Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHuman Rights Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11882. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Human Rights Amendment BillThird ReadingHon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of theMinister of Justice:I move That the Human Rights Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill will enhance New Zealand’s ability to comply with our domestic and international human rights obligation. The bill makes changes to the structure and functions of the Human Rights Commission. The purpose of these changes is to strengthen the performance of the commission particularly by giving a greater flexibility to respond to emerging human rights issues including disability rights. I would like to recap what specific changes the bill makes and the key issues that have arisen during its passage through the House.First the bill replaces the current composition of three full-time and up to five part-time commissioners with four to five commissioners who can be full-time or part-time. The Act currently requires the three named commissioners to be full-time while all other commissioners must be part-time. This could exclude suitably qualified people from the positions of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner or Race Relations Commissioner because they are not able to work full-time. It could also limit the ability of other commissioners to take a more active role. Removing that distinction will help make the commission more effective as it deals with a wide range of human rights issues.The second change the bill makes is to remove specific provisions related to the Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. The bill will still require that commissioners be appointed to lead the work of the commission in these areas and in disability rights. The bill adds disability rights to the list of mandatory portfolios in recognition of the commission’s role under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The commission is part of a group of organisations set up to monitor and report on the Government’s performance under the convention.Initially the bill removed the statutory titles of the commissioners. There was concern that removing the named positions would diminish the role of the commissioners. The Minister of Justice therefore proposed an amendment to clarify that a commissioner leading work in one of the three priority areas may use the appropriate title for that leadership role. These three areas are among those that receive the most discrimination complaints and it is important that the commission retains a focus on these areas for the foreseeable future.The third change the bill makes is to enable the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to designate commissioners to lead work in other human rights areas the commission considers to be a priority. This means the formal portfolios will not be restricted to the areas specified in the Act. In practice all commissioners have responsibility for several areas. The bill allows these roles to be recognised formally but without the need to amend the Act. The new priority areas are designated in accordance with the strategic direction of the commission which is set by all the commissioners acting collectively. Empowering the chief commissioner to create new roles while also retaining the existing roles in the Act gives the commission flexibility to respond to emerging human rights issues while also indicating those areas that Parliament considers to be of ongoing importance.There was a concern that requiring the chief commissioner to consult with the Minister when designating an area of work as a priority and when allocating that area of responsibility to a commissioner would reduce the independence of the commission. That is not the case. Requiring the chief commissioner to consult with the Minister is not a new requirement as this part of the bill essentially duplicates consultation provisions that are currently in the Act. The requirement to consult does not mean the Minister may direct the commission. It is a requirement to consult and nothing more which accords with best practice.Finally I want to thank the commission for its support during the development of the bill. The changes in this bill will help the commission to remain effective and will position it to respond to the human rights needs of everyone in New Zealand now and in the future. I commend this bill to the House.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): It is my privilege to be able to stand and address this bill and to also say that Labour will be supporting this bill. That support has come about through actually a pretty tortuous process both through the selectcommittee and through the Committee stages where the many issues that we had particularly opposed were reversed by the Government. We are very pleased that that has happened and as a result of that we feel content with the changes and sufficiently content to back the bill. As I said the bill has changed considerably since it was introduced. It started off really as a bill to look at the Human Rights Commission and to bring in the possibility of having a disabilities rights commissioner which of course we supported and I think there was a need there that needed to be fulfilled.But what the Government did was use the legislation more as a sort of a Trojan Horse to bring about other changes that we did not agree with. As the Minister who has just sat down noted there was likely to be the removal of individual designations particularly that of the Race Relations Commissioner—a position currently held by Susan Devoy and I believe she is doing a good job and a necessary job in our society; I come from Auckland which is the third most diverse city in the world and certainly we need a Race Relations Commissioner—and secondly the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner a position that is currently held by Jackie Blue a former National Party MP who is also I have to say doing a good job. She is actually holding the Government to account on many of the issues that have come up in front of the commission so she is certainly showing no favour in terms of her previous employment. So we felt those two commissioners were necessary and that was one of the reasons why we in the first and second readings vehemently argued that those particular designations needed to be reinstated.I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague Jacinda Ardern and the way that she has pushed this bill through because she wrote to the Minister setting out very clearly that we opposed the bill for that reason but also for some of the other issues that had come up as well. The second issue she spoke to was the number of commissioners which was proposed to be limited by the amendments in this piece of legislation and we did not feel that limiting the number of commissioners was a very positive move. Thirdly the other issue was that the Chief Human Rights Commissioner when seeking to get the work programme put in place had to consult—and it sounded very much to us like “had to get the acceptance of”—the Minister.Those are the three issues that we disagreed on. Jacinda Ardern argued those vehemently—as did my other colleagues as well. She also wrote to the Minister of Justice and wanted to get some confirmation that those three issues were not going to be problems. As a result of that Supplementary Order Paper 175 was brought before the House at the Committee stage which reversed—fairly much it reversed—the first two problems that we had with the legislation. It was further clarified in the letter that the Minister sent to Jacinda Ardern after Jacinda Ardern had written to the Minister and as a result of that we are now in a position to be able to support the bill.Effectively what this actually means is that the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner will stay in place and that the number of commissioners will not be curtailed and will not be limited as the Associate Minister of Justice Simon Bridges who just spoke gave us assurance and I am sure this will be an assurance that will be read. His Hansard will be read in the future when the Chief Human Rights Commissioner is looking at this particular legislation in terms of guidance for their own work. The chief commissioner will be able to see that the chief commissioner does not need to sit down with the Minister and seek approval for a particular work plan that they are embarking on.So the three issues that we were opposed to have all been met by the Government and I want to thank the Government for coming to the party and doing that. We are now—with some minor tweaks—effectively back where we were before with the acceptance of a Disability Rights Commissioner which we think is a very positive move. As a result of that this legislation is a reasonable piece of legislation. We have spent a lot of time on it and a lot of effort on it perhaps going in a bit of a circle but nevertheless it certainly is more acceptable I think and not only to us. I think it is a better piece of legislation for New Zealand and for defending the rights of New Zealanders which this office is importantly given the job of defending.I cannot count the number of times that the Race Relations Commissioner or the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner have spoken out in terms of what has been going on in our society. It is welcome. It is a check on some of the more egregious issues that have come up. It is a means of letting off steam. It is a means of changing people’s opinions. It plays a very very positive and important part in the life of New Zealand. For that reason I am very pleased that Labour is now able to support this bill and is able to see that the commission will continue to do a very good job in terms of defending the human rights of New Zealanders no matter who they are.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am very pleased to be speaking on the Human Rights Amendment Bill’s third reading. It has been a while since we considered this bill which has given us the opportunity to do our homework have another look at it and just reconfirm to ourselves that it is a pretty good piece of legislation—reflected by the way it enjoys support I hope across the House because the measures in the bill are pretty helpful in terms of the Human Rights Commission.What this bill does is make changes to the composition of the Human Rights Commission. It makes changes to the governance arrangements; it also makes changes to the functions and powers of the commission. There are a number of emerging human rights issues and the changes that are contained within this bill will enable the commission to respond better to those emerging human rights issues and to do so in line with this Government’s Better Public Services targets. It is about providing good services where they are required.The bill gives the designation of Disability Rights Commissioner. It gives the designations of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner to the commissioners appointed to lead the work of the Human Rights Commission in those priority areas which are listed under clause 6 which amends section 8. The bill will give greater flexibility to the office so that the office of the Human Rights Commission can set its own priorities and be more flexible and responsible to what is required and the issues that it comes across with this new group of commissioners. Strengthening the commission will also enable and enhance New Zealand’s ability to comply with its human rights obligations as well as of course benefiting implementation of domestic human rights legislation.So in the third reading and in this short call I commend the bill to the House.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.JONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure that this is the second bill in a row where we have had wide support from right across the House which you know makes for a nice Thursday afternoon really. It is quite pleasant in fact.Of course this is another area where we do need to be I think operating across parties as well. We have a great human rights record internationally and in New Zealand but that does not mean we should rest on our laurels. Basic human rights are really important issues for us to be able to ensure that we maintain our international record but that we also actually still continue to improve on our human rights in New Zealand as well.The primary purpose of this bill is to give greater flexibility to the Human Rights Commission. I think we would all agree that it is important that when we have any public body there is an ability to be flexible to best meet the needs of the people whom they are trying to serve. I think that is what this was all about.The original legislation did not necessarily disestablish the roles of the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner but the job titles as such. I think on reflection as we have gone through this process—the Minister of Justice brought in Supplementary Order Paper 175 at the Committee stage which said that if it is going to give people confidence that those people are still going to be focused on these things if we retain the titles for the people who are focused on that part of the work then so be it. I think that has been a healthy process and a good one.I just want to focus on the establishment of the Disability Rights Commissioner. I think this is a really strong signal for us to send to the disability community. Palmerston North where I come from has the highest proportion of population with disabilities and it is going to be really important I think for those people to know that as a Government we take their issues seriously. When they have got issues they want resolved they will know there is going to be somebody who is committed to that—who is committed as part of the Human Rights Commission to devoting a huge amount of their time and energy to that particular sector.As I have said earlier I think this is a positive move forward. I think it is high time that we did get it sorted. I know Clare Curran just said it was 2012 when she gave her first reading speech and the bill itself was introduced in 2011. It is not quite Mainland cheese I know but good things do take time. I think it is great that we have now got to a place where we can all agree on this going forward and that we can now continue to move forward with improving the human rights of New Zealanders and ensuring that everybody’s rights are protected. Thank you.MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I am very happy to rise and take a short call on behalf of the Green Party to support the Human Rights Amendment Bill. As we all know human rights are an important part of any functioning civil society. I speak fondly actually to this legislation having had a career of 10-plus years at the Human Rights Commission from I think 2003 to the end of 2013. I want to acknowledge my colleague Louisa Wall also who was a contemporary of mine while I was at the Human Rights Commission. It does mean I got to see firsthand not just the importance of the work of the commission but in particular the importance of having distinguishable titles that could separate out the actual difference of the work between the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner the Disability Rights Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner for example.I just call fondly on my time at the commission and remember the time this bill originally came up for this discussion and I understand there were strong feelings from within the commission from us as staff but also from the commission as a whole as to the importance of ensuring those distinguished titles maintained their special focus and maintained their special weight. So although I have been an MP for only 6 or 7 months or so and I am new to this legislation I can recall at the original time the bill came up how important it was for us who were working at the Human Rights Commission.I do want to acknowledge my colleague Catherine Delahunty for her role in taking on board the concerns of the disability community because at that time she was our spokesperson for disability issues. I will also welcome my colleague Mojo Mathers our current spokesperson—to focus more on this issue—but I do just want to acknowledge Catherine Delahunty for receiving from the sector the concern and the desire to have a specific disability focus and for working through that. She put a member’s bill into the ballot that was to establish the Disability Rights Commissioner andin working with—and here I acknowledge the Māori Party—the Māori Party on this bill she was able to get changes so that the Green Party can confidently support this bill now. So I do acknowledge Catherine Delahunty the disability community the Māori Party and all of us for supporting this bill.There was one other particular issue I thought I would also pick up. Please I actually cannot see it in the bill myself and I am happy to be corrected on this—after all this is just debate. One part—I could not say for sure—in the Human Rights Commission’s submission on this bill in its conclusion asked that there would be consideration given to adding the promotion of indigenous rights to the primary functions of the commission. I have not been able to find in the legislation whether that has actually happened but I would have strongly supported that and I did want to put that on the Hansard record. My background in the Human Rights Commission also focused on indigenous rights and being able to give our country some weight and some focus on indigenous rights I think would have been a fantastic amendment to this bill if that has not already been done—and I am happy to be corrected.The Human Rights Commission did in particular raise the fact that we did sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and for that I do acknowledge the Government of the time. We did sign that it was adopted in 2007 and unlike many of the other treaty and human rights obligations there is no particular place where that monitoring fits and is given some formal weight. I did just want to go through the international groups—in conversation—that supported the Human Rights Commission in bringing that into focus and requiring and suggesting that that also be an amendment in this bill.The international meeting of experts in Bangkok in December 2009 included the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people representatives of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. They addressed the role of national human rights institutions in promoting the implementation of the UN declaration. If we signed the declaration why did we sign it? None of our treaty obligations were ever supposed to just be purely a document that sits there. We are supposed to proactively monitor protect and uphold those obligations in each of the treaties that we sign. So that international meeting of experts in Bangkok did conclude that national human rights institutions do have a critical role to play in protecting and promoting the rights of indigenous peoples at the national and local level.Just finally the reason for that—the importance of that—is that when we uphold the rights of particular minority groups marginalised groups or groups that we acknowledge have less power in the power relationships we actually create a more sustainable society for all of us. If we do not uphold these rights we all end up paying anyway and doing a fix-up job some way down the track. The issue the Human Rights Commission raised in its submission would have I think made a great amendment. If it has been made then I stand here to support it and talk about why and if it has not been made then I stand here to put on to the record that that would have been fantastic legislation.We are supporting this bill in this third reading in light of the good changes that were included and the good work that happened across the parties. Thank you again for this opportunity. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will continue to support this bill and we have supported it from the beginning because we think that support has been well justified. I am glad to see all of the other Opposition parties have now seen their way clear to support it as well because we think this is a good piece of legislation. The major change concerns the roles of the commissioners. There must be a commissioner to lead each of the priority areas but now they will not lose their designation in their specialised areas as some had feared. So I suppose that is a good thing. I do not think that is such a huge deal myself but it is a good thing and that change has been made.The permanent priority areas are disability rights equal employment opportunities and race relations. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner will now be able to designate a commissioner to lead work in other priority areas of human rights and we in New Zealand First are particularly pleased about that and it is why we have supported the bill from the beginning. The expansion of the work of the Human Rights Commission into other areas of human rights is exactly fundamental to New Zealand First policy and exactly what this bill does. We are very pleased by it and as I have said we have always supported it for that reason. I note also that in choosing those new priority areas the chief commissioner must consult of course with the other commissioners which is natural but also with the Minister. I know that some have been concerned about that but consultation actually is not direction and it is appropriate in these circumstances for the Minister to have input. I have never been worried that in this context the Minister would ever have been able to direct the commission. So I think the concerns about that have been largely misplaced.The most important change in the bill as I have said is the ability to designate lead areas and other areas of human rights. One of the reasons why New Zealand Frist is so pleased about that is we are very concerned about some of those other areas. One of them is elderly persons’ rights for example. Ageism is rife in New Zealand nothing is being done about it and it needs attention. In addition to that there is the whole area of elder abuse. Elder abuse is an equally extremely important problem in New Zealand and I do not think it is being properly addressed and perhaps the Human Rights Commission can do something about that. We very much hope that one of the new priority areas that will be designated in the future will be that whole area relating to the rights of elderly people in New Zealand.These new priority areas must be chosen to quote from new section 8(1B) inserted by clause 6 “in accordance with the strategic direction and the general nature of activities determined by the Commission under section 7(1)”. That allows the commissioner indeed to designate new priority areas but the important thing is that it has to be done in accordance with a strategy to be established and determined jointly by all of the commissioners acting together. New Zealand First is again particularly pleased by that approach because although it allows the specialisation that is required it also allows the commissioners to act together to choose new priority areas. As I have already said that is what New Zealand First has always wanted to happen particularly.Finally another important change that we particularly approve of is the need for the appointment of suitable people in each of those new priority areas. Under new section 13 in clause 9 I see the Minister must have regard to firstly the candidate’s understanding of the principles and practice relating to the relevant priority area; secondly their appreciation of the issues in the area internationally; and thirdly their ability to carry out the functions specified in new section 16 in clause 12. Those have been amended too. They relate to ensuring that the person has skills in leadership ability and the ability to contribute to public debate in the particular area where that person has expertise.We in New Zealand First feel that that is a very valuable addition to the legislation governing the Human Rights Commission. All too often in the past I think there has been an element of political appointment to some of those Human Rights Commission roles and that is not appropriate. We are glad to see these criteria will now have to apply. That is very important.We have always thought this is a good piece of legislation for the reasons I have already stated. We still support it. We are very happy to continue to support it now.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Unfortunately this is the first contribution I have been able to make on this useful piece of legislation. It seems to be a classic Thursday afternoon piece of legislation. It is something that has been kicking around the Order Paper for a while and it is worth passing it into law.The bill was first introduced in October 2011 so that is well into the term of the 50th Parliament and it has been before the House for not quite 5 years but approaching 5 years. In fact it had its second reading I think even before the last election as well. It is not quite up there with the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill which I know exercised Ms Dyson and Ms Curran for a very long time in the length of time it took to pass that bill but it is certainly up there. It is good to see it passing into law. I think it is a useful bill.In particular I am very pleased about the permanent recognition of disability rights and having a Disability Rights Commissioner. I think that is something that is overdue and I agree with the remarks of my colleague Marama Davidson before. It is fair to say that before I came to the Parliament disability rights and dealing with people with disabilities was not something I had a huge amount of familiarity with. Certainly in my time as an MP so far since the election in 2014 it is something I have really enjoyed learning more about. You are always learning in this job and I have really enjoyed that.I note this is one of those international treaties people get very worked up about from time to time—sorry I should not say this is an international treaty. This bill is part of the Government’s giving effect to an international treaty which of course is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which New Zealand ratified way back in September 2008. At various times people in this House get very worked up about whether or not international treaties are a breach of New Zealand’s sovereignty and whether or not New Zealand’s committing on the international stage to give effect to a particular treaty is something that affects our sovereignty. Various members in this House have made allegations about treaties that New Zealand has signed up to. But I just note for the record of the House this bill does give effect to one of those conventions one of those treaties that we are subject to in order to follow international law.As I mentioned that is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That obliges New Zealand through article 33 to “maintain strengthen designate or establish within the State Party a framework including … independent mechanisms … to promote protect and monitor implementation of the present Convention.” of course in terms of disabilities. The New Zealand Government’s response to that is to give the Human Rights Commission a broad role in promoting protecting and monitoring the implementation of the convention.Of course giving statutory power to a particular commissioner with responsibility for disability rights is part of that and I think that is a good step forward.I think to be fair the rest of the bill makes useful changes. It is not a wholesale reform of the Human Rights Commission but I think the changes around the flexibility to do with commissioners and part-time commissioners are all sensible things. Actually there has been a bit of debate between the select committee stage and the second reading and the Committee of the whole House as to the various structures of the commission but I think we have landed as a House in the right space where I think all parties are supporting the bill as they did the Evidence Amendment Bill before this. It is important I think in the area of human rights to have widespread unanimity when it comes to these things.The Human Rights Commission has a long history. It was first established in 1977. A lot of people think it came into existence only in 1993 but actually it goes all the way back to 1977. It is part of that broad sweep—that proliferation really—of human rights civil and political rights and also economic social and cultural rights in that post-war era. Of course it was really given teeth by the Human Rights Act 1993 and potentially you could argue the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 as well. I think this is probably an incremental step forward on the Human Rights Commission’s journey and it is a useful one. I commend the bill to the House.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—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that I have to interrupt the member but her time has expired.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to speak on this third reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. I am really pleased that Labour is now in a position to support this piece of legislation. I want to just highlight the primary purpose of this Human Rights Amendment Bill which is to establish the role of a Disability Rights Commissioner and to ensure that we uphold our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.I would like to acknowledge that the thenMinister for Disability Issues the Hon Ruth Dyson signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on behalf of the New Zealand Government—that was in 2006. As a result of us signing that convention the Hon Tariana Turia then appointed a disability commissioner under the Human Rights Act and in fact it was then Catherine Delahunty who proposed a member’s bill to ensure that that role was a formal role within the Human Rights Commission. That is why this piece of legislation is before us today. What is interesting to note is that during the passage of the review we somehow then lost our Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. As part of the process of review through this House it is heartening to see that the response to the overwhelming call to retain those two particular positions means that we are now in a position to support this piece of legislation.I too want to acknowledge my colleague Jacinda Ardern who is our lead in the justice area. I want to highlight that she wrote to Minister Amy Adams on 2 June and this is what she asked: she wanted some assurance that the changes proposed would not lead to a reduction in the number of commissioners currently operating or the loss of their current portfolios. The two areas that she highlighted in addition to race relations equal employment opportunities and disability were indigenous and LGBTI commissioners. Currently the commission has designated LGBTI and indigenous commissioners.So I want to quote from Amy Adams’ response dated 9 June: “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”—and this is the point I want to highlight—“we do not anticipate there being any significant changes to the number of commissioners as a result of this legislation.” It was on that advice from the Minister that Labour is supporting this piece of legislation. So it is very important that I have read the Minister’s response to a letter from my colleague Jacinda Ardern because that in fact is how this piece of legislation now needs to be interpreted by the Chief Human Rights Commissioner in delegating those particular indigenous and LGBT rights commissioners.So the history of this piece of legislation is aligned to us as a country signing up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Actually if you look at all of the named commissioners they all relate to different conventions that over time New Zealand has signed up to. The chief commissioner’s role for example really is about New Zealand signing up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966. The Race Relations Commissioner is directly aligned to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1965. What I really want to highlight is that of the commissioners the LGBTIQ commissioner probably is the one who does not have a convention but the UN has actually produced two reports and the last was out in June 2005. There is a commitment by the United Nations to continue to highlight those people across the world who are most marginalised who are most discriminated against and really that is what our commitment to the United Nations conventions and human rights is all about. We cannot stand by and watch particular members of our family—our human family—and our communities being discriminated against. So it is a pleasure for me to be speaking in support of this legislation. Kia ora.MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to also stand today in support of the Human Rights Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Amy Adamsin its third reading. It is her second piece of legislation before us today which reflects the great work that she is doing in this space.This bill was considered and deliberated on in some detail by the Justice and Electoral Committee but unfortunately that was prior to my joining that committee so I do not have the depth of information that some of my colleagues have on this issue. What I do know is that this bill seeks to clarify the description of the Human Rights Commission’s functions. It also sets out to provide flexibility to the specialised commissioners by replacing the three full-time and the up to four or five part-time commissioners with four or five commissioners who are all part-time. It does allow for the establishment of a full-time commissioner with the responsibility for leadership and disability rights within the Human Rights Commission and I believe this is a fantastic addition to this bill. This reinforces the Government’s commitment to promoting and monitoring mechanisms that will really make a difference to the lives of disabled people here in New Zealand.The commission’s functions are being amended in several ways. One of those is amending the commission’s functions to promote and monitor New Zealand’s compliance with its international human rights obligations and we have heard quite a bit about that in this debate today. The functions will also include providing important feedback on legislation and policies that affect human rights matters as they emerge. Another function of the Human Rights Commission that is introduced in this bill will be to express an opinion on matters or situations in which human rights may be infringed. For me I think the most important change is the explicit reference in this bill to race relations equal employment and disability rights. These will be the primary functions of the Human Rights Commission. This reflects that these areas of human rights are priority issues for the commission and rightly so.The changes will enable the Human Rights Commission to better respond to human rights issues as they emerge and this is completely in line with the Government’s focus on delivering better public services. I have pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill and to reaffirm that although Labour earlier opposed the bill it is now in a position to support it. I want to quickly touch on the matters that have changed that have allowed us to take that position and reaffirm the principles that lie behind Labour’s approach to the Human Rights Commission. In fact let me start with that.The commission is a very important independent watchdog for human rights across a range of fronts including equal opportunities for women a stand against racism and the protection of civil rights across our society. It is one of a number of independent watchdog agencies or institutions that are core parts of our democracy. Labour initially opposed this bill because we were concerned that along with other what you might call shavings away of those independent watchdog agencies be it the underfunding of the Ombudsman or other issues the Human Rights Commission was gradually and repeatedly being weakened by resourcing and by the loss of the previous titles which were guaranteed for certain of the commissioners. And let us be frank even with the restoration of those titles—which is the principle change here; we are now in a position to support this bill—we will continue to be vigilant that human rights are being upheld and that the commission as one of a network of independent statutory agencies continues to be able to play its vital role as one of the cornerstones of our democracy.We are in the third term of a Government that some would say is getting increasingly arrogant and out of touch. We are also—[Interruption]Well the first sign of arrogance is laughing when people offer criticisms.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Well I was actually just coughing but—Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Only a cough. The Minister of Health is coughing. That is a bad sign.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you. It is a shame that the Minister of Health is coughing but I hope he gets over it. He needs clinical advice but that has been clear for years.The Human Rights Amendment Bill—getting back to the substance—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes I am going to ask the member to resume his seat and ask both members now to lift the tone a bit.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am certainly happy to be guided by someone attired with such eminence.The change to the specific commissioner roles that we refer to was contained in section 8(1A) under clause 6 which removed the specific commissioner roles. The original Act had ensured that each of the commissioner roles were specific appointments and that was important because we felt it was necessary for the commissioners to be able to stand on a particular statutory office when speaking on things as set out in section 8(1A): “(a) disability rights: (b) equal employment opportunities:[and] (c) race relations.” But just prior to the Committee stage the Minister reversed her position and introduced Supplementary Order Paper 175 which would essentially ensure the status quo and re-add the statutory titles of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner. That ensures that those offices will continue with the full statutory weight and that is important if we look back at the history of those offices.We are glad that the Government has backed down. We think it is the right thing to do. We are not sure why it had the contrary idea in the first place. We can only surmise that it is part of a trend to underplay or underfund independent watchdog agencies that have the role of leaning against the executive and we have continuously warned the public of New Zealand that if that process that trend continues then our democratic institutions could be under threat.The number of commissioners was the second objection we raised and the amendment bill allows that to be reversed. The existing section 8(1)(a) to (d) of the 1993 Act had three full-time commissioners appointed as the Chief Human Rights Commissioner the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. It also allowed an additional five part-time commissioners to be appointed. At the Committee stage we reaffirmed our strong concern that the amendment bill had the potential to reduce that number and we continued to vote against the bill at the Committee stage on this issue. After the Committee stage we sought assurances from the Minister that the amendment bill would not result in a reduction of the existing commissioners and the Minister has replied in writing giving that assurance. So we are pleased that those concerns have been mitigated.Consultation was our third key concern. Clause 6 inserts new section 8(1B) which 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 after consultation with the Minister and the other Commissioners.” It is not appropriate—never has been—for an independent statutory agency to have its work plan and strategy directed only after consultation with a Minister. The whole point is that it is there if necessary to lean against the actions of the executive of the day whoever that might be. We therefore were very concerned about the consultation requirement. We will continue to be vigilant on that issue.May I summarise by saying that Labour attaches enormous importance to the work of this commission. We do so because of the valuable substance of the role—the importance of equal opportunities for women equal opportunities for people of disability and equal opportunities across the races so that New Zealand is a place where people of whatever background creed or colour can all participate fully and make our country great and in so doing can maximise their potential and continue to build on a country that has a reputation for an easygoing acceptance of all and a celebration of our diversity. That is part of what makes modern New Zealand New Zealand—and that is a good thing—and the roles of Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner have been fundamental in underpinning that.As we look forward we are aware that we live in a world that is evermore complex and apparently hostile. We see conflict in the Middle East. We see tensions in East Asia. We see growing gaps between wealth and poverty worldwide. We observe in Western democracies a growing rebellion—not too strong a word—against the prevailing orthodoxies of the last several decades. We know that the treasure of democracy is something that is hard-won has been hard-won and must be vigilantly maintained.So although to some this bill may seem like a very small—one might say anodyne—bill and as Mr Bishop said it is the sort of bill you pass into law last thing on a Thursday afternoon it is not a trivial bill. It goes to the independence of a commission and the strength of a commission that upholds and signifies some of the values that make our lovely country what it is—a place where everybody can be themselves or should be able to be themselves a place where every Kiwi kid can grow up and aspire to do anything or be anything that they want and are capable of.This is not a country where we think our children should grow up living in cars as is too often the case. It is not a country where males and females should have different incomes or entitlements. It is not a country where people of different races and ethnicities have their earning potential or their career potential limited. It is not a place where we want to see qualified doctors driving taxis. It is not a place where we want to see some suburbs are designated the wrong side of the tracks and others—where we have winner schools and loser schools. It is not a place where we want the child of a driver or a drover only able to aspire to the same roles as their parents. It is the Human Rights Commission the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner that we must protect and we welcome the amendments in this bill that reduce the threats to that office.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): It is great to see the support for this bill from all sides. I also support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.Bill read a third time.