Little Andrew: Human Rights Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Human Rights Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14117. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Perhaps my speech will be taken as being on behalf of Mr Macindoe himself anyway because I am sure he would concur with what I haveto say. This is not a frivolous matter. This is a matter to do with human rights not only domestic human rights but our international human rights as well. The Human Rights Commission plays a very important role not only in administering our Human Rights Act and the very important role that that piece of legislation plays in our country but also in being the voice perhaps the conscience if you like of the nation when it comes to matters of human rights issues of discrimination and issues of fairness and equity whether between races and ethnicities whether between sexes or on any other ground. So we take this issue very seriously.The motivating force as I see it behind the Human Rights Amendment Bill—having read both the bill and the regulatory impact statement which I might say I thought was somewhat inadequate; it set out options and then simply chose an option without a great deal of analysis—is efficiency. But it is clear from that document and from the bill itself that this is once again a very important piece of legislation carrying with it very important principles and carrying with it a very important institution which is beingfaffed around with on grounds of efficiency alone. It says “efficiency and effectiveness” but it is really about cost-cutting. One of the things that the bill does is that it reduces the number of commissioners. It concentrates the role of commissioner under the Human Rights Act into full-time roles as opposed to the flexibility that is available at the moment with a combination of full-time and part-time roles. So there is a real question about whether or not that is going to add to the effectiveness of the administration of the requirements of the Act. It will almost certainly be efficient. It will allow costs to be cut but whether it will allow it to be effective remains another point.There is a very important change a very subtle-looking change that the bill makes in clause 5 which amends section 5 of the present Act the Human Rights Act in particular subsection (2)(k). Presently section 5 “Functions of Commission” talks about a range of things. One of those functions is “to report to the Prime Minister on …”—and one of the three things it can report to the Prime Minister on is—“(iii) the implications of any proposed legislation (including subordinate legislation) or proposed policy of the Government that the Commission considers may affect human rights:”. Most members of the House will recall of course that it was that section that was invoked by the commission only some months ago as the Government passed its legislation on the rights of the family caregivers of disabled people. When the commission intervened in the way that the statute clearly contemplated in full compliance of its rights in the Act that prompted the Prime Minister to respond by effectively threatening its funding. So we look at this provision in the Human Rights Act and we consider that it needs to be jealously guarded.The Human Rights Commission is meant to be independent. It is meant to express independence and that is confirmed in sections 7 and 19 of the current Act. Section 7(1) says of the commission in determining the general nature of its activities: “Subject to the role of the Minister in the process of setting and monitoring the strategic direction and targets of the Commission under … the Crown Entities Act 2004 the members of the Commission acting together determine the strategic direction of the general nature of activities undertaken in performance of the Commission’s functions.” It is up to the commissioners to decide what its strategic priorities are and what the issues are that it chooses to engage in and embark on. That is confirmed in section 19 of the present Act which is headed interestingly “Duty to act independently”. We know that when a Crown entity has a requirement to act independently it is acting independently of the Government of the day. That is indeed what section 19 says: “the Commission must act independently in performing its statutory functions and duties”.There is a good reason for that and that is because although there are many countries around the world where human rights are given short shrift they are abused and peopleare treated shabbily we do not exactly have that experience here. But the reality is that Governments even in the worst countries and even in the best countries can find themselves not complying with and in breach of basic human rights. It is important that we see human rights as something that is separate from the political fray and as something that is not open to the horse-trading of the political system. That is why we say that the Human Rights Commission is independent and must be independent. That is why when our Prime Minister threatened our Human Rights Commission on the basis of funding because it chose to exercise its statutory right to report on a matter that it considered was in breach of the Human Rights Act that was a matter that ought to have horrified—and indeed did horrify—many New Zealanders. That is why the independence of the Human Rights Commission is so important.So when we see parts of this bill that suggest that its independence is under threat we must be concerned. We see in clause 6 new subsection (1B) of section 8 which says: “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 after consultation with the Minister and the other Commissioners.” I am concerned at the reference to the involvement of the Minister now going beyond just setting its budget to now interfering in the decisions that commissioners must make about the priority work that the commission must do because sometimes the priority work might be challenging the Government telling the Government that legislation that it has on its book or bills that it is proposing to push through the House are in breach of citizens’ human rights. That is a role that a properly supported and well-resourced Human Rights Commission ought to do. Ours does it and it has attracted the wrath of the Government of the day. That is not good. That is not a healthy development at all.So we look askance at this bill and we say that we hear the language of efficiency and effectiveness but when we look at the fine details of the bill this starts to look like legislative measures at undermining the role of the Human Rights Commission not only in upholding the rights of the citizens of New Zealand but challenging those institutions that might threaten it. Some of those institutions will be private but some will be public and the institution of course with the greatest power and the most resources that can threaten citizens’ rights if it is not this House is certainly the rest of Government.We need to know that the Human Rights Commission is properly supported and is well resourced and when it does challenge the Government of the day—whether it is a National Government whether it is a Labour-led Government whatever the hue of the Government—the institution of the Human Rights Commission is there has the correct statutory powers and can interfere and intervene in accordance with its powers and its duties to do so. So it is for that reason that we are looking very closely at this legislation. It is not just simple legislation truncating the number of commissioners or consolidating their roles; it goes beyond that. So we will have a close examination of the bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee. We will ask the questions. Hopefully we will get good advice from the officials beyond just what has gone into the regulatory impact statement and we will find out whether or not this is actually necessary in order to have a Human Rights Commission that can fully acquit itself of its role. We will do that. We will support this bill to the select committee so that we can undertake that examination because it behoves all of us to ensure that of the many important institutions in Government those institutions that directly affect citizens’ rights and their place are protected and looked after and we want to make sure that the Human Rights Act continues to do that.