O'Rourke Denis: Human Rights Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Human Rights Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11175. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Every party in this House wants an effective and efficient Human Rights Commission—that much I think is common amongst us all. The only question then is: how do you achieve that? On this occasion New Zealand First agrees with the Government and does not agree with either the Greens or the Labour Party. The reasons for that are fairly clear in my mind. Firstly I listened to David Shearer’s speech and he said that the bill is not fixing anything—for reasons I will give later I think that it does—he questioned underlying motives which he did not specify; he said that there would be a weakening of rights which does not occur in this bill; he questions independence which is not actually threatened at all; and he says that internationally minimum standards especially in relation to the Race Relations Commissioner would be reduced thus resulting in international reputational damage. I do not see any of that occurring either.The truth about the matter is that if you actually look at what the bill says it says that there must be a commissioner other than the chief commissioner appointed to lead the work in each of the priority areas which are actually specified: disability rights which the Greens are particularly interested in and that is great; equal employment opportunities which I know the Labour Party is particularly interested in and that is great too; and race relations which we are all very interested in. But the important thing here is that the chief commissioner is also able to designate a commissioner to lead work in other priority areas and that is a leap forward as far as I am concerned.We in New Zealand First for example think that there is a lot of work to do as far as the elderly are concerned and some of the rights that they are not being delivered in this country. In fact ageism is a really serious problem in New Zealand. I hope that the chief commissioner will have a look at that. Of course he will have to consult about those additional designations with the other commissioners—and yes with the Minister—but I see no harm in consultation on that.New Zealand First does not agree with the other parties about the perceived loss of specialised commissioners. If you look at Supplementary Order Paper 175 you will see straight away that the titles or designations are actually restored in that anyway. The new approach will lead to commissioners being appointed to lead priority areas but that still allows the flexibility that those commissioners can work in other areas as well. I think that is very important. I think that is one of the things that is fixed in this legislation. I think it will make the Human Rights Commission more effective and more efficient and surely we all want that.Hon David Cunliffe: More efficient to abolish it altogether.DENIS O’ROURKE: See that is the kind of comment that I hear from Mr Cunliffe: “abolish it altogether.” Can that member have actually read this bill if he is going to make an inane and idiotic statement like that? Can he have actually read the bill if he is going to make a stupid statement like that? Obviously not—obviously not. What the bill actually says is that the decisions made about what those lead areas are going to be has to be done in accordance with the strategy that all of the commissioners have to agree upon. The Justice and Electoral Committee actually added the words to amended section 8(1B): “… in accordance with the strategic direction and the general nature of activities determined by the Commission under section 7(1) …”. So it shows that what is going to guide its decision making in this is a strategy and I am very glad to see that because if it had not been in this bill it is exactly what New Zealand First would have moved to achieve.Those new priority areas will have to be allocated in accordance with the strategic direction determined by the commission as a whole. That is I think one of the things that is being fixed in the bill. We do not have the concern that some of the other parties have over the fact that the Minister is to be consulted over the strategy in those priority areas. There is nothing wrong with consultation if that is all it is—consultation. Consultation with the Minister of Justice is completely appropriate as it would be with anyone else who has a direct interest but consultation does not mean direction. Direction would be inappropriate and I am sure that if direction was attempted with that commission it would be rejected. So I do not see an issue with that either.The issue that I want to end on is simply this: the bill does fix something else in that it makes sure that the people appointed will be suitable people for the lead areas. This is something that I would like the Green Party in particular to consider because I know that it is especially concerned about disability issues and I have great respect for its expertise in that area. But it says that you have to have a commissioner whose only job is to do that. I do not think that is necessarily good for the commission and I think that as long as suitable people are selected then there is not going to be a problem. If you look at new section 13 inserted by clause 9 you will see that the Minister has to have regard not just to their own personal opinion but to some specified criteria. The first is an understanding of the principles and practice relating to the relevant priority area—the relevant priority area; secondly an appreciation of the issues in the area internationally; and thirdly an ability to carry out the functions specified in new section 16 which itself has actually been substituted to ensure skills and leadership ability and the ability to contribute to public debate. So if you look at all of those criteria together I am sure that this regime will result in a more effective and more efficient Human Rights Commission where people will have specified roles leadership to exercise special expertise backing that up and they will also however work together as a commission on everything. I think that one of the defects in the existing legislation is that it did not make that very clear.I think that this is a prescription for a much much better Human Rights Commission one that will work together in an integrated way and one that will understand what each area is doing and yet at the same time will mean that that leadership that is necessary in those priority areas will still be exercised. So I think that is a great balance. It is a big step forward. I do not for the life of me understand why either the Labour or the Green Party are opposing it because it is good legislation. We do not hesitate to say so when that is true and we will be voting for it.