Barclay Todd: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBarclay Todd: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 26 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2693. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.