re now seven years later. There are new sets of information, new circumstances, a new Government, and new party leaders. This is a proposal to repeal the legislation, and, certainly, this is the option that this bill has taken, and it’s on the table.

Now, the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the funded family care package describes a range of options. It says we could do nothing. We could repeal but replace section 70E of Part 4A. We could repeal, put a litigation bar in, and a compensation framework. The fourth option was repeal, no litigation bar, and a compensation framework, and the fifth is to repeal in full.

Now, there are two important time periods for this bill. Prior to 2013, there is potential litigation risk, but the advice, through the regulatory impact assessment, is that the Limitation Act will apply, so there’s probably no fiscal risk to that. The risk then becomes litigation from 2013 through to the date of repeal. Again, the RIA suggests that that is somewhat unknown and unbounded but could possibly be up to $170 million. The RIA recommends two approaches—either repeal in full or repeal with a litigation bar, which says, fundamentally, you could not take litigation from 2013 through to the time of repeal.

I’ll make several comments. The first is that under the regulatory impact assessment, repeal is predicated on Budget 2019 providing enough funding for the proposed changes. Now, we’ve heard that a full repeal option could have a litigation risk of $170 million, but Budget 2019 only allocated $32 million. So I think there’s some alignment there as to what the RIA says is almost a caveat on this bill progressing: that it must be funded in 2019—in the last Budget, not in the Budget coming forward.

The second point I want to talk to is the departmental disclosure statement point 2.3.1., page 5: “did the RIA Team in … Treasury provide an independent quality assessment of [the Ministry of Health’s internal RIA]?” The answer is no. This is an unbounded unknown for a large sum of money. I would strongly suggest Grant Robertson and his Treasury quality assurance team, or they’re a panel, actually, who have the responsibility for externally assessing internally generated RIAs—I’d strongly suggest to Grant Robertson, please, could he bring his team to the table and offer an opinion on this.

The second issue I want to raise from the departmental disclosure statement is point 3.7.: “Have the policy details [being] given effect by this Bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the Bill’s provisions are workable and complete.” The answer to that is no. I’d suggest that’s another piece of work that hopefully will be in front of the select committee before we even get to it.

I want to conclude then by saying we should always have an open mind and be prepared to at least consider to review legislation, no matter what flavour brought it into the House. We expressed concerns yesterday about the polytechnics becoming subsidiaries and having less of a voice to critique and criticise the Government under the provisions of parent-subsidiary in the Companies Act. I would bring this to this House in this discussion also that we should have concerns where we might not be able to openly discuss legislation that we’ve introduced and say, “Huh, new circumstances and new people. Maybe we need to relook at it again.”, and I think it’s in that context that this side of the House is saying exactly that. New people, new circumstances, seven years later—let’s look at this again and see if we can make some sense of it.

So, in that context, you’re hearing our team saying that we’re supporting this through to select committee, and we look forward to the discussion there. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. This bill will repeal Part 4A of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000, and this legislative change will ensure consistency with human rights law and it’ll uphold New Zealand’s commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

It’s a really great committee that I sit on, the Health Committee. We are generally a very collegial committee. So it is a real pleasure that this piece of legislation will be scrutinised in the Health Committee.

It is interesting to note that in 2018 we actually received into the Health Committee a petition asking the Government to repeal this very piece of legislation we have before us today, Part 4A, to stop the discrimination against family carers. Now, the select committee process will enable those people who have brought the petition to us to have their voices heard. There was no opportunity for their voices to be heard when this piece of legislation went through in 2013, because there was no select committee process. So now it is a great opportunity for them to let us know what their voices have to say on this issue. We in New Zealand First and Labour opposed that bill in 2013. But moving along now—

Chlöe Swarbrick: And the Greens.

—and the Greens—we are able, with the willingness of the National Opposition, to pass this almost unanimously through this first reading anyway.

Part 4A provides the legislative policy framework for funded family care policies in the health sector. Now, this Government has improved family wellbeing with a suite of changes, together with our funded family care package. Chucking out Part 4A and overturning that hard-nosed policy that was implemented by a National Government is a step in the right direction. No wonder there were howling cries from across the country, and, in fact, from around the world there was concern raised by the disability sector and carer communities. But Kiwis caring for family members of high and very high support needs will have their right to challenge, now, the laws and policies that directly affect them. They will have that right restored to them through this piece of legislation. They were rendered voiceless by a National Government. We now give them back their voice. I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take a short call on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill, and I follow after my two colleagues, the Hon Alfred Ngaro and Dr Shane Reti, on this bill that repeals Part 4A.

It’s interesting that seven years down the track, we come and—as Shane has said—there is new leadership and the passage of new legislation. On this side of the House, we are really pleased to be able to support the first reading of this bill and to support the bill into the select committee, where conversations can be had and discussions can be had. As a non-member of the Health Committee, I’m quite envious that that will happen and I won’t be there, but all I can say is that this side of the House is open and willing to sit down with the coalition Government and have that discussion, listen to what people have to say, and work from there on out.

My comment, really, post-that—should this bill pass through all stages—is that the coalition Government will follow it through by making sure that there is adequate funding within the disability sector for the legislation to be enacted fully. At the last Budget, I noted that the disability sector came to us and asked for $250 million extra towards their disability services, and did not get anywhere near that, actually. So it’s great to have this bill here, and it’s great to have the parties agreeing for it to go to the select committee. I just hope that this coalition Government will actually follow it up with the funding and will listen to the disability community as they put their submissions to the Government benches.

So, without any further ado, I tautoko everything that has been said on this side around this particular bill, and I look forward to its progress through the House. Kia ora.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand in support of this amazing piece of legislation, and I just want to applaud the Opposition for—as has been mentioned by other colleagues in this House—the humbling process that it takes to come into the Chamber and admit that there has been a change of mind. I think that oftentimes in this very bizarre sound bite - media environment, we have this perversity of thinking whereby if we are to change our mind when we come up against new evidence or new information, it’s characterised as flip-flopping, and that’s somehow seen as a bad thing—that you evolve and that you change your mind. But I don’t think it is in any other part of our everyday lives, so it definitely shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing that our feelings change here in this House. So I want to applaud the National Party for, at the very least, coming on board at this first stage of this bill.

That’s not to say that there shouldn’t be a process of accountability or otherwise, and I want to applaud them as well for stating that they did—hopefully. I haven’t heard that they did the wrong thing, but they are acknowledging that they did enact these changes in 2013.

So the first question is: how did we get here? What are we actually doing with this piece of legislation? I think that it has been outlined quite fully and freely by other members of this Government in their contributions, but, essentially, what we have in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act is a framework that enables those who are looking after people with severe disabilities the ability to get funding to provide that care and those services. However, in 2013, under urgency, the former National Government moved an amendment to that legislation to block carers who happened to have a familial connection to those people with disabilities to whom they were providing care. At that point in time, it was raised by a number of us across this House, and it’s been raised by other members of this Government in their contributions—it was both the Greens, the Labour Party, and New Zealand First who opposed those changes, but none the less, it was rammed through in a matter of less than 24 hours.

It happens to be the case that this is a situation that I bring up regularly when talking about my hobby horse across the country, which my colleague the honourable Minister James Shaw will be quite familiar with—that being my personal feeling about the need for a supreme, codified constitution, because what we saw with the inclusion of Part 4A under the National Government in those amendments in 2013 was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, obviously, says that if there is any legislation which is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it is presumed that the will of Parliament overrides our New Zealand Bill of Rights—anyway.

So that’s how we got here. I want to acknowledge the incredible work that has been done by former Green Party MPs in championing a revocation of these changes that were implemented under the previous Government—the likes of Kevin Hague, particularly; the incredible work of Catherine Delahunty; and also our former deaf MP, Mojo Mathers. Just this morning, I was meeting with an awesome disability advocate, someone who is really keen on making sure that we have more accessible cities, and he was talking to me about the Election Access Fund Bill, which is Mojo Mathers’ legacy piece of legislation that I’m fortunate to be moving through the House—thankfully, also with the unanimous support of all parties in Parliament. He said, “It’s all very well and good for us to be talking about things like greater representation for deaf and disabled people within the House of Representatives, but at the end of the day, I just want to be able to cross the street safely.” So that’s the kind of basic, fundamental stuff that we’re talking about here.

I also, just finally, really want to acknowledge the work that has been undertaken not by those parliamentary champions, not by those within NGOs, not by those who work in the legal sector or those who have a voice within the commentariat and our media, but I want to particularly acknowledge the disability community, those who have, day in and day out, attempted to articulate the challenges that they face in a society that was consciously constructed without them in mind, and their work across the community in bringing forward a petition, which now, I believe, has been in front of the Health Committee. Today is a great day, and it, hopefully, marks unanimous support for the first reading. The Green Party is very happy to be supporting this piece of legislation and looks forward to the submissions from the public at the select committee stage.

Thank you. It’s a privilege to stand this evening and for the first time this year—and for a long time, in fact—to address the House in relation to this bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. Mr Speaker, you and I both know, being locals of Whanganui, that one of our own from that community who has committed and dedicated his life working as a disabled person and an advocate in the disability sector, Robert Martin, had been honoured in the New Year Honours List and is soon to be knighted for his advocacy on the global stage, on the United Nations. In fact, members in this House and members who have been in the House since 2014 may well recall when Dame Tariana Turia, as Minister for Disability Issues, recommended Robert Martin—soon to be Sir Robert—for the post, travelling with him to New York to support his nomination in 2014. He will return to New York again to seek reappointment in that role, to continue the advocacy in this space—and importantly, one around the disability communities.

As has been comprehensively covered in my colleague Sir—“Sir”? Could be, but Dr Shane Reti. He has outlined the background to this, and I won’t go into that, because this call that I’m taking this evening is a brief one so that we’re able to get through this bill, hopefully, and the speaking of it this evening. But to say, with that having been traversed as to why we’ve arrived, the proposed amendment to the legislation, as it has been, noting that Part 4A was introduced at a time where there were—it curtailed the limitations around the eligibility of family members in caring for their own disabled family members. I think members of the public are interested in the context of that, and I hope to take a call at the second reading of this to go through the history as to how we’ve arrived at this.

But in conclusion, people are also interested as to where this is leading to, so the time line. This bill was introduced into the House on 21 January this year. Here we are at the first reading, and then, come 14 April, the Ministry of Health will look at extending the eligibility around the funded family care criteria and the rates that go with that, with those new pay rates taking effect as at around that time—14 April. Then, the DHBs will look at expanding that eligibility around the payment scale to family members looking after their own disabled persons at around about the end of June 2020, all going well, and then Part 4A being repealed at the third reading of this on 1 September 2020, by which time we will still be in Parliament and will be debating the merits of this.

I am confident that there’ll be further robust discussions at select committee level. In taking this brief call, the National Party commends this part, this reading, to the House.

This is a split call. I call Willow-Jean Prime—five minutes.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi, māku e mihi kau ana ki Te Minita nānā i mau mai tēnei ture ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei pō. He tū poto tēnei.

Ko tāku, e tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire, pau te kaha, nō reira ka hoatu tēnei ki Te Komiti mō Te Hauora ki te āta titiro i tēnei o ngā pire, ngā ture, ki te āwhina, ki te tiaki, kia whiwhi mana, kia whiwhi moni anō hoki ngā whānau e tiaki ana o rātou tāngata e māuiui ana, e hauā ana.

Nō reira, ka whakairi tēnei ki mua i a koe: e tautoko ana, pau te kaha.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I acknowledge the Minister who is responsible for bringing this legislation before Parliament tonight. I will be brief.

I support this bill wholeheartedly. Much work has gone into it and it will, therefore, go to the Health Committee for a more detailed analysis on the legislative aspects, the wraparound support services, the financial assistance, and the increased status afforded to families that provide care for their sick and disabled.

Therefore, I conclude with these remarks: I give my unequivocal support.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take this call in support of this bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill, at first reading. Many New Zealand families play a crucial and vital role in the support and love and care of those members of our family who, for some illness or disability, are not in a position to care for themselves. I can state categorically that my own family is providing this care as I speak, as I’m sure members in this House will have someone in their family or they will know someone that’s in this very same position.

The mainstay of all societies is not the State; it is the family unit, and it is the individual and the family that they exist within. Thus, the responsibility for the care of those individuals does lay first and foremost with those family members, and this is true for all our communities in this country, whether you’ve been here a thousand years or have just come last year. This is what we do—we look after our own. But from time to time, that burden on families can be heavy indeed, and so families will look to the wider community, their wider family, to a care provider for support, and that also includes the Government. As a country, we stand very proud in our compassion and care for others, and particularly also when they are not even related to us.

So giving families some relief from the situation, the challenges of care, does require financial resources. As has been noted by members on this side of the House tonight, I’m proud to be a member of a party that when in Government in 2013, still managing some of the challenges of economic trade winds of the global financial crisis and subsequent earthquakes, still managed to provide this funded care network. So that stands strong in our record; I’m pleased that was noted.

I stand to support this bill to the next stage, to the select committee, where we can get meaningful debate and discussion and really look towards how we can best implement a plan to go forward for the communities, the families, who are in need. It’s a useful time to enable the committee to get some good advice of experts and to hear from those individuals, those families, whom this bill will affect. There are some pragmatic and hard decisions that have to be made, where we look to identify how we best support these families, and we do have to carefully balance the needs of the whānau. So I’m pleased to support this bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand to take a brief call on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill—the funded family care repeal of Part 4A. It’s abhorrent to me, to my party, and to our Government that Part 4A of the primary legislation is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is a shameful legacy of the last Government. Let’s get on with it. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill at its first reading. Just to set the record straight on some of this, I think that when it comes to the disability sector, it’s incredibly important that they are represented in Parliament, and the select committee process will be an appropriate time for them to talk not only about family caregivers, which is at the heart of what we do for our own families. If a family member is disabled, we look after them—the complex arrangements that need to be made sometimes to help finance those arrangements on a home-base level need to be very carefully thought through.

So we’re supporting this bill. We want it through to select committee, and we want to be able to hear from the members of the disability community who are really affected by this and whose lives have been touched by trying to come up with the best possible solutions for their own family members, to surround them not only with love but also with care, and to have the financial ability to do that.

I think that the funded family care network which we established in 2013 is something that we as a nation should be proud of. We’re very proud on this side of the House that we did that, and I’d like to commend the work of the Hon Nicky Wagner, who was the Minister for Disability Issues and worked closely with Bill English—Sir Bill English, as he is now—to come up with the social investment approach. We have had the intention and, indeed, the strong desire to ensure that properly constructed structures are put in place but then that they are properly funded.

I note that, unfortunately, last year’s coalition Budget was a very bad Budget for people with disabilities. There was hardly any money for them. This particular piece of legislation is going to cost a lot, and it needs to be very carefully thought through and then appropriately funded. This coalition Government has failed woefully in its funding of all disability services, and the disability budget has actually gone backwards—and that’s for the first time in five years.

The disability advocates that I have spoken to over the past year or two who had asked for last year a $250 million increase received $7 million less last year than they have in the past. So for a coalition Government that virtue-signals like there’s no tomorrow, there does need to be money put down on this so that that is not just building up false hopes but it is actually funding what is needed, as opposed to just talking about it. I mean, to have the disability sector at the lowest levels we have seen as a proportion of Vote Health is a disgrace, and for the smug and the self-satisfied on the other side of the House, they probably need to swallow that pill and do their best to get some more money out of their Minister for what is an essential service.

So in, for example, Enabling Good Lives, which Nicky Wagner began, we have a framework with a disability strategy that is all set and ready to go. This coalition Government seems intent on doing—I think you’re up to about the fourth iteration of finding out whether Enabling Good Lives is a good thing. There’ve been pilot projects in the Waikato, for example, that at the time that we left Government in 2017 were all set and proven with their case and ready to go and with the funding. Instead, the disability sector have been telling me loud and clear that instead of getting money for their services, it’s been taken out and put into yet another evaluation of Enabling Good Lives.

Get the act together, coalition Government. Put some money into this, put some money and care and concern into the disability sector, and ensure that you put the correct provision in so that Enabling Good Lives, which is the game-changer, which is the way that the future is headed for people in the disability sector in New Zealand—one in four of us have disabilities. We need to do better as a country, we need to do better as a Parliament, and the coalition needs to do better as a Government. So before the triumphant shouting of how fabulous you are with your virtue signalling goes through, we’d like to see some solid money put up instead of tinkering with various things.

The caregivers’ package is a very good thing within this piece of legislation. Narrowly focused though it is, this amendment bill, we will support it through, but the coalition Government can expect that we will be paying very close attention to what funding is going to be put into this, because, so far, the coalition’s record on this has been nothing short of disgraceful. Let’s hope that you get organised to actually fund this properly, because the disability sector deserves better. They deserve more and they deserve better consideration than they’ve had from this coalition Government, which has talked a lot and done absolutely nothing.

So while I commend this bill to the House, I expect it to come, as National do—we expect it to come with a decent price tag to actually fund it. Don’t just get hopes up falsely and then not fund; get properly funded, and at that point, we’ll perhaps start taking the coalition Government more seriously when it comes to disability matters. But I will support this bill. We will support this bill through to first reading, and we need to look very, very carefully at what the disability sector say. So I commend it to the House, but with reservations. Thank you.

I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.