Cunliffe David: Human Rights Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Human Rights Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11178. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to reaffirm Labour’s opposition to this bill and I do so on two grounds in particular. Firstly this bill undermines the independence of the Human Rights Commission. It makes it subject to consultation with a Minister which is the antithesis of the independence required of an independent body such as the Human Rights Commission which is charged sometimes to lean against Government policy. Therefore making its work programme subject to ministerial consultation is entirely the opposite of what would make a more effective and more efficient commission.Secondly although it is true the Government has introduced a late Supplementary Order Paper that restores the title of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner which we welcome we still do not believe that the process there has been transparent nor was the original bill one that would uphold New Zealand’s reputation and I will come back to that reason and the evidence for it.Thirdly this bill still reduces the number of commissioners thereby limiting the scope of the commission. Taken as a whole Labour continues to believe that this was not a bill that was required and that the so-called fix is worse than the problem. It reduces the effectiveness and efficiency of the commission.May I also introduce as I set out the case here the fact that the Government’s attempts to weaken the Human Rights Commission—because that is what it amounts to; or to fetter it or to hog-tie it to the whims of the Minister of the day—is in keeping with other efforts that the Government has made to weaken the independent statutory watchdogs of our polity. The underfunding of the Ombudsman is something that is now so well-known across the community and the backlogs that have been created by the current Government’s arrogant and out-of-touch efforts to constrain its resourcing are such that we are faced with a position where Ministers thumb their noses at Official Information Act requests awaiting an appeal that might take a year to come.We have also noticed in terms of independent watchdogs the weakness in the Overseas Investment Commission which has been thrown—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not in this. Come back to the bill.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —into stark relief no doubt by the Panama Papers.Coming back to this bill our concern is that the weakening of the Human Rights Commission would be amongst the factors that Transparency International will consider next time around when it gives New Zealand a further downgrade. Why does this matter? Because New Zealand’s international reputation as a trading nation let alone our hoped-for position as an upstanding member of the international community committed to the rule of international law and human rights is downgraded by this successive top-slicing of these independent institutions by a Government that is showing every sign of “third-term-itis” wanting to take more power to the executive undermining the role of the watchdogs—Hon Simon Bridges: The member knows all about that. He’s been there done that written the book.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —undermining the role of the legislature. Oh Mr Bridges. Mr Bridges has not learnt the lessons of the Northland campaign where he showed up and offered a whole few bridges and the good people of Northland sent him packing.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Come back to the bill.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am responding to an interjection Mr Chairman which I am sure you found as amusing as the members opposite. Look how enlivened they are. Look how enlivened they are by the debate.Chris Bishop: You couldn’t even be bothered running.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Mr Bishop the also-ran from Lower Hutt is just looking across at his colleague in jealous admiration—Peeni Henare: Get involved in Northland.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —of his also-ran in Northland. I am surrounded by the sons of Ngāpuhi and they are looking across the Chamber and saying “Mr Bridges good luck.”But look back to the issues that concern us here. All revelry and joking aside—it is late in the evening—the issue here is that New Zealand’s reputation counts for something. If we want to be a trading nation if we want to expand our markets overseas then our reputation for integrity has got to be beyond question. It is a matter of concern to New Zealanders that we are slipping down the rankings for the anti-corruption index and Transparency International and it is in part because the Government is doing successive small weakenings of our independent watchdog agencies—and that is what this is.Let me come to the second issue here which is concerned with Supplementary Order Paper 175. The Government initially stripped the explicit titles of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner out of the legislation governing the Human Rights Commission. Although we support as our Green colleagues do the appointment of a disabilities commissioner we are very concerned to see those titles withdrawn. It might seem semantic but how would a commissioner stand up in public and uphold the specific weight of an office if that office’s title has been removed? And why do it other than to subsume that?Hon Member: The SOP.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I know that the Supplementary Order Paper does but I am just saying that we in the Labour Opposition have not been impressed by the original displayed intent nor the lack of transparency in the process. It is only after the United Nations itself criticised the Government for the original drafting and only after word has it some of the Government’s coalition partners turned turtle on it and it lost the numbers to get the bill through in its original form that it has had to compromise and come back to the House with its tail between its legs offering up this Supplementary Order Paper in a last-ditch attempt to get the bill through.Why such a humiliating back-down for a Government on a bill that has been before the House since January last year—and done in Budget week. Has the Government nothing better to do? Has it nothing better to do? There are huge issues facing New Zealand—climate change homelessness poverty—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! If I have to interrupt the member again on relevancy I will terminate his speech.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Therefore we have had a considered reflection on this bill and we maintain our opposition to it. It is in summary based on three grounds—firstly the fettering and limitation of the commission by requiring consultation with the Minister of the day and I will say a couple more words on that. The Minister of course represents the executive. The whole point of having an independent statutory commissioner is to weigh against the executive by taking an independent statutory perspective. The commission has its own resourcing; it has its own media. It is not subject to Order in Council. It is not subject to Cabinet collective responsibility. That is the whole point. It is a creature created by statute created by this House.The commission has delegated statutory powers that depend upon not only its actual independence but its perceived independence. That perceived independence is under threat as is the actual independence when its work plan has got to be consulted on with the Minister. Consultation in this context is a loaded term. It means that the civil servant has to walk up to Minister Adams’ or Minister Collins’ office as it was when the bill was drafted to say: “Well this is what we want to do. What do you think?”. The Minister says “Well I really don’t want you doing (a) (e) and (f) on that list.” and some sort of compromise might be worked out. That is what consultation amounts to. That is inappropriate both in substance and in perception and that is the principal reason why this Labour Party continues its opposition to this bill.If we want to have a reputation for integrity if we want that to underpin our position in international affairs then we have to have not only the substance but also the recognition of that independence and that does not mean fettering independent watchdog agencies to consultation with a member of the executive. It is not appropriate. It is actually the antithesis of what the commission should be.So summing up we have got three reasons why we are continuing to be opposed to the bill: the first is the consultation process the second is the lack of transparency and the original formation of the withdrawal of the titles of the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the third is the overall limitation on the number of commissioner positions. Thank you very much.