Human Rights Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHuman Rights Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 26 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2689. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Human Rights Amendment BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 11 March.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare nui. It is delightful to pick up the pieces of a piece of legislation that we will be opposing but I want to talk about those pieces. Human rights are a vital part of any society in which there is any form of equity and justice. Unfortunately this dog’s breakfast of a bill will not advance human rights and this is a concern.I think one of the questions that we should always ask at the beginning of a piece of legislation when it reaches its third reading and has been through the processes is: did the process indicate—to the select committee in particular—that anyone wanted this legislation? There was no clarity around who is driving this bill. There was no clear reason for this bill. There was an underlying agenda about getting rid of the titles of the positions but in terms of a public call or a sector call or a human rights community call for changes to the roles within the Human Rights Commission that was not apparent. And sothe question remains after going through that process: why are we doing this when so many people do not like it? Why is it necessary and who will benefit? They are important questions which we need to answer.This bill is definitely out of step with the human rights community as was apparent in many of the submissions and it has got two major flaws which make it unsupportable. One is the disestablishment of statutory positions and the creation of very broad commissioner roles without a specialist focus and without a commitment to a specialist focus which is disturbing because we really need these positions to be strong. I heard in the previous debate on the second reading a couple of weeks ago some very bizarre arguments from the Government benches about justifying getting rid of positions like the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissionerbecause it is against human rights to actually name discrimination and marginalisation and because it would be much better if there were these generic commissioners with no titles because people who experience discrimination would not then feel labelled and uncomfortable. When I heard that argument I thought: “Oh my God these people don’t actually have any idea what human rights is and they have no understanding of the importance of a framework where the roles are clearly delineated so that they can be held to account.”The role of the Human Rights Commission is to hold the Government to account. The role of the human rights community and the marginalised people in our community is to make sure that they are represented through robust and specific statutory positions such as the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner the Race Relations Commissioner—which should actually be called the “Anti-Racism Commissioner”; that would be a better name because that is what it is—and a disability commissioner. We in the Green Party are very passionate about human rights and we really think that the Human Rights Commission needs to be strong unambiguous and specific in its representation of the specific marginalisations that it needs to challenge and in the rights that it needs to uphold. So this is very disturbing.The other issue is independence and the argument that I have heard from a number of speakers so far is that the language in the bill will not change the existing language in the Act that the current Human Rights Commission operates under. That may be true but we cannot just look at language; we have to look at context. So any requirement to consult the Minister around work priorities has to be seen in the context of what is happening now. What is happening now is that when the Human Rights Commission challenged the Government over the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation it got a slap on the wrist by the Prime Minister which is what we call “a chilling effect”. The Prime Minister actually said that the commission’s report—and it was a statutory function of the commission to make that report—was a poor piece of work that was submitted late and that the commission needed to do better if it was to continue to receive taxpayer funding.It is a very strong message from a Prime Minister to a small Human Rights Commission that dared to actually speak up on an issue of national importance—the privacy and rights of citizens—to be told that it had better do better if it wants to receive its funding. That is what I would call “a severe chilling effect” and it is really concerning. So whether or not the language of independence has been modified under this bill it remains that the Minister must be consulted around priorities and it remains that the Prime Minister of the current Government under which the commission must operate has stated that it had better watch out—that if it rocks the boat it may lose its funding. There is nothing more chilling to an official than to be told that they might lose their funding—even if they are supposedly an independent commissioner.One of the reasons I am passionate about this bill is that it was supposedly about establishing a full-time disability commissioner. Originally I had a member’s bill selected from the ballot and it was to establish a disability commissioner. The sector wanted a disability commission. I understand that because there are multiple issues of discrimination and marginalisation around disability. But in the current context none of us thought that was achievable. I thought that a disability commissioner at the Human Rights Commission was achievable so I had a member’s bill. The day that it was due to come to the floor of the House the Government announced—and I am very pleased it did; and I know that a lot of the work on this was done by Tariana Turia—that it would set up a disability commissioner a 0.8 position at the Human Rights Commission. So this legislation is supposedly about mandating that position but it actually does not and it does not make it full time and it does not make it clear that we are going to have distinct roles. What it does is blur the definitions and actually give more power to the Chief Commissioner.The problem with that is that the Chief Commissioner may or may not over time and under different regimes represent and understand the specific and very different rights and needs of different groups. Anyone who knows anything about human rights will know that just because a person has a grasp of or an experience in say disability rights it does not make them an expert in addressing issues of racism. And just because somebody is an expert in racism it does not mean that they have a gender analysis that will support the rights of women. That is why those appointments—those commissioners with their statutory roles and statutory responsibilities—are so critical to human rights. That is why this bill is doing this country a disservice: we actually need those experts—those people who have a depth of analysis in their specific field—to work in that field. We have met with the commission and we know that it is overwhelmed with disability issues. We know that it should be more than 0.8—there should be a full-time commissioner. So it is actually critical that we do not roll back progress on human rights by muddying the waters by blurring the roles and by confusing the public about the essential need to differentiate between the different types of marginalisation that can be experienced. It is just not the same for everybody and that is the point and that is what is being lost under this bill.We have a number of concerns about this subsuming of positions and the disability community itself also made a submission on the bill in which it was concerned about the fact that 30 percent of complaints to the Human Rights Commission are related to disability—and this is underreported because people are too scared too tired or too unaware to report. So at least on that basis maybe one-third of human rights should be dedicated to addressing disability issues. The title really matters so it is really important that we actually commit to disability rights. I even think we should clarify the role around women’s rights and not call it equal employment opportunities because it is unclear and I think my colleague will probably speak some more about some of the specific issues around that.But it is really important that we have clarity and independence. One of the key aspects of the 1993 Paris principles on national human rights institutions is independence from the Government. Unfortunately if you look at Amnesty International’s latest report we are not doing so well in human rights. This country used to be a leader but now we are not. We now have 50 percent of our prison population being Māori while 15 percent of the population is Māori. Internationally that kind of issue is not unnoticed. Domestic violence is at record levels and that is not unnoticed either. So we very much need to maintain the Human Rights Commission as it is and make it stronger. But this bill I am afraid to say makes it weaker and we cannot support it.PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I take this call on behalf of New Zealand First and as we indicated in the first reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill we will continue to support it. The major change concerns the roles of the commissioners and the previous speaker Catherine Delahunty has alluded to that. Although there will no longer be statute-appointed designated commissioners there must be a commissioner other than the Chief Human Rights Commissioner appointed to lead the work in each of the priority areas. Those areas are disability rights equal employment opportunities and race relations. The last speaker made reference to the need to have people with a sense of qualification in those particular areas and yet we have a Race Relations Commissioner whose claim to fame as I understand it was being a world-renowned squash player. But since her appointment albeit attracting some criticism at the time I think she is doing an excellent job. It just proves that anyone who has the commitment to carry out the duties that they are charged with can do an excellent job. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner is also able to designate a commissioner to lead the work in other priority areas of human rights after consultation with the Minister of Justice and the other commissioners.New Zealand First does not agree with those parties that have concerns about the loss of statutorily designated specialised commissioners. We agree with the Government’s new approach which still requires the commissioner to lead in priority areas while also allowing more flexibility for them to work in other areas. This does not mean any loss of quality or focus in the work of lead commissioners. It is a more efficient and more effective use of their time and expertise in our view. In respect of new priority areas the Justice and Electoral Committee has added these words in new section 8(1B) in clause 6: “… in accordance with the strategic direction and the general nature of activities determined by the Commission under section 7(1) …”. This allows the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to designate new priority areas but only in accordance with the strategic direction and the general nature of activities as determined jointly by the commissioners under section 7(1).Chief Human Rights Commissioners can designate new priority areas only in accordance with the strategic direction determined by the commission as a whole. New Zealand First agrees with that approach. It allows for the specialisation needed in the three priority areas but with the limitation that the commission’s strategy be adhered to. An amendment to clause 11 reinforces one of the functions of the chief commissioner being to include allocating spheres of responsibility for priority areas under the strategy. New Zealand First disagrees with those parties in respect of the requirement for the Minister to be consulted on the strategy and priority areas. We believe that there is nothing wrong with that. Consultation is not direction. The commission does not have to do what Ministers suggest but it is appropriate for the Minister to have significant input.However we are concerned that there is no special priority area for age-related human rights issues and there are many examples. I am sad to report that ageism is rife in New Zealand and from time to time we hear references made to that very issue here in this House. People are discriminated against on the basis of age right across the employment spectrum. This party—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am reluctant to do this but over the last month or so we have worked quite hard with members to invite them to deliver not read their speeches. I have heard the member before and I know he can do that but he is not doing it now. It would be good if he could deliver a speech that is not read. Thank you.PITA PARAONE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. With respect I am quite happy to give you my notes to show that I am not reading a speech.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK. It was just the impression you were giving.PITA PARAONE: As I said earlier on there are many examples of ageism and the comments made in this House from to time have certainly been aimed at a particular member. I should say that that particular member over the last 3 weeks has showed just how wrong those people who have criticised him because of his age have been about his ability to behave in a more what shall I say active younger—I will not say virile—Richard Prosser: Energetic.PITA PARAONE: —energetic—in a more energetic way than a lot of his colleagues here in the House. We do not believe that ageism should be ignored and it should be a particular issue for the commissioners who will be appointed under this piece of legislation. New Zealand First wants age discrimination identified as a human rights issue and I think that that will certainly fall out once this legislation is in place.Comment has been made about the concern as to the number of commissioners. The bill provides for a minimum of four and a maximum of five commissioners to be appointed. The question of course is whether this will be sufficient. We believe that it will. It may provide some extra workload but experience and history show that those people who have been appointed to similar positions are able to undertake the task. Their appointment has been as a result of having knowledge about their ability to do their job. I just want to comment as to the need for the appointment of suitable people for the lead areas and to quote what Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rutherford said: “as there will be fewer commissioners those who appoint Commissioners will need to ensure those in key roles reflect the diversity of New Zealand.” I refer to the appointment of Dame Susan Devoy as Race Relations Commissioner. If her experience as an international squash player—squash champion I should also add—is any indication of the diversity of her skills and the role she has had to undertake as Race Relations Commissioner then I think we have it within our hands to ensure that diversity is in fact recognised.The bill also provides that the commission must report on existing or proposed legislation. I think that is an excellent proposal under this legislation. It ensures that there is a sense of independence—that independent view—provided to those of us who are responsible for enacting the legislation. I think that should be commended. In conclusion I just want to reiterate the support of New Zealand First for this bill. Kia ora.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): I just wanted to pick up on a few points that the previous speaker Pita Paraone made and agree with them. It sort of relates more specifically to the cross-functionality of some of the roles and the flexibilities that this bill brings into play whereby the Chief Human Rights Commissioner can identify and allocate roles and responsibilities to a number of people but not necessarily under the titles that they had before. I think although Ms Delahunty was saying—and I take the point—that if you have got a Race Relations Commissioner and a commissioner for women’s rights and all these other various highly specialised roles without experienced backgrounds in those particular disciplines then it can be difficult if not impossible in some cases to perform the functions of that role to its utmost ability.I suppose the point the previous speaker made which I want to agree with is that a bit of diversity and breadth of experience across a number of different activities can provide a positive gain in terms of the undertaking of the role. And potentially as long as somebody has got at least some exposure in that space or a background in that line of work across one of those roles they can bring that skill and experience to a broader cross-set of roles in terms of the highly specialised commissioners that are being talked about at the moment. I would have to agree with the previous speaker from New Zealand First that a breadth of experience across a number of different sectors and not just a siloed background can in fact enhance the commission’s joint ability to perform the functions and responsibilities that it has been tasked with on behalf of New Zealanders both within New Zealand and on the international stage.As we know the Human Rights Amendment Bill amends the Human Rights Act 1993 for two primary reasons. It enables the establishment of a full-time commissioner with responsibility for leadership in the disability rights space within the Human Rights Commission and it also makes changes to the role and structure of the commission to strengthen its performance. Those were the remarks I was making just before.I think fundamentally we believe that all people are born free and equal in dignity and in human rights and as a Parliament and particularly as a Government at the moment we have to do the best we can to ensure that all New Zealanders have the flexibilities and freedoms to operate in life without unfair pressure from anybody else who might be trying to influence their ability and freedom to live their lives.I think looking particularly at the disability rights aspect of this bill where a full-time human rights commissioner position with responsibility for leadership in disability rights will be established the creation of this role requires an amendment to the Act as it currently enables commissioners’ formalised leadership in only two areas—first race relations and second equal employment opportunities. This Act does not currently allow for the creation and formalisation of leadership roles such as in disability rights outside of those priorities.I think going back to the point I was trying to make before we are trying to build in a bit of flexibility to the current Act to allow the commission to tackle some pretty complex and cross-boundary challenges that we are experiencing in a pretty sophisticated world now more so than potentially what would have existed in 1993 when the initial Act was established while at the same time honouring our responsibilities to try to ensure that we are allowing the commission to act in the best interests. I think it is a partnership between the Government particularly the Minister of Justice and the commission to ensure that we are appropriately covering our bases and providing for the ability to look after some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable people in some cases and ensuring that the voices of the commissioners in the various hats they will be wearing from time to time have clear air to be able to demonstrate their view through to New Zealanders.I think just going back to the changes of the role and structure of the commission where it currently provides for full-time and part-time commissioners it will be changed to permit the composition of full-time commissioners only. However it will allow a part-time commissioner appointment where it is considered appropriate—for example because the most suitable candidate is not available full time. That is another step that we will be trying to take to enhance stability in order to get the best people for the role. They might not necessarily be siloed in one particular discipline of human rights but it creates the ability to get people who are talented and multifaceted to become involved and provide their voices.I think some of the previous appointments demonstrate that to heighten the relevance and the importance of the commission we should try to attract New Zealanders who are respected by the wider public to perform those duties. I think Dame Susan Devoy is probably a perfect example of that. She is widely known and came into the role with a well-known background already. Performing a slightly different role as Race Relations Commissioner enables her to be able to speak to a wider range of New Zealanders and she has the respect that she has already earned from previous roles she has held in life.Another aspect of the bill is that the titles of Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner will no longer be used. Instead they will all be appointed as human rights commissioners. I think that goes to the point where they are working across boundaries and across disciplines in a number of cases. Where you have got a human rights case from a strictly race relations point of view sometimes there might be a women’s rights aspect involved as well so it makes sense to be able to have specialists wearing both hats in order to be able to tackle the various problems that come about.I think it is important to note that there is no major change intended to the specialised commissioner role in this bill. It is not the intention to try to devolve the experience in the background of the various people who are appointed to these roles; quite the opposite actually. It is the intention to try to enhance their ability to perform their roles in an ever increasingly complex world.I just wanted to touch on the commission’s functions which will be revised to better reflect its current responsibilities. That just goes into part of the developing world and the developing way in which the commission can operate and undertake its very important responsibilities and duties. The changes in the bill are also being put in place in order to promote the development of new international instruments of human rights; namely to promote and monitor compliance by New Zealand in this regard and to allow the Government to better report on performance in this regard.The changes to the commission will better respond to emerging human rights issues and will do so in line with the Government’s focus around better public services. Although the role of the human rights commissioner is an independent role I think the role that the Government can play in that regard is to ensure that the legislation allowing the commissioners to perform their duties is as enabling as possible.Just going back as part of human rights more generally and particularly disability rights the education Minister has put a huge focus on special education since she has been Minister by retaining the special education portfolio within education. The issue of disability rights is being filtered across Government and the various Ministers responsible for that space right down to education as well. On that note I think I will wind it up there. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green): As my colleague Catherine Delahunty has noted it is with notable sadness that we will be voting against this bill. As Catherine Delahunty mentioned she had a bill in the ballot that was responding to years of campaigning by disability communities asking for a disability commission. Catherine working with them liaising with them and realising the political environment realised that it might be possible through a member’s bill to get a disability commissioner if not a commission. After her bill was pulled from the ballot and was about to come into the House the Government came to her and said “Look we’re on to it. We’ll do it.” and it said that it would set up in effect a disability commissioner.That is the origin of this legislation. Yet we are unable to support it because that is not what it does. It does not mention a disability commissioner despite Catherine Delahunty agreeing to take her bill off the table. This legislation actually removes the possibility of that title and of the disability community being able to be assured that there is somebody there in whom they could see themselves and their experience reflected whom they could know understood their lived experience and whom they could connect with and make complaints and advance their rights through.We have seen the Government—which is even worse to me—use that as an opportunity to undermine our fundamental human rights framework: to remove the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner as a special specific delegation to remove the Race Relations Commissioner as a specific delegation and to remove the disability commissioner Catherine Delahunty had negotiated we thought. So it is very disturbing. We have heard from the member who spokepreviously Todd Barclay about how this provides more flexibility because the human rights context has become far more complex. How? How have human rights become more complex? Experience of intersectionality and people’s cross-connected experience of discrimination have always existed. Our environment has not changed in that sense but the need for communities to see themselves and their experience reflected within the commission remains the same. This legislation removes that. It potentially reduces the number of commissioners down to four—four full-time positions where we now have three full-time ones and four part-time ones. So that is a cut on top of what I have heard have been very significant cuts in staffing while this supposedly independent commission has been seeking to meet this Government’s targets of cost saving in an environment where human rights are under threat.I would like to specifically mention the submission on this bill that was provided by the CEDAW Coalition of New Zealand NGOs. That is a coalition of all the significant women’s organisations in this country—the organisations that are working with women and that have the concern of women’s human rights at the heart of their work. The coalition said that “The loss of the positions as statutory designations and the minimisation of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner functions has no evident public support and will attract international human rights treaty body condemnation and concern.” If you are thinking that maybe they do not really know the details of this and the intricacies of the Human Rights Commission then I will let you know that the primary presenter of that submission was the previous Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner herself Professor Judy McGregor. She knows what is needed she knows the environment and she is deeply concerned. This is specifically in an environment where they had particular concerns around equal employment opportunities and gender pay gaps because New Zealand has dropped in terms of our performance internationally on measures around women’s status. In the global gender gap report which is done by quite a conservative organisation the World Economic Forum New Zealand has dropped two places from fifth to seventh from 2012 to 2013 and this year it has dropped further back to 13th.We have removed the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner in this legislation—the designation—closed the pay and employment equity unit within the former Department of Labour abandoned two equal pay investigations and the list goes on. We need to be sure we can protect our human rights. Thank you.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I would like to take a quick call on this bill which Labour opposes. The only two times that I can recall the Prime Minister actually mentioning human rights was the other day when he accused those who did not support his sending troops to Iraq as somehow not supporting human rights. I cannot quite understand how he came to that conclusion. It was the same week that it was revealed that he had asked President Rajapaksa—the man who was President of Sri Lanka and was responsible for not looking at why 50000 Tamils happened to die in Sri Lanka during the later stages of the war there—to New Zealand to watch the Cricket World Cup. He was not re-elected and so he is not coming.The second time he mentioned human rights was during the Government Communications Security Bureau bill when he told members of the Human Rights Commission that they needed to pull their socks up—that what they were saying did not agree with what he was saying. This is an independent organisation that is tasked to give independent advice and information and it was quite within its rights in that particular context to come to the conclusions that it did.That is part of what I believe this bill is doing which is eroding our standing in human rights. We are taking away two of the most important human rights commissioners: the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner—whom we need in this country because we can actually see the gender pay gap for example widening—and we are also taking away the Race Relations Commissioner in the person of Dame Susan Devoy. If there is one issue one human rights commissioner that is needed it is that—and that is the reason why the New Zealand Federation of Multicultural Councils came out in opposition to this bill. In Auckland where 50 percent of our population will be non-European in the next 10 years this is one area at least where people can have some solace and some confidence that we are standing up for them and we are taking that away.The third thing that I want to mention apart from the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and the Race Relations Commissioner being removed is that under this legislation the Human Rights Commission will have to come up with a work plan—a work plan to put in front of the Minister of Justice to get the Minister’s sign-off in order for it to be able to go forward. That I believe violates the Paris principles on which this Human Rights Commission is founded. We should not allow our Human Rights Commission to have to go to a Minister to get permission in order for it to be able to have that work plan approved.This piece of legislation is touted by the Government as being a means of improving its efficiency as if it is some sort of market that needs to be more efficient. It is not a market but what we will be seeing is a lessening of the number of staff and a lessening of the ability for the commission to have real focus on the issues that really matter. It will reduce the visibility of the office from what it is today and it will reduce public confidence that they will be able to go to the Human Rights Commission and get real defence and backing for what they believe is discrimination across a number of areas. Instead we will have an amorphous group of people understaffed and unable to carry out the functions that they have been able to carry out up to now.This is not something that is broken. It is not broken; we do not need to fix it. We need to get behind it. We need to make sure that it does conform to the Paris principles that it is fully independent and that it can discharge its duties as it should do with regard to race relations. That is so important in places like Auckland where I am. We need to make sure that it does stand up for equal opportunities that it is not eroded by the lessening of the number of staff and that it does its job properly. This legislation will not allow it to do its job properly. This will simply weaken what we have today and not stand up for what we need in this country. Thank you.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. As the saying goes we are all different we are all individuals. We all face issues and problems that are unique to us and the Government is doing everything possible to address these issues for everyone old and young. One overlying issue that our communities face is equal opportunities and resources for disabled people. The Government is taking various initiatives to address that area but there is a lot more that needs to be done.Actually I am really stunned to hear the contributor who just spoke David Shearer. He believes that this bill is about eroding the Human Rights Commission. It is not about that. This bill the Human Rights Amendment Bill makes changes to the structure and function of the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission is an independent Crown entity and it will remain an independent Crown entity. But we need this legislation to bring the function of disabled people’s rights into the Human Rights Commission.The bill is in line with the National Party’s focus on delivering better public services. This bill will amend the Human Rights Act 1993. This is to enable the establishment of a full-time commissioner who will be dedicated to disability rights. The commissioner will have full-time responsibility for disability rights. The creation of this role requires the amendment of the Act because currently the Act enables the commission to have only two leadership roles: one in race relations and the other in equal employment opportunities. The current Act does not allow for the creation of another leadership role in other areas including disability rights.The bill also enables changes to be made to the role and structure of the commission to strengthen its function. The structure will be changed to permit only full-time commissioners. There will be a transition period as there are some part-time commissioners currently within the Human Rights Commission. If you look at the current structure of the commission we have three full-time commissioners. There is one chief commissioner and two specialised commissioners and we have up to five part-time commissioners. All these positions will be changed to full time with the minimum number of commissioners to be four and the maximum number to be five. There will be one chief commissioner and then there will be three commissioners dedicated to these three specialised leadership roles: race relations equal employment opportunities and disability rights.This restructuring also enables the changing of the titles of these commissioners. The Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner will be called human rights commissioners. So the question arises—and I heard the reason given for that—of whether by changing the title of these commissioners there is the perception that there will be a compromise of their role. It is not true. The bill is to legislate that there must be a commissioner appointed to lead the work in each of these priority areas and that is very clear in this bill.New Zealand endorsed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 26 September 2008. Article 33 of the convention requires States to “maintain strengthen designate or establish within the State Party a framework including one or more independent mechanisms as appropriate to promote protect and monitor implementation of the present Convention.” So to implement these requirements the bill is to amend the Human Rights Commission which has been given a broad role to promote and protect and perform the role under this convention. To deliver this role efficiently and address disability rights a full-time commissioner is required and that is why this amendment is required to the Act.If we look at the primary functions of the commission under section 5 of the Human Rights Act these functions include: “[(1)(a)] to advocate and promote respect for and an understanding and appreciation of human rights in New Zealand society; and (b) to encourage the maintenance and development of harmonious relations between individuals and among the diverse groups in New Zealand society … [(2)(a)] to be an advocate for human rights and to promote and protect by education and publicity respect for and observance of human rights: (b) to encourage and co-ordinate programmes and activities in the field of human rights: (c) to make public statements in relation to any matter affecting human rights”.Looking at these functions the Human Rights Commission is the right entity to deliver for disability rights. As I said there is this perception that the removal of those titles is actually going to compromise these leadership roles but the fact is that the change of title is not going to negatively affect or impact in any way on the commission’s leadership role in protecting and promoting race relations and equal employment opportunities. The responsible commissioner in each area will be the face of and point of contact for these areas. So these changes will make a real difference in the lives of disabled people. These changes will actually strengthen the performance of the commission in these three leadership roles and they also give that flexibility to respond to emerging human rights issues.Disability can be caused for various reasons. There are different types of disability and there is quite a bit for us to learn to see how we can respond and to address those issues. Both long-term and short-term disabilities need to be addressed and we need to make sure that equal opportunities are provided to the disabled too. The National Government is committed to helping our disabled people understand their lives and understand the challenges that come with that. We need to make sure that people with disabilities are heard and we also need to structure our services to be able to provide for their needs. This bill is about providing that special focus for disabled people so that the issues around equality can be heard and addressed.The amendment to the Act will enable the rights of the disabled to be protected. Where possible depending on the disability it is important that the right to education and the right to employment are also taken care of. This will depend on the kind of disability that the person suffers from. We know that it is against the law to discriminate against anyone but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done and there needs to be a very special focus which we want to bring through this amendment to the Act. Disabled New Zealanders should have the same rights as any other person in our society because they are also an important part of our society. It is a fact that many disabled people do not take part in numerous activities or in as many activities as they would like to.Disability can come to individuals at any time but there is some correlation with age. With ageing the chances of disability increase. The disability can also be the result of another illness and sometimes there are cases of more than one type of disability. Disability leaves people with fewer choices in life and poor access to services. We also know that the Human Rights Commission receives numerous complaints about discrimination on the grounds of disability.Living with disability is not easy so it is important that we make sure we provide all that is identified to support disabled people. The National Government is working hard to get disabled people into work and also to provide other kinds of help that are needed to help them to live independent lives. The Government through the Ministry of Social Development is conducting a trial to assist disabled people and people with health conditions into work. Employers are actually critical in providing disabled people with this opportunity to get into the workforce. This is all about removing those barriers for disabled people ensuring that like all New Zealanders they are able to live good lives.The great news is that we have seen some improvement in the employment of disabled people with 61 percent of disabled people aged 15 to 64 working in paid jobs in 2013. The employment rate of all disabled adults including those aged over 64 was 45 percent in 2013 up slightly from 40 percent in 2001. Disabled people want to have jobs they want to support their families and they want to have normal lives. In summary the Human Rights Amendment Bill is about protecting the rights of disabled people by restructuring the Human Rights Commission to deliver for disabled people as well as in the race relations and equal opportunities areas. This will also help the commission to be in a better position to respond to emerging human rights issues. So I support the bill. Thank you.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora. Ngā mihi e te Whare. It is my pleasure to speak on the Human Rights Amendment Bill in its second reading. Labour opposes this bill and we oppose the bill for two distinct reasons.The first reason is that the Human Rights Commission should not have to consult with the Minister about its priorities. Currently the Human Rights Commission is an independent Crown entity. It is an independent Crown entity along with organisations such as the Electoral Commission the Health and Disability Commissioner the Law Commission the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Privacy Commissioner. Why are they independent? Because sometimes their investigations actually mean they have a responsibility to hold the Government accountable. That is the reason those entities exist in our society—to hold the Government accountable. Having to report to the Minister would make them a Crown agent or an autonomous Crown entity and what do those entities have to do within our public system? They either have to give effect or have regard to Government policy. That is the fundamental problem we have with that part of this legislation.The second reason Labour is opposing this legislation is that it disestablishes the Race Relations Commissioner and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. I would like to take us on a bit of a historical journey because when we look at how those positions were created within our society they actually all go back to the United Nations. The United Nations was formed on 24 October 1945 and as an international body what the United Nations has actually done since its creation is develop conventions. The first such convention that is relevant to the piece of legislation before the House today is the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. That was adopted by the United Nations on 21 December 1965. New Zealand signed that convention on 25 October 1966 and to ratify that as a country what did we do? We established the Race Relations Office actually and from the Race Relations Office we created the Race Relations Commissioner. So that particular office then held us as a country accountable to the fact that we ratified this international UN document.The second instrument that is relevant to this conversation we are having this afternoon is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That was adopted by the United Nations on 16 December 1966. New Zealand signed that covenant on 12 November 1968. How did we embody within our society our commitment to that particular covenant? Actually we created the Human Rights Act in 1977. So the Human Rights Commission and the human rights commissioners were created because they displayed internationally our commitment to these UN conventions or covenants. In 2001 however we did merge those two—the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination and civil and political rights—when we brought the Race Relations Conciliator and the Human Rights Commission together.The next convention that is relevant to our discussions here in the House is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. That was adopted by the United Nations on 18 December 1979. New Zealand signed that on 10 January 1985 but in fact in 1984 we had already established the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Actually I would like to take this opportunity to say happy 30th anniversary to the Ministry for Women. I know that there is an event tonight and tomorrow and it is to signify our commitment to that international convention and New Zealand’s commitment to ensuring that the rights of women actually have a very specific vehicle within our Public Service to give effect obviously to our commitment to the equality between men and women.In 1994 when the Human Rights Amendment Act was enacted we actually created the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner—so that is how that position again displayed our commitment to that particular convention.The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted by the United Nations on 13 December 2006. We signed that convention on 30 March 2007 and we ratified that on 26 September. I guess if there is one small area within the bill that we can acknowledge it is that what this bill creates is a priority focus on disability rights and so a particular commissioner will have the mandate for representing the rights of those in our community who have disability as a part of their identity and their life here in our country. I would just like to highlight that 22 of the 42 submitters actually supported that focus.So what this bill is going to do essentially is have a chief commissioner four to five other commissioners and then focus areas will be disability equal employment opportunities and race relations. If that is the rationale or logic for those particular focus areas I actually want the Minister in this House to consider the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which was adopted by the United Nations on 13 September 2007. This Government actually announced support for that on 20 April 2010 and I guess I have to stand here as a member of the Labour Party which was the Government when this particular UN declaration was adopted and acknowledge that at that point in time we did not support that particular declaration—neither did Australia neither did Canada neither did the United States. But I am pleased to say now that the four countries I have just mentioned actually do now support this particular declaration. I probably should say why we did not because it was all about article 26 of that declaration and I will read it. It says: “Indigenous people have the right to the lands territories and resources which they have traditionally owned occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” It is appropriate that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is here in the House because I think we—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard):I am going to interrupt the member and ask her to come back to something closer to the bill.LOUISA WALL: The reason I am highlighting this is because based on the logic of the Government there should actually be an indigenous rights commissioner. Based on the logic of this bill in the areas that I have identified there should be an indigenous rights commissioner. So my question and maybe in the Committee stage I will have an opportunity to ask the Minister—the focus for me is really about the specificity of the commissioners that we have and their relevance to international human rights conventions that New Zealand has signed up to since 1966 and whether or not that logic should be applied as we go into the future. Obviously—from my perspective—if we were going to futureproof this piece of legislation we would also look at the rights of LGBTI people because it seems within the international human rights framework that LGBTI people are one of the most marginalised and victimised people. Kia ora.Debate interrupted.