Logie Jan: Human Rights Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Human Rights Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14120. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): The decision by the Government to create the position of a Disability Rights Commissioner was prompted by the pulling from the ballot in 2010 of a member’s bill from my colleague Catherine Delahunty the Human Rights (Disability Commissioner) Amendment Bill. Catherine’s bill provided for the creation of a designated disability commissioner to sit alongside the current specialist designations of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner. Catherine withdrew her bill in good faith when the Government announced that it would be creating the role of the Disability Rights Commissioner. This was done under the assumption that any bill establishing such a position would be along similar lines to her bill.Following the withdrawal of Catherine’s bill we were pleased that the Government moved quickly to appoint New Zealand’s first Disability Rights Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission Paul Gibson. Like many in the disability community we welcomed Paul’s appointment because Paul was so clearly the right person for the job. Not only did he have a proven track record as an advocate for the disability community and a wealth of knowledge and expertise on disability issues he also brought to the role a lived experience of disability and a strong commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In addition to welcoming Paul’s appointment we were celebrating that there was finally a full-time designated Disability Rights Commissioner which was something that the disability community had pushed forfor such a long time.Given this background the Green Party had hoped to be supporting this bill tonight as we had expected something along similar lines to Catherine’s bill—something that would deliver for the disability communities. So it was with some dismay to say the least that we found that not only does this bill fail to create the role of a specialised disability commissioner in the way that was provided for in Catherine’s bill but also it proposes a restructuring of the Human Rights Commission and its role which has consequences for its future work. Instead of creating a designated disability commissioner to stand alongside existing specialist designations as we had expected this bill actually removes the specialist designations of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner from the Human Rights Act. Instead it adds these to the list of functions of the commission.Although this bill does add disability rights to that list of functions and stipulates that there must be a commissioner designated by the chief commissioner to lead work in disability along with other priority areas we are very concerned about the impact of this larger restructuring on the focus of these roles particularly as commissioners will be expected to work in more than one priority area. We believe that the effect of this move will inevitably weaken the focus on these areas. Commissioners will become human rights commissioners with primary responsibility to the work of the commission as a whole rather than to the work that they are leading. This has worrying implications particularly for disability where there is so much work to be done. There is so much work that has to be caught up on after decades of being kept in the dark—being kept out of the policy debate.In contrast to this bill Catherine’s bill was clear and specific to disability. In addition to creating a designated disability commissioner it also spelt out specific criteria for their appointment and an extensive list of functions specific to a disability commissioner. This list was developed in extensive consultation with the disability community and reflected the significant input that it had into it. That bill outlined 13 functions for a disability commissioner and included a number of important elements that are missing from this bill including explicit requirements for the disability commissioner to actively engage with different communities of persons living with impairments to act as an advocate for their interests rights and well-being and to assist the Government with work towards the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. None of these functions is in the much-simplified list of functions in clause 12 of this bill.This bill is not delivering for the disability community and it will not be delivering for the other communities that will also have their needs watered down by this bill. The restructuring and reframing of the roles with a shift to more broad and generalist skills will affect the choice of people being appointed to the lead commission work and priority area. Someone with a broad understanding of human rights may not and probably will not bring with them the specific knowledge understanding and background in disability that is so urgently needed in this country for this role to be effective in making a difference for disabled people.Also the criteria for their appointment in clause 12 do not include a key one: knowledge of the various communities of people living with impairments in New Zealand. This in our view is absolutely essential for an effective disability commissioner. There was a strong push from the disability sector for a disability commissioner with lived experience of disability and a proven track record as a disability advocate and that is not just symbolic. In our party we have seen the difference that Mojo Mathers has made in providing a link to people in a variety of disability communities in the country. They know that they do not have to explain to her—that she gets it—because she has had that experience and she has that role of advocacy. This bill is robbing the disability communities of the guarantee of that person and it is a shame.Furthermore although the bill stipulates that there must be a commissioner appointed to lead the work in the three priorities it does not guarantee that they will get to work full time on these issues.This bill is a wholesale review of the Human Rights Commission done by stealth. If we are going to have a full-time position for a disability commissioner then let us do it and not just say we are doing it which is what this Government has been doing. This is also happening within the context of the Government’s decision to freeze funding for the Human Rights Commission until 2020. That decision has resulted in a 15 percent staffing cut at the commission.This Government has very few checks on the power of government and has minimal tools to fight discrimination. By the response to the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 we know that people in this country care about human rights. This bill is letting them down. Over the past 2 years I have seen far too many pieces of legislation that are in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We need a strong institution to uphold human rights in this country. We have a long way to go for people with disabilities particularly to be able to achieve equality in this country and they deserve an institution and people representing them who are able to understand them and who will strongly advocate into this place for their rights to be realised. We will be strongly opposing this bill as an undermining of those rights and aspirations.