Menéndez March RicardoHUMAN RIGHTS (DISABILITY ASSIST DOGS NON-DISCRIMINATION) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I move That the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Sorry first time doing this bit of the legislative process. Kia ora Madam Speaker. It's a real privilege to get a chance to speak on this bill. For those who missed out on the first reading speech I'll just summarise what this bill intends to do which is to amend the Human Rights Act of 1993 to make it clear that any discrimination against someone because they have a disability assist dog would be considered discrimination on the basis of disability. It is important to recognise that we do have a definition of a disability assist dog in the Dog Control Act of 1996.Since the first reading we've heard from people with lived experiences organisations and allies who broadly spoke in support. We had 75 submissions who were overwhelmingly in favour and that was really pleasing to see—and I'll get on to that.One of the submissions that I want to lean on in terms of speaking to the whakapapa of this bill is the submission by Deaf Action New Zealand who rightfully talk about my former colleague Mojo Mathers' involvement in drafting this bill. All the way back in 2015 when Murray Whittington was struggling to have access to housing Deaf Action New Zealand did advocacy for the late Murray. Mojo took on that advocacy and drafted this bill in recognition that disabled people were being prevented from fully participating in their communities because effectively their dogs were being prevented from participating in things like housing transport and other essential public services.Deaf Action talks about the broader discrimination that people have faced. They cite another example of Anne Wyrill who was close to the point of being homeless with two young children because landlords would not view her hearing dog as an assistance dog; they viewed the dog as a pet. It was only by sheer hard work by an agent that she found a home.This was a theme that we saw throughout the submissions where people reminded us that disability assist dogs are not pets. They do critical work that enables disabled people to participate in the community. On top of supporting the intent of the bill to stop discrimination they also talked about the need to raise awareness of this issue. A lot of the submitters were really clear that perhaps one may want to consider a communication campaign to explain the rights of disabled people with disability assist dogs.We've had several other submitters with lived experience including members of our own Inclusive Greens network. I want to pay tribute to Joe Boon who spoke to our committee and talked about the challenges that he faced but more importantly about why this legislation was really important. I want to mihi the many Green members of the Inclusive Greens who put together a collective submission.We also had people like Raewyn Chaplow who herself spoke of her experience of being left embarrassed and frustrated when asked to leave premises because she had a service dog. She also spoke about being a puppy-raiser. She said I can only imagine how much worse it must be for people who rely on that precious fully-trained dog for independence confidence and safety. These are not pets."There are also other people like Claudia who talked about having a mobility dog and how important it was that people realise there's a variety of dogs that do work to help people with things like seizures and other medical conditions. Once again she reiterated that these dogs are not just pets but rather a work companion that enables them to participate in their community.Victoria Beesley herself was advocating for a friend in her submissions and I think that was a really lovely thing to see because submissions themselves can often present a barrier for members of the community. It was really nice to see people who participate in the legislative process advocating for their family and friends in the form of allyship.We also had organisations who themselves either are made up of members of the disabled community or who train dogs. One of the submissions I was really pleased to see was from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation who I think understood the role of people having access to premises in order for their wellbeing to be upheld and it was nice to see that level of organisational solidarity and seeing a broader range of groups being reflected in the submission process.One of the reflections that came through the submission process too was how inaccessible the process can often be for people. I was really pleased to see my select committee colleagues undertake a collective effort alongside the committee staff to make the submission process more accessible. I'm going to list out some of the interventions that were taken to make the process a little bit more accessible and I hope that actually this is reflected in broader select committee processes; perhaps not just in those that are very specifically addressing the needs of disabled people because ultimately what we want is a democracy that works for everyone.Some of the things that were done was to give more time for people to submit and I think particularly this is something that as a first time MP I've reflected on how those precious five minutes to speak to MPs can often become a nerve-wracking and often inaccessible process. There were also attempts to encourage people to submit by creating a video and understanding that the video format presents another method for people to engage with. All of the oral submissions were also translated into sign language and these submissions were also captioned and transcribed live. There was also a full transcript of submissions being made available after all submissions were completed.I reflect as I say this and particularly as I talk about sign language interpretation how we haven't yet got into a place where even this space in the second reading is fully accessible and that there is far more work to be done. For me the reflection that I am taking from submitters is the need not to just improve legislation so that people can fully participate in their communities but what can we make as legislators to make this whole process better for our communities.I'd like to extend my thanks to my committee members including from all sides of the House who have been broadly supportive of this bill which is great to see. I think this is the second bill since Mojo left Parliament a few years ago under her name that has gotten support across the House. That just shows her amazing work and legacy in creating members bills which are discrete effective and that reflect the desires of the community.I also want to thank the Ministry of Justice staff Office for Disability Issues and the Department of Internal Affairs for providing really sensible advice. As part of that process and advice we received one of their recommendations that is coming out of this is actually to review the statutory uses of the terms "guide dog" "companion dog" and "hearing ear dog" and consider whether they should be updated because one of the things we heard throughout the process is just the broad range of definitions. We do want to make sure that there is consistency with the Dog Control Act and so making sure that these definitions are up to date is really important.Lastly I would like to challenge one of the few dissenting voices in our submission process which was basically stating that their concern was that perhaps we'll see more dogs in public. I want to say to people who may have felt that way that actually what this bill do is enable disabled people to participate and their concerns around perhaps seeing more dogs in public should not outweigh the benefits that this bill will ultimately have. Kia ora.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to."