Prasad Rajen: Human Rights Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionPrasad Rajen: Human Rights Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14126. Text is subject to correction.]Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): It is a pleasure taking a call on the Human Rights Amendment Bill particularly because I did have the role of human rights commissioner for 5 years and have lived through the previous manifestations of some of the things that are coming through here. But first it is important to say that this side of the House is not averse to improving human rights legislation and for that reason alone we will support this to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is inevitable that there will be occasions when the environment has changed so much that an Act as important as the Human Rights Act needs to be modernised and if that is what this amendment bill is trying to do then there is every reason why we should support it.However I would say this: in the area of human rights it is important for Parliament to reach consensus because these human rights are the rights we have by virtue of being human and there ought to be no dispute and no difference amongst the various sides of this House about the instrument we develop to promote those rights for our citizens. So we will work very hard in the select committee to achieve that consensus but fair warning is served by the Greens and also by us that we will want certain changes to this bill before it comes back in a form where we will support it. We will debate those matters at length during the select committee process.It is interesting that this bill recommends changes to the structure of the Human Rights Commission. Again there are no strong views that I have as to whether or not the structure proposed is a better one but it is certainly worth experimenting with. However what is to be reflected on is that the structure that is recommended in this bill is the old structure—the structure that was changed in 2000 by an amendment bill. The arguments made then were the exact opposite of the arguments being made here. The arguments were that we wanted to reduce the commissioners to a governance role and therefore part-time commissioners would be much better. That was part of the argument that the consultants made to give us the very structure that is now being changed. What is being recommended here is to go back to the old structure. Well if that is the experience of the Human Rights Commission then we should follow it. We want to hear the arguments in the select committee.But the regulatory impact statement however makes a very interesting argument. It says that the present way of appointing commissioners actually is inflexible and in fact this compromises the Minister to some extent. Well I will need some convincing that that is to be so. The regulatory impact statement actually says that the Minister himself—herself in this case—in determining who are to be the designatedcommissioners does not enable flexibility within the commission and it actually compromises the role of the Minister. Well it does not. I refuse to see that. However this is an argument that the Ministry of Justice has pursued for a long time. It has not liked the independent commissioners. In the 2000 reforms the only bit of my recommendation that was followed by the then Government was to retain the specialist commissioners and they have served us well. So the part-time commissioner change—we will see. Let us hear the arguments let us hear what is proposed and if this is a better governance structure then we will have no difficulties with that particular one.But there is another issue here. The explanatory note of the bill says this and I read: “a full-time position of Disability Rights Commissioner within the Commission will be established.” The bill does no such thing. It actually does not do that. So why does the explanatory note say that that is what the bill does? The bill actually distinguishes no specialist commissioners. What it does is it establishes generic commissioners to be given designated roles but they will not be called those roles; they will simply have a generic responsibility. That is where we begin to dig into the reasons behind some of the changes being proposed here and we do not support just generic commissioners. We support the specialist commissioners because in every case those specialist commissioners have been very very effective—incredibly effective. Look at the work of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. She was one of the most successful—Sue Moroney: The previous one.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: —the previous one—commissioners we have had. She was so successful. Why are we doing away with that? The sector that advocates the particular area actually in a sense identified with that role and had ownership with it. The same can be said for race relations people. At a time when New Zealand society is diversifying to the extent that it is and there is so much identification amongst the diverse communities with that particular role this Government is trying to do away with that role. Why? It is for no reason. The Disability Rights Commissioner is the same. That role must be retained—I agree with the Greens. So we will argue for that in the select committee.We wonder why it is that the Government is doing this because the real issue in this commission is not the specialist commissioners. The real issue is the inability of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to actually manage this commission in such a way that it all works well. So there is a governance problem—the problem of the role of the chief commissioner—that is being addressed in one of the most dramatic ways possible by doing away with the very roles in the commission that are the most effective. I would rather the select committee really tussled with how to underscore the responsibility of the chief commissioner. I would like to see that role strengthened if that is the real issue. So we will be asking the select committee why the changes and what it is they are expected to achieve. If we can be convinced then we will want the officials to rewrite this piece so that that role is strengthened—the role of the chief commissioner. It does have an implication for the Minister to appoint chief commissioners who have a human rights background. In order for us to have a commission to operate in the way in which these recommendations seek then indeed that particular role has to be changed appropriately.There is a lot here that is below the surface. As is typical of the Ministry of Justice it has proposed a structural change. It has written its regulatory impact statements and in fact there is still much more to be thought through and done in order to keep those things in this commission that are good which are the specialist commissioners. We have no objection to the number of full-time commissioners. That is fine. The role of the chief commissioner—let us face that head-on and ask why we need to strengthenthat; if so what is the best way of doing it? What we do not want is for the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater because if we did that we would lose the very things that are important to us. So with those comments I bring my speech to an end. Thank you.Debate interrupted.