Auchinvole Chris: Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18329. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I will acknowledge particularly through you Mr Deputy Speaker the people who are gathered here in the gallery this evening. I say to my friends up there who have been bravely sitting throughout the evening that they are now right up with the play with biofuel technology having listened to the debates. They have heard all about the recent amendments to the Commerce Act and they did not even look bored. They have been waiting for their time and through you Mr Deputy Speaker I wish to give them a verbal salute: tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. This is their time for the purpose of the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill is to amend legislative provisions that are inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to amend the Human Rights Act 1993 to clarify the scope of its provisions and thereby enable a person with a disability to be accommodated in certain areas of activity.  
This is an area of social as well as physical consequence. According to UN figures 10 percent of the world’s population have to live with a disability. I have to say the closest I have ever had to a physical disability is when I broke my Achilles tendon and it gave me a considerable shock because that was the first time I had had any sort of incapacity. That gave me a sharp personal understanding of what for others is a daily situation. Nineteen percent of less-educated people suffer disability compared with 11 percent amongst those with access to good education. This is a huge area of human stereotyping conveying all sorts of myths such as the assumption that people with a disability are in some way not the same as other people when it comes to work and daily life.  
The sincerity of the submissions received by the Justice and Electoral Committee was very very moving. It was very very sincere. The most sincere thing the most poignant part of all was that the submitters each asked that as members of the committee we listen to them. That was all they asked we should do that we let them be listened to. It was a privilege and a pleasure to do so because New Zealand needs to be up front and to front up to being a land of equal opportunity—more than just a part of a Labour Government’s rhetoric.  
We all have a right to self-determination to enjoy full and equal entitlement of all human rights and fundamental individual freedoms intellectual and physical. I remember getting an excellent lesson in how to be of assistance to people who suffered a disability. It was from a guy called George Phiskie. 
I was very young at the time. It was in the 1970s and he was up in Waipu. He had been totally blind since he was 11 and he ran his own dairy farm. As a fully sighted person I rushed to help. He said: “The best help you can give me is to let me put my hand on your shoulder as we walk along. You can be my eyes.” He explained to me—and he trained a lot of people—about how to assist blind people. Instead of trying to take their arm and help them let them take your arm and decide for themselves.  
There are a number of ways in which we can assist each other in life. There are very many ways in which some people try to erode the dignity and the rights of individuals even in this House even in this Chamber and even in the presentation of this bill. There are those who are so insecure in themselves that they seek every opportunity to denigrate the reputation and work of others. I take no pleasure in that particular aspect of this House. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the member opposite that no I am not joking at all. It is sad but we live with it. Imagine what it is like then to have a disability and to encounter someone with a negative mental attitude towards others. We still have a way to go in our lives in educating the public towards losing their stereotypes. We cannot do that in a hurry but what we can do in this House is make sure that the legislation reflects a level playing field and a fair attitude towards others.  
This UN convention was signed on 30 March 2007. Minister Ruth Dyson spoke fulsomely about bringing this “into force as quickly as possible” yet legislation was not introduced into Parliament until 8 July. I am sorry for that. I am sorry for that delay. Why do we now have to have a rushed series of submissions? It has been decorated and painted up as trying to do things quickly with a short period between the opening and closure of the opportunity to make submissions. I do not know why that was. The bill is now being hurtled through in urgency. It was urgent way back in 2007. Actually this is not a good look no matter how it is painted by members opposite but it is in keeping with what those of us on this side of the House have become used to over the past 3 years.  
National supports the excellent submissions on this bill from the disability sector. We agree there are advantages to having the covenant ratified in an expeditious manner. The provision of reasonable accommodation is agreed with but it needs to be more than just a phrase of convenience and to make it work it has to have a wide level of shared understanding between those who are and who are not disabled. To be meaningful the financial implications of this bill have yet to be made—again in spite of the rhetoric and the objections from Government members.  
Lynne Pillay 
: It’s always about money. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I have just been told that it is all about money. To be disabled on one’s own is bad enough; to be disabled and financially unsupported is not much better; and to try to be supported by legislation that is not underpinned with financial consequences does not quite have the same meaning. To be meaningful the financial implications of the bill have yet to be made clear. This should be a responsibility of the Government and without it an important mechanism is missing. We need to be careful that we are not just being heavy on rhetoric and light on action. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.