Mathers Mojo: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMathers Mojo: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11891. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOJO MATHERS (Green): I rise to take a call on the Human Rights Amendment Bill. The Green Party is now supporting the bill. We are supporting it because one of our major concerns has finally been addressed. We note the role that the Māori Party played in improving this bill and we thank those members for that.First I will go into some background as to how this bill came about which my colleague Marama Davidson alluded to earlier. Six years ago the Government agreed to establish the position of a Disability Rights Commissioner when my colleague Catherine Delahunty had her member’s bill pulled from the ballot. Catherine’s bill provided for the creation of a designated disability commissioner to sit alongside the current specialist designations of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner. She was motivated to develop that bill because the position of a disability commissioner was long overdue.For far too long—far too long—the needs and rights of disabled people have languished way behind those of others. Disabled people face systemic and structural discrimination that affects every area of our lives. We should be able to do simple things like access buildings and cafes and shops. We should be able to access the news. We should be able to get jobs that match our skills. We should be able to find a place to live that has an accessible toilet. Above all we should be able to be safe. We should have the right to fundamental things such as freedom from abuse and torture. These are the kinds of things that disabled people have a right to but are so often denied. It should not be so hard for us to get jobs or own our homes. It should not be so hard to find an accessible place to rent but it is.Every day we see stories in the media of exclusion and discrimination. Right now we have the plight of Ashley Peacock an autistic man who has been kept in seclusion for years as just one example. Behind Ashley there are many more disabled people denied justice. Yesterday the Human Rights Commission announced a review into the use of seclusion and restraint in New Zealand. We will be closely watching the outcome of that review and the Government’s response. Ashley’s plight highlights just one of the many many reasons why we need to entrench a designated disability human rights commissioner.I want to expand now on why we voted against the bill at the first reading. We voted against it because at that time it did not create a designated disability commissioner to stand alongside the existing specialist designations in the way that Catherine’s bill did. Actually the original bill removed these specialist designations of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner from the Act and instead added them to the list of functions of the commission. We could not support that move because titles matter—having specific statutory designations for commissioners matters. We heard from many groups at the Justice and Electoral Committee about why it matters for the groups that were represented. The specific designation creates both visibility and clarity for these positions. They affirm the importance of addressing the discrimination that these communities face. That is why we the Green Party are pleased that the specific designations have now been reinstated.But regardless the bill could have been so much better. In particular we are disappointed that the bill fails to mention the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities specifically and up front. The function and role of the Disability Rights Commissioner should explicitly reference the convention. There should also be even more specific requirements for the Disability Rights Commissioner such as making it explicit that the Disability Rights Commissioner is to actively engage with different disability communities and has a mandate to act as an advocate on their behalf. In our view the bill does only the minimum that is needed—