Shanks Katrina: Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill — First Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17294] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise tonight and speak to the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill. New Zealand signed the convention at the United Nations on 30 March 2007 along with 80 other States. Since then 129 States have signed the convention and 28 States have ratified it. The convention does not create new rights for disabled people. Instead it builds on conventional understandings of what is required to implement existing human rights as they relate to disabled people. 
When signing the convention in March 2007 the Hon Ruth Dyson stated: “It is important to bring the Convention into force as quickly as possible so as to fill the gaps that exist without it and to redress some of the discrimination and injustices that persons with disabilities have faced over many years.” Yet legislation was introduced into Parliament only in July 2008. Disability is a significant issue for New Zealand and for many New Zealanders. The 2006 New Zealand disability survey estimated for example that 414000 disabled people—one in 10 of all New Zealanders—relied on some form of disability support. Of these about 105000 people needed daily help with tasks such as preparing meals shopping housework bathing or dressing. A further 308000 people need an assistance device or help with heavier or more difficult household tasks. 
Most disabled people live at home with a small proportion living in community-based residential services. Although most support is provided by family friends and other people in the community disabled people can also receive a range of Government-funded support through a range of Government agencies to help them live as others do at home and in the wider community. This ranges from support with household and personal care to support for education and employment and to move around the community. Much of the support is provided directly by paid and unpaid caregivers but also it can include items of equipment and home and motor vehicle modifications. 
Over the past 50 years there has been a considerable shift in the way that disability and disability supports are thought about. This shift has been away from the medical model of disability and an emphasis on charity towards disabled people to a focus on human rights for disabled people and the social model of disability. Under the medical model disabled people are seen as having various illnesses and diseases that require intervention especially by people with specialist medical knowledge. This leads for example to many services being provided through hospitals and being delivered by health professionals. At its extreme this model can lead to some disabled people being removed from society because they are perceived as being unable to function effectively. 
Associated with this was the notion that some disabled people were more deserving and therefore entitled to support. The human rights approach focuses on disabled people being recognised as having the same human rights as all other members of society. This led to notions such as mainstreaming and normalising the lives of disabled people with implications for disabled support. Disability was included as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993 and in 2001 it was extended to cover discrimination in Government services. Then in 2007 the Government signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
In 2001 the New Zealand Disability Strategy was developed in collaboration with disabled people and their representative organisations and was based on the social model of disability. It has a vision of a fully inclusive society in which people with impairment live in “a society that highly values our lives and continually enhances our full participation.” This strategy emphasises that improvements for disabled people will arise from changes in societal attitudes and in their environment as well as improvements in disability supports themselves. 
The type of pressure for change is not unique to New Zealand. For example  
Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People 
 set out a programme of initiatives for improving disability supports in response to serious concerns that had emerged in the United Kingdom. That document had a strong focus on improving the lives of disabled people through moving to individualised funding and supporting disabled people to work. 
In 2001 New Zealand moved in a positive direction with the New Zealand Disability Strategy but unfortunately there has been limited progress in implementing this strategy. Firstly the disability strategy is given insufficient priority within Government agencies. This is reflected in various types of issues. No Government ministry has overall responsibility for policy funding and implementation. This means there has been a lack of guidance and that has led to approaches to implementation that are inconsistent with each other. 
Although central government agencies are required to have disability strategy implementation plans there is a lack of a national implementation plan that applies to local and central government. The monitoring of the strategy is not robust enough and its coverage does not extend to all Crown entities local authorities disability support providers and all community organisations. Second there is still inadequate involvement of disabled people in decision-making processes at all levels. Third there continue to be negative attitudes towards disabled people within society which many disabled people see as the single biggest barrier to disabled people leading an everyday life and achieving full participation in society. 
These attitudes are a reflection of such things as society continuing to do things in ways that exclude disabled people and disabled people having difficulty finding employment. Nowhere does it tell us who is accountable for the ongoing difficulties although it states we should improve the disability-related accountability of Government agencies. It seems there is far too much emphasis on holding others accountable and no indication of how Government agencies themselves will be held accountable. 
We can have as many strategies and conventions as we want but this country needs commitment to implement change. So why is this country in a worse position when it comes to workforce training than ever before despite the creation of such things as Careerforce? Why is there no cross-departmental strategy to implement the national disability strategy 5 years after it was launched? Who will take responsibility for seeing that families and people with disabilities are not passed endlessly from one place to another? How will the issue of the very significant funding discrepancies to support people with high needs in everyday services be addressed? Why can we not develop an effective national developmental evaluation programme that is cost-effective does not involve endless duplication and is neither difficult nor costly compared with present processes? 
The disability community fairly vigorously stated its belief that when disability gets involved in competing with health it will inevitably come off second-best and that when it comes to resource allocation it is offered at best bureaucratic medical-model solutions to what are disability issues. Despite these changes the Health Committee during the disabilities inquiry heard of many problems related to ministry-funded disability supports and some of the stories heard by the committee were particularly distressing. 
The committee heard about the following types of things. Disability supports are funded and provided in ways that unnecessarily limit disabled people’s choice and control over the supports they receive and how they live their lives. Many submitters pointed to the National Health Committee’s report  
To Have an “Ordinary” Life  
which described the ways in which community-based residential services for people with intellectual disabilities limit their choice of controls over their lives. The disability supports that some people receive are not of an acceptable quality and expose them to unacceptable risks of harm. This was emphasised recently with the release of a report by the Health and Disability Commissioner which describes the deplorable quality of support that one person received in a residential service. Disabled people’s autonomy is not always respected and supported. 
The select committee heard about the lack of advocacy support inadequate complaints processes and inappropriate responses to concerns when matters of risks of harm are raised. There are gaps in the availability of disability supports. They unreasonably limit the ability of some disabled people to participate in the wider community. The select committee was told about gaps in the funding available for home and vehicle modifications. The disability strategy has not been implemented as much as disabled people would like or consider acceptable. The responsibility of human rights in terms of disabilities stops with central government. Without the ability to implement and make change conventions and strategies are just words. What disabled people actually want are actions. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.