Cunliffe David: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11894. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill and to reaffirm that although Labour earlier opposed the bill it is now in a position to support it. I want to quickly touch on the matters that have changed that have allowed us to take that position and reaffirm the principles that lie behind Labour’s approach to the Human Rights Commission. In fact let me start with that.The commission is a very important independent watchdog for human rights across a range of fronts including equal opportunities for women a stand against racism and the protection of civil rights across our society. It is one of a number of independent watchdog agencies or institutions that are core parts of our democracy. Labour initially opposed this bill because we were concerned that along with other what you might call shavings away of those independent watchdog agencies be it the underfunding of the Ombudsman or other issues the Human Rights Commission was gradually and repeatedly being weakened by resourcing and by the loss of the previous titles which were guaranteed for certain of the commissioners. And let us be frank even with the restoration of those titles—which is the principle change here; we are now in a position to support this bill—we will continue to be vigilant that human rights are being upheld and that the commission as one of a network of independent statutory agencies continues to be able to play its vital role as one of the cornerstones of our democracy.We are in the third term of a Government that some would say is getting increasingly arrogant and out of touch. We are also—[Interruption]Well the first sign of arrogance is laughing when people offer criticisms.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Well I was actually just coughing but—Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Only a cough. The Minister of Health is coughing. That is a bad sign.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you. It is a shame that the Minister of Health is coughing but I hope he gets over it. He needs clinical advice but that has been clear for years.The Human Rights Amendment Bill—getting back to the substance—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes I am going to ask the member to resume his seat and ask both members now to lift the tone a bit.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am certainly happy to be guided by someone attired with such eminence.The change to the specific commissioner roles that we refer to was contained in section 8(1A) under clause 6 which removed the specific commissioner roles. The original Act had ensured that each of the commissioner roles were specific appointments and that was important because we felt it was necessary for the commissioners to be able to stand on a particular statutory office when speaking on things as set out in section 8(1A): “(a) disability rights: (b) equal employment opportunities:[and] (c) race relations.” But just prior to the Committee stage the Minister reversed her position and introduced Supplementary Order Paper 175 which would essentially ensure the status quo and re-add the statutory titles of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner. That ensures that those offices will continue with the full statutory weight and that is important if we look back at the history of those offices.We are glad that the Government has backed down. We think it is the right thing to do. We are not sure why it had the contrary idea in the first place. We can only surmise that it is part of a trend to underplay or underfund independent watchdog agencies that have the role of leaning against the executive and we have continuously warned the public of New Zealand that if that process that trend continues then our democratic institutions could be under threat.The number of commissioners was the second objection we raised and the amendment bill allows that to be reversed. The existing section 8(1)(a) to (d) of the 1993 Act had three full-time commissioners appointed as the Chief Human Rights Commissioner the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. It also allowed an additional five part-time commissioners to be appointed. At the Committee stage we reaffirmed our strong concern that the amendment bill had the potential to reduce that number and we continued to vote against the bill at the Committee stage on this issue. After the Committee stage we sought assurances from the Minister that the amendment bill would not result in a reduction of the existing commissioners and the Minister has replied in writing giving that assurance. So we are pleased that those concerns have been mitigated.Consultation was our third key concern. Clause 6 inserts new section 8(1B) which states: “A Commissioner must lead the work of the Commission in any other priority area that is designated by the Chief Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner may designate an area of work as a priority area only in accordance with the strategic direction and the general nature of activities determined by the Commission under section 7(1) and after consultation with the Minister and the other Commissioners.” It is not appropriate—never has been—for an independent statutory agency to have its work plan and strategy directed only after consultation with a Minister. The whole point is that it is there if necessary to lean against the actions of the executive of the day whoever that might be. We therefore were very concerned about the consultation requirement. We will continue to be vigilant on that issue.May I summarise by saying that Labour attaches enormous importance to the work of this commission. We do so because of the valuable substance of the role—the importance of equal opportunities for women equal opportunities for people of disability and equal opportunities across the races so that New Zealand is a place where people of whatever background creed or colour can all participate fully and make our country great and in so doing can maximise their potential and continue to build on a country that has a reputation for an easygoing acceptance of all and a celebration of our diversity. That is part of what makes modern New Zealand New Zealand—and that is a good thing—and the roles of Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner have been fundamental in underpinning that.As we look forward we are aware that we live in a world that is evermore complex and apparently hostile. We see conflict in the Middle East. We see tensions in East Asia. We see growing gaps between wealth and poverty worldwide. We observe in Western democracies a growing rebellion—not too strong a word—against the prevailing orthodoxies of the last several decades. We know that the treasure of democracy is something that is hard-won has been hard-won and must be vigilantly maintained.So although to some this bill may seem like a very small—one might say anodyne—bill and as Mr Bishop said it is the sort of bill you pass into law last thing on a Thursday afternoon it is not a trivial bill. It goes to the independence of a commission and the strength of a commission that upholds and signifies some of the values that make our lovely country what it is—a place where everybody can be themselves or should be able to be themselves a place where every Kiwi kid can grow up and aspire to do anything or be anything that they want and are capable of.This is not a country where we think our children should grow up living in cars as is too often the case. It is not a country where males and females should have different incomes or entitlements. It is not a country where people of different races and ethnicities have their earning potential or their career potential limited. It is not a place where we want to see qualified doctors driving taxis. It is not a place where we want to see some suburbs are designated the wrong side of the tracks and others—where we have winner schools and loser schools. It is not a place where we want the child of a driver or a drover only able to aspire to the same roles as their parents. It is the Human Rights Commission the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner that we must protect and we welcome the amendments in this bill that reduce the threats to that office.