Curran Clare: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11885. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to take a call on this bill. I was just referring back to the first reading of this billon 29 November 2012 when I spoke which is quite some time ago. Clearly there have been a few hiccups—Hon Christopher Finlayson: No just a careful gestation.CLARE CURRAN:—a long gestation period—around getting this bill through the select committee process and actually getting it back to the House.As we heard from my colleague David Shearer who went through some of the changes that were made—not just at the select committee stage but at the last minute at the Committee stage—that have resulted in Labour now offering its support for this bill this has been as I think he described it a tortuous process. It is tortuous in terms of the arguments but also in terms of the length of time that it has taken to get to this point.I would like to make an overarching point around this with regard to the context of Prime Minister John Key’s meeting this very week with Frank Bainimarama in Fiji when the events of the last 10 years and the suspension of democracy are again high in our collective mind. As we speak on this bill this afternoon it is valid to be asking what the core elements of a civilised society are and what those essential parts are.During the passage of this bill through the Justice and Electoral Committee and back to the House our concern has been the disestablishment of two particular commissioner roles—the equal employment opportunity role and the race relations role—as full-time appointments which is what the bill did in its original form and then making the requirement for there to be consultation with a Minister to whom the commission reports before determining what its “priority work areas” are. When all added together these did provide the impression and our deep concern around the watering down of the role of the commission with regard to equal employment opportunities and race relations and also the sniff of political interference in the role of the commission. Any suggestion of political interference with the Human Rights Commission is something to be fiercely opposed which is where you have seen opposition from the Labour Party on this bill.However there has been much debate. There have been arguments put to and accepted by the Government which has enabled the Labour Party to change its positionwhile still having some reservations particularly around the requirement to consult with a Minister and what the actual implications of that are in law. I have heard what the Minister said this afternoon in the third reading and I read what the Minister said in the second reading about the intent of the bill but still what the actual law says still carries a lot of weight.However this bill has changed considerably since it was first introduced. The first change that we objected to was the removal of those specific commissioner roles. We strongly opposed that change because removing those positions would have sent a strong signal by the Government that it was not committed to improving race relations or gender equality—essentially downgrading those important issues. In the context of this week when pay equity has again come back on to the agenda and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner herself has issued a statement around the importance of the work being done by the working party on this this is certainly not an issue that is out of date in any shape or form. It is very current and contemporary as is the work of the Race Relations Commissioner. Mr Shearer himself referred to Auckland being the third most diverse city in the world—I think that is what he said. It is of utmost importance that we do put those issues at the very top of the agenda so we are very glad that the Government has backed down on this.We also understand that Peter Dunne may have made his support conditional on these changes and if that is the case we thank him for that. We have seen the generalisation of these public roles where key organisations and people are taken away from focusing on a single role and must work on other areas. Such an example is when the Alcohol Advisory Council was merged into the Health Promotion Authority. We have grave concerns about any watering down of those roles. I should also put on the record the support for the creation of a Disability Rights Commissioner and the importance of that work and we commend the Government for its promotion of that.The second objection that we raised was around the number of commissioners. As my colleague David Shearer mentioned Jacinda Ardern our lead spokesperson on this matter in the select committee wrote to the Minister seeking an assurance that the number of commissioners was not going to be reduced. That assurance did appear to come back from the Minister when she said: “Over the last 10 years the commission has operated with around 4.5 fulltime-equivalent commissioners. The intent of the changes in the bill is to remove the current prescription about which commissioners can be full-time or part-time and in delegating extra portfolios to best meet the needs of the commission. The mix of commissioners will be a matter for the chief commissioner to determine.However we do not anticipate there being any significant changes to the number of commissioners as a result of this legislation.” On the face of it again that is heartening. It has allowed the Labour Party to support this bill and we will certainly be holding the Minister to her assurances. However our concerns remain about the required consultation with a Minister.I will finally refer to clause 6 which inserts new section 8. It 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 this is the important phrase—“and after consultation with the Minister …”. That is in the legislation. It is all very well for the Minister to get up today and talk about intent but that is in the legislation—“and after consultation with the Minister”. It is vitally important that the Human Rights Commission remains absolutely independent. It is a core tenet of our democracy that it must be able to give free and frank advice and it must be absolutely independent of the Government’s involvement. We support this bill but I am putting on the record today that we still have concerns about this clause in the bill.