constituted unlawful discrimination on the grounds of family status.29 The response of the then Government to this decision was for the Parliament to pass laws from introduction to passage into law in just 24 hours under budget related urgency. 29. The legislation that passed was enacted as Part 4A of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. Part 4A introduced Funded Family Care (“FFC”) which provides for payment for family caregivers subject to certain criteria. However, Part 4A also sought to prevent further retrospective discrimination claims being made by family caregivers and prohibited any person from bringing any discrimination claim against the FFC policy on the grounds of disability, family status and age. The Court of Appeal has observed that the passage and content of Part 4A can be regarded as being contrary to constitutional law and convention. All the then opposition parties that now make up the State’s Government advised at the time that they would repeal the legislation if they had the opportunity. 30. The Commission further refers to the related case of Spencer v Attorney General that resulted in the High Court awarding a family caregiver damages for pecuniary loss incurred as a result of the discriminatory policy and ordering the Ministry of Health to undertake human rights training.30 31. In its report to the Committee, the Government states that the litigation resulted in a new policy that permits family members to be employed to support highly disabled relatives. It does not, however, mention that the FFC policy in question was introduced by legislation that was passed by Parliament under urgency and which breached human rights and constitutional principles concerning access to justice and freedom from discrimination. 32. In a recent 2018 judgement, the Court of Appeal noted its unease at the complexity of the statutory instruments governing funding eligibility for disability support services, describing them as “impenetrable”. The Court further commented that they hoped that, in the future, the Ministry streamline its funding processes to make them accessible for disabled people and their families, and to enable disputes over funding eligibility to be settled without litigation.31 33. A petition seeking repeal of Part 4A was submitted to Parliament’s Health Committee in 2014.32 The Health Committee released its report on the Petition in 2016.33 The conclusion of the Health Committee Government majority did not address the repeal issue directly and instead recommended a simpler, more accessible policy. However, the minority views of other Health Committee members supported repeal 34 and 12