Delahunty Catherine: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDelahunty Catherine: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 26 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2689. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare nui. It is delightful to pick up the pieces of a piece of legislation that we will be opposing but I want to talk about those pieces. Human rights are a vital part of any society in which there is any form of equity and justice. Unfortunately this dog’s breakfast of a bill will not advance human rights and this is a concern.I think one of the questions that we should always ask at the beginning of a piece of legislation when it reaches its third reading and has been through the processes is: did the process indicate—to the select committee in particular—that anyone wanted this legislation? There was no clarity around who is driving this bill. There was no clear reason for this bill. There was an underlying agenda about getting rid of the titles of the positions but in terms of a public call or a sector call or a human rights community call for changes to the roles within the Human Rights Commission that was not apparent. And sothe question remains after going through that process: why are we doing this when so many people do not like it? Why is it necessary and who will benefit? They are important questions which we need to answer.This bill is definitely out of step with the human rights community as was apparent in many of the submissions and it has got two major flaws which make it unsupportable. One is the disestablishment of statutory positions and the creation of very broad commissioner roles without a specialist focus and without a commitment to a specialist focus which is disturbing because we really need these positions to be strong. I heard in the previous debate on the second reading a couple of weeks ago some very bizarre arguments from the Government benches about justifying getting rid of positions like the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissionerbecause it is against human rights to actually name discrimination and marginalisation and because it would be much better if there were these generic commissioners with no titles because people who experience discrimination would not then feel labelled and uncomfortable. When I heard that argument I thought: “Oh my God these people don’t actually have any idea what human rights is and they have no understanding of the importance of a framework where the roles are clearly delineated so that they can be held to account.”The role of the Human Rights Commission is to hold the Government to account. The role of the human rights community and the marginalised people in our community is to make sure that they are represented through robust and specific statutory positions such as the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner the Race Relations Commissioner—which should actually be called the “Anti-Racism Commissioner”; that would be a better name because that is what it is—and a disability commissioner. We in the Green Party are very passionate about human rights and we really think that the Human Rights Commission needs to be strong unambiguous and specific in its representation of the specific marginalisations that it needs to challenge and in the rights that it needs to uphold. So this is very disturbing.The other issue is independence and the argument that I have heard from a number of speakers so far is that the language in the bill will not change the existing language in the Act that the current Human Rights Commission operates under. That may be true but we cannot just look at language; we have to look at context. So any requirement to consult the Minister around work priorities has to be seen in the context of what is happening now. What is happening now is that when the Human Rights Commission challenged the Government over the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation it got a slap on the wrist by the Prime Minister which is what we call “a chilling effect”. The Prime Minister actually said that the commission’s report—and it was a statutory function of the commission to make that report—was a poor piece of work that was submitted late and that the commission needed to do better if it was to continue to receive taxpayer funding.It is a very strong message from a Prime Minister to a small Human Rights Commission that dared to actually speak up on an issue of national importance—the privacy and rights of citizens—to be told that it had better do better if it wants to receive its funding. That is what I would call “a severe chilling effect” and it is really concerning. So whether or not the language of independence has been modified under this bill it remains that the Minister must be consulted around priorities and it remains that the Prime Minister of the current Government under which the commission must operate has stated that it had better watch out—that if it rocks the boat it may lose its funding. There is nothing more chilling to an official than to be told that they might lose their funding—even if they are supposedly an independent commissioner.One of the reasons I am passionate about this bill is that it was supposedly about establishing a full-time disability commissioner. Originally I had a member’s bill selected from the ballot and it was to establish a disability commissioner. The sector wanted a disability commission. I understand that because there are multiple issues of discrimination and marginalisation around disability. But in the current context none of us thought that was achievable. I thought that a disability commissioner at the Human Rights Commission was achievable so I had a member’s bill. The day that it was due to come to the floor of the House the Government announced—and I am very pleased it did; and I know that a lot of the work on this was done by Tariana Turia—that it would set up a disability commissioner a 0.8 position at the Human Rights Commission. So this legislation is supposedly about mandating that position but it actually does not and it does not make it full time and it does not make it clear that we are going to have distinct roles. What it does is blur the definitions and actually give more power to the Chief Commissioner.The problem with that is that the Chief Commissioner may or may not over time and under different regimes represent and understand the specific and very different rights and needs of different groups. Anyone who knows anything about human rights will know that just because a person has a grasp of or an experience in say disability rights it does not make them an expert in addressing issues of racism. And just because somebody is an expert in racism it does not mean that they have a gender analysis that will support the rights of women. That is why those appointments—those commissioners with their statutory roles and statutory responsibilities—are so critical to human rights. That is why this bill is doing this country a disservice: we actually need those experts—those people who have a depth of analysis in their specific field—to work in that field. We have met with the commission and we know that it is overwhelmed with disability issues. We know that it should be more than 0.8—there should be a full-time commissioner. So it is actually critical that we do not roll back progress on human rights by muddying the waters by blurring the roles and by confusing the public about the essential need to differentiate between the different types of marginalisation that can be experienced. It is just not the same for everybody and that is the point and that is what is being lost under this bill.We have a number of concerns about this subsuming of positions and the disability community itself also made a submission on the bill in which it was concerned about the fact that 30 percent of complaints to the Human Rights Commission are related to disability—and this is underreported because people are too scared too tired or too unaware to report. So at least on that basis maybe one-third of human rights should be dedicated to addressing disability issues. The title really matters so it is really important that we actually commit to disability rights. I even think we should clarify the role around women’s rights and not call it equal employment opportunities because it is unclear and I think my colleague will probably speak some more about some of the specific issues around that.But it is really important that we have clarity and independence. One of the key aspects of the 1993 Paris principles on national human rights institutions is independence from the Government. Unfortunately if you look at Amnesty International’s latest report we are not doing so well in human rights. This country used to be a leader but now we are not. We now have 50 percent of our prison population being Māori while 15 percent of the population is Māori. Internationally that kind of issue is not unnoticed. Domestic violence is at record levels and that is not unnoticed either. So we very much need to maintain the Human Rights Commission as it is and make it stronger. But this bill I am afraid to say makes it weaker and we cannot support it.