New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2)

We now move to debate on clause 3. This is debate on the principal Act—once again, a very narrow debate.

Thank you very much for letting me take a call on clause 3, which sets out the principal Act that this bill before us amends, and that is the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. The amendments that are set out in this bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill, are significant changes to the principal Act, and that is why on this side of the Chamber we would have preferred that this bill did not go through this House under urgency. This bill should have gone through the select committee process, and should have been referred to the Health Committee, because it is a significant change to the principal Act.

As was said in the debate on the previous clause, the commencement of this bill may be when the bill receives the Royal assent, but the effective change of the bill took place yesterday, on 16 May. That is significant because of the number of people who would have wanted to make submissions on this bill and who have been robbed of that opportunity, because this Government has decided to rush this piece of legislation through this House under urgency, with no select committee scrutiny at all. This does amend that principal Act. There would have been a lot of interest because this law change stems from a Human Rights Review Tribunal case. It is a case that also went through the High Court and, I understand, the Court of Appeal. So there has been significant public interest and a significant amount of time in the justice sector taken up by the events that took place to lead to this change in the law.

In terms of the changes that are being made in this bill to that principal Act, we would have preferred that there be the opportunity for select committee scrutiny. It would have given members of the public the opportunity to come and make submissions, as Chris Hipkins has said in the debate around clause 2. It would have given the Health Committee the potential opportunity to listen to those submissions and improve the bill, and improve the amendments that we are making to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. We are rushing through this piece of legislation and we are opening ourselves up to the risk of making a huge mistake in the way that we are changing the principal Act. It would have been much better for the time of this House for us to go away and do a proper job of changing this principal Act, for us to go out there and listen to the opinions of those people who are looking after family members with disabilities, those in the organisations that are also looking after those with disabilities, and those with legal backgrounds who know the ins and outs of this area, and to give them a chance to talk and give their opinions and their concerns, and make some amendments to try to improve the amendments that we are making to the principal Act.

These are significant changes to the principal Act, and the select committee process would give us the opportunity to look through some of the things and some of the impacts that would have been part of this legislation. It is in black and white here in the regulatory impact statement what it all means—it is in black and white here what this means. No one knows! Maybe that is a question I can put to the Minister in chair, the Minister of Health: what is actually in here that you have blacked out?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Well, you could read between the lines.

It has kept it all secret—I can read between the lines. This is the kind of bedtime reading that Tau Henare likes. Nice and easy, in black and white—nice and easy and in black in white.

But going back to the principal Act, though, this is a serious issue that affects thousands of Kiwi families who have been robbed of that chance to make some submissions to the principal Act—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What time are you going home tonight?

Whenever you are ready. The changes to this principal Act, because of their significance, should have gone through due process. That due process would have been, as someone has said before, for this bill to be introduced to the House. I am sure the Minister in the chair would then have referred it to the Health Committee, chaired by the very able and well-respected Dr Paul Hutchison—and in that select committee process many, many people would come in because of the significance of the changes to the principal Act, and give their submissions, and those amendments would be tabled in this Committee.

There are some serious changes to the way in which people can launch an appeal if they feel they are hard done by, by the fact that the Government says it can pay those family members who are caring for family with disabilities. There are significant changes that the Government has put in this bill around the way in which they are paid, the level they are paid at, and one very—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! It is the principal Act, not the contents of what is in the amendments. It is the principal Act.

Sorry, Mr Chairperson. But there is an amendment to the principal Act within this bill that allows those carers to be paid a much lower rate than those who are doing a similar job, who are being paid as employees, and who are not necessarily family members. That kind of change to the principal Act, I think, would be one of the issues that should have got very, very focused scrutiny by a select committee. I am sure that my friends in the press gallery or in the media would have loved the opportunity to listen to some of the submissions at a select committee hearing, given the significance of the amendments to the principal Act that we are talking about here.

I do want to stress again that this process does not seem right. This is a significant piece of principal legislation that we are changing. I just want to show you this regulatory impact statement again. We need to have a better process when we are changing major legislation, rather than just getting a complete page of blanked-out notes that show us—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—some of the changes to the principal Act. The principal Act is a major piece of legislation. We are looking for a select committee process. We are not sure whether we are going to get it, but maybe that is what the Government should have done.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to clarify something around your ruling about Ruth Dyson’s amendment to clause 2. You ruled it out of order—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! There is a point of order on. I am trying to hear it.

You ruled it out of order on the basis of Speaker’s ruling 117/2, which says “An amendment to a commencement date must provide certainty about when the Act is to come into force. An amendment that relies on an indeterminate event is not in order.” Thank you for directing me towards Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand by David McGee, page 315. McGee points out that one of the times at which an indeterminate event is acceptable is when an Act may be brought into force by Order in Council “when there are considered to be good reasons for doing so.” An Order in Council is a somewhat indeterminate event. Parliament cannot be sure when an Order in Council would be brought into force. I submit to you that a Parliament would be more certain about when a select committee process would be completed, the time frame for a select committee is clearly laid out in the Standing Orders, and the reasons for taking the bill to a select committee were clearly presented by members of the Opposition. So the case was made and the time frame is very clear. I submit to you that taking a bill to select committee is not an indeterminate event at all. In fact, it is a very clearly time-bound event that is laid out in the Standing Orders, and I would seek some clarification on your ruling.

Thank you to the member for those points. The commencement date is the date that needs to be not an indeterminate date. What the amendment did was to have something where there was no certainty about when that date may be, and that is why I quoted Speaker’s ruling 117/2: “An amendment to a commencement date must provide certainty”. It must provide certainty—[Interruption] Order! We are ruling on a matter here. In Standing Order 253/1 “A bill must include a distinct clause stating when the bill comes into force.” McGee, which I mentioned, and you mentioned as well, states: “The bill must set out precisely when it is proposed to come into force.” So on that basis I have ruled and we have already voted on it. So that ends the matter.

Speaking to that, briefly, Mr Chairperson—

No, I have ruled, so there is nothing to add. So now, is anyone seeking the call? Are you seeking the call, Hon Ruth Dyson?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Yes, that is what I said.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): OK, we are on clause 3.

I am definitely seeking a call on clause 3, which deals just with the fact that the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2), which we are moving through under urgency at the moment, amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000, which is thereafter referred to as the “principal Act”. In speaking to this clause, I want to draw attention to two anomalies, two irregularities, two inconsistencies that, had this bill been a regulation, would have been drawn to the attention of the Regulations Review Committee and would have led to a disallowance motion. Unfortunately, it is not a regulation; it is an amendment to the legislation, but having an amendment that is completely at odds by its very nature with the principal Act is really a very strange thing for Parliament to be doing.

The first reason that I say that is outlined in the preliminary provisions of the principal Act in the purpose statement and it is in Part 1—in particular, in section 3. That particular part of the principal Act, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000, says this: “The purpose of this Act is for … the promotion of the inclusion and participation in society and independence of people with disabilities:”. This very amendment works in exactly the opposite direction. It excludes not only people with disabilities but their families and any other members of the public from discussion about the significant changes that are being introduced here.

Further on in the principal Act it goes on to say in the purpose statement, section 3, that the purpose is “the best care or support for those in need of services:”. Again, this amendment that we are debating works in exactly the opposite direction of the principal Act. As I said, if this was a regulation, we would be taking it to the Regulations Review Committee and it would be saying that we should have a disallowance motion attached to this because you cannot have a regulation that is contrary to the primary legislation. Here we have an amendment bill that is absolutely at odds with the primary legislation, as outlined in section 3.

Further on in the principal Act, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000, it outlines the responsibility of the Minister of Health. That is outlined in Part 2. It talks about the need for determining a health strategy. Slightly off the topic, but just when I was researching this, it does refer to annual reporting against the Disability Strategy, which, I note, has stopped. So that is another breach of the principal Act not dealt with by this amendment. Returning rapidly to section 3, it also talks about relevant consultation, which is described not as a “should be done”, not as a “nice to have if you can do it”, but outlined in Part 2 of the principal Act as the responsibility of the Minister. The Minister of Health, the Minister responsible for this amendment legislation, has, in the primary Act, the responsibility to consult. Again, we are seeing exactly the opposite of this.

This bill is not a Budget measure. This bill does not require any urgency. This bill does not actually come into effect for some time. The only part of this bill that is “required”—to abuse that term even more than the Minister has—is the extinguishing of the rights of family members to take a case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. That is an abuse of the parliamentary process, as well as being completely at odds with the primary legislation. In Part 2 of the Act the responsibility of the Minister clearly outlines that in any change to the Health Strategy or health policies or the Disability Strategy there is a need for consultation. That is in the primary legislation that this bill amends, and there is nothing in this amendment to the primary legislation that allows, let alone entitles, consultation on these very matters.

So both the purpose statement of the primary legislation and the responsibilities of the Minister as outlined in Part 2 are actually being breached by the purpose and the process of this amendment. This bill is at odds with the primary legislation.

I rise to take a call on clause 3 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2), which simply says that this Act amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000, the principal Act. I wish it were that simple. I am deeply concerned, having listened to my colleague Ruth Dyson talking about those items in this bill that directly contradict the principal Act, that there were other alternatives given to the Minister of Health, rather than simply amending the principal Act, but we have not heard any explanation of why this option has been chosen.

One could argue perfectly well that this could have been a stand-alone piece of legislation, that it could have been something that required provisions unique to itself and of its own, and yet the Minister has chosen to tack it on as an amendment to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. But we have not heard any rationale for that. In fact, quite persuasively in the last 5 minutes we have heard the opposite. This brings us back—although I am talking only about clause 3, Mr Chair, this point is still pertinent—to the fact that this bill is not going to a select committee. It could have been a stand-alone piece of legislation with all the names to it that my colleagues offered when we were discussing clause 1 of this piece of legislation.

When we were talking about the title a number of suggestions were made, such as the “Pull The Wool Over The Eyes Of People With Disabilities and Those Who Care For Them Bill”, and that could have been a possibility. But seriously, why was this seen as an amendment to the Public Health and Disability Act when it in fact contravenes it? As the chair of the Regulations Review Committee, I say that if this had been passed as a regulation the committee would have immediately sent it back to the ministry and the Minister, saying: “This is a ‘Henry VIII’ provision. It allows the principal Act to be amended by stealth, and it is not legitimate for those reasons.” But we have it here in the bill as an amendment to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act. It could have had proper scrutiny if it were a separate piece of legislation with separate stand-alone provisions, a proper regulatory impact statement that was more white than black, and a proper debate at a select committee. In the end, the Minister of Health has chosen not to do any of this properly, but simply to add this as an amendment, as clause 3 says, to the principal Act.

Again, I do not wish to sound like a broken record, but the Minister compels me to do so. This is not good enough—this is not good enough. This is no way to introduce legislation of this sort, which has not nearly the major impact it could have had. If there had been a proper debate about it, this bill could affect 5,400 people with disabilities, and their families, instead of just over 1,000 as it is going to. It could have justified a stand-alone provision, but the Minister has chosen simply to amend the principal Act and slide it in in that way. Not only does it offend against the purpose of the principal Act—and, as I have said, if it were a regulation it would be sent back to the Minister—but it also offends, as we see from the Attorney-General’s report, against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Nothing about this bill has been done properly.

I want to rise to make a few comments about how this bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2), fits in with the principal Act, as outlined in clause 3: “This Act amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 (the principal Act).” My colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson made some points in relation to the purpose statement in that Act. Just to note, the principal Act is actually a very significant one. It is the one that covers all of the provisions around the responsibility of the Minister of Health, district health boards, and other publicly owned health and disability organisations, so it is a very large and important Act. My colleague Ruth Dyson referred us to subsection (1)(a)(ii) of the purpose section, section 3, of that Act, about “the promotion of the inclusion and participation in society and independence of people with disabilities:”. Her point was that this bill breaches those provisions. Again, this would be another reason for ensuring that we have far greater scrutiny on this bill than the way it is currently being pushed through under urgency, without adequate process and, indeed, without even suitable information for us through the regulatory impact statement.

I want to talk about a slightly different provision that is also in the purpose statement of the principal Act, which is section 3, as I said. I want to look at section 3(1)(a)(iii), which talks about “the best care or support for those in need of services:”. When I was speaking on this bill before, I did mention that one of the exclusions in the bill is around who can provide care and be paid for it. It specifically precludes spouses or partners from providing that care. When you look at the principal Act, the purpose section, which talks about the “best care or support for those in need of services:”, I have to say that I would imagine that in many, many cases the best care or support for those in need of services could be provided by their spouse or partner, yet this bill specifically precludes that. I am sure, as I said earlier, that many of us know how people are being cared for in their home by their spouse or partner, and I want to acknowledge those people, including my mother, who do such an amazing job of caring for their spouse or partner, often in very difficult circumstances. But my point is that this bill, by amending the principal Act, does not actually do what the purpose of the Act says. Maybe we would have a slightly different view on that if we knew what these blanked-out bits in the regulatory impact statement say.

One of the provisions of the regulatory impact statement, No. 43, is the one that talks about whether spouses of adult disabled people should be paid. My argument is that it could well be that spouses or partners are the best people to provide care or support for those in need of services, as outlined in the principal Act. It is a fundamental part of the principal Act that that is one of the purposes of that Act. But, in fact, where the regulatory impact statement on this bill, which amends the principal Act, starts to talk about spouses of adult disabled people, it says: “The views expressed through the consultation process indicate that, if Government excludes these groups from payment, it is highly likely that it will be faced with claims of unjustified discrimination under the [New Zealand Bill of Rights Act].” I want to know what is said after that. But when you look at the regulatory impact statement, people in the House and watching on television will see that there are just a whole lot of blanked-out parts.

Why is it that we are being told that spouses or partners should be excluded? How can we be confident that they are not the best people to care for and support those in need of services, as outlined in the purpose statement of the principal Act? I would like it if the Minister would actually answer some questions on this bill, because to date he has refused to do so. Yet we are expected to debate this bill and to have it pass through in urgency with a regulatory impact statement that is full of blanked-out pieces. It is an absolute outrage, and it is made even worse by the fact that the Minister will refuse to answer the questions. So I ask the Minister, specifically, whether the bill, which he is responsible for and which amends the principal Act—

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) and the principal Act that it amends. I actually want to take a slightly different tack to what my colleagues have taken. I get that the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act does have a lot to do with this bill, because it is about the care of people, and, particularly, the care of people in the disability sector, and it might seem that that is very fitting. But, on the other hand, quite a number of the clauses that we are about to—well, in our case—vote against, but that the Government is attempting to pass through under urgency in this Committee actually have an impact on the Human Rights Act 1993. I wondered why there was not an attempt to either amend that as a principal Act or make any subsequent amendments to that Act. I really do want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Health, who has returned for the debate, to answer that question, because I am really quite alarmed at the fact that we are actually extinguishing the rights of a significant number of New Zealanders who, you could argue, have quite significant human rights issues, perhaps. We are extinguishing their rights to go the Human Rights Commission as of yesterday. That is quite a major part of what this amendment Act actually does, or this bill—it is still a bill at this stage—attempts to do. Yet we have nothing here that amends the Human Rights Act 1993 as the principal Act and nothing that subsequently amends that.

Why I raise that is because the Human Rights Act is the Act that actually says what is unlawful discrimination and who is eligible to go forward to have their cases heard. Here we are debating extinguishing those rights with no reference that I can see to amending the Human Rights Act in this piece of legislation. Perhaps I am wrong about that and the Minister may want to point me in the right direction. But in Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993 it actually defines what is unlawful discrimination and there is also a part of that Act that prohibits what is unlawful discrimination. Correct me if I am wrong, Minister, but I believe we are doing exactly that in this Act. We are prohibiting a group of people from actually taking a case to find out whether they have been unlawfully discriminated against. And yet there is no reference—no reference—to the Human Rights Act 1993. Here we are amending the principal Act as being the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. Yes, maybe it fits, but this is a substantial amendment that we are making—I would say an outrageous amendment actually, an outrageous amendment that actually extinguishes people’s rights under the Human Rights Act. Why are we not amending that as the principal piece of the legislation? Why are we not even making any consequential amendments to that piece of legislation in this debate?

That is the very thing that I think we would discover the answer to, perhaps, if we were allowed to have the normal democratic process of a select committee process. Or maybe the answer to my query is actually buried on this page. Perhaps it is, but we will never know because it is completely blanked out and we do not know. Maybe the explanation is all here. Maybe this explains why the Human Rights Act is left unamended by what we are debating today despite the fact that that Government is extinguishing the rights of people to access what the Human Rights Act 1993 says they have absolutely the right to do. I am, therefore, encouraged and persuaded by colleague Maryan Street’s suggestion that, perhaps, the best thing to do would have been to have a stand-alone Act in its own right, not to amend another Act that partially speaks to this issue but partially does not, but, perhaps, to have a stand-alone piece of legislation. The piece of legislation that really stands out in my mind that would have been really great to use in this instance was actually a piece of American legislation, which was around an equal pay Act. That was a stand-alone piece of legislation that was one of the first pieces of legislation that Barack Obama signed when he took over the presidency. He named that Act after the woman who took the equal pay case. He called it the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Would that not have been a magnificent thing to do in this instance?

Namaste. I was enjoying the line of reasoning my colleague Sue Moroney, who has just sat down, was pursuing. I want to speak to clause 3 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) and about the principal Act. I want to hear from the Minister of Health and hear the Minister’s response to what I am going to raise, and what my colleague has just raised as well. Here we have a bill that is really setting down in stone a principle—I will have a lot more to say about this principle when we are debating clause 4—and that is the prime responsibility of the family for caring for each other. That is the principle that most of this amendment bill and its provisions are based on. I want to know from the Minister or from anybody else opposite what considerations were given to amend other Acts where this principle is either not stated or implied, and there are many. It would be useful to hear that, because that is the anchoring principle in this bill. I have worked with Acts that make this assumption, but have not seen this principle written down in this form.

Of course, if the bill had gone through a proper select committee process, we would have asked the officials to tell us what the other Acts were, how this principle was operating, and whether there was any need to amend those Acts as well. So it is an important and serious question that I am asking. Have those Acts been examined? Has the principle been debated by officials, by the Minister, and by others? And what are its implications further down the track? For example, let us take the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, because here is an Act that is really based on this principle as to who has responsibility. Many of the provisions of that particular Act are about what to do when that principle is not delivered on, if you like, by family members.

The Minister can probably tell me what the implications of this principle will be for those particular Acts and, indeed, for the whole Whānau Ora programme. Is there anything in that programme that also needs to be amended, if you like, where there is a principal Act that actually states that particular principle as strongly as this bill takes it forward? As I said, I raise those questions quite seriously, because I have not seen this principle written in this particular form, and there will be others. The Care of Children Act is another one where this principle is embedded, assumed, etc. I ask whether or not the Minister would want to come back to have a look at those Acts and the family support Act as well. So maybe the Minister can take a call.

It is very difficult to debate this bill in this environment when the whole Government side, including the Minister, sits there like stunned mullets, not responding at all. This is, if you like, the select committee process, and yet I think what Government members are doing is taking this side of the Committee to be idiots—and you are probably entitled to do that—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, you haven’t raised a good point yet.

But, Mr Bridges, you look like an idiot too, when you sit there and do not actually answer the questions—a very senior member. If the member wants to, I invite him to please debate these particular questions, because they are important questions. Maybe that member has not heard of this principle. Maybe when he was arguing in the courts, he did not use it, but here we are and the principle is important.

What I am saying is that I would like to hear members opposite, including the Minister of Health, tell us where else this principle applies and whether or not consideration has been given to amending those Acts as well. That, at least, is what the select committee process would have done, and it would have done it very well. It is a travesty that that process has not been prevailed upon. If that is what the Government is going to do, then it is the responsibility of Government members to answer those questions now, and not sit there like stunned mullets and make inane interjections. The only time during the Committee stage of this bill when we have had any sense that they are even awake is when they make inane comments, as one was made just then. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have not heard from the Greens. I am going to—[Interruption] No, I am going to hear Catherine Delahunty.

Thank you, Mr Chair; I appreciate that. I would just like to hold up the picture of what it all means. As Kris Faafoi, my colleague, said, this is what it all means. If you want to understand clause 3 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2), this is it. It is almost matching the suit of the Minister of Health. It is a great little diagram of what we are really trying to achieve here and what it all means.

I think it is really important to talk about the principal Act in relation to the amendment. That is what this clause is about. There is a fundamental issue here around what other Acts have or have not been considered in amending the principal Act. Others have referred to the Human Rights Act. I would also refer us back to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which has been breached in this case; Te Tiriti o Waitangi, given that Whānau Ora is about the principle of families being able to work together, and this bill attacks that when it limits who can actually receive this funding; and the Employment Relations Act, which maybe should have been amended to include a recognition of what is about to be done to people by giving them less than the minimum wage.

These are fundamental principles, but the real issue I just wanted to touch on is the problem that is built into the principal Act and that we are entrenching in this clause 3 and this amendment bill. That is the idea that disability is a health issue. That is a fundamental problem that both of these pieces of legislation are entrenching. My partner has a lifelong disability. He is not sick. He does not have a health issue. Many, many people affected by the carers’ issues are not sick. Making them sick and categorising them in the health budget means that they are treated as if they are sick and they might get better, instead of treating them as citizens with permanent conditions that are manageable providing they have their human rights. It is not the same as being sick. It is very discriminatory, what is happening in the clause and what is happening in the principle. For many people such as my partner, the lifelong categorisation of being invalid—invalid or “in-valid”—has been problematic.

What we need to do is recognise that an independent bill should have been created to recognise the rights of family members to choose carers, because this is an issue of rights. In amending the principal Act, what we have done is entrench the idea that it is about sick people being looked after. This is in many ways a disempowering model, both for the carer and for the person who has chosen the family member to care for them, because they are not sick; they are actually people who want full participation in every aspect of society. They perhaps have a lifelong condition that means they have particular challenges, but they are not ill. They are not necessarily ill and going to recover. So you get these limitations of caring packages and you get these misunderstandings about the nature of rights entrenched in this clause and entrenched in this relationship with the principal Act. What that does is undermine both the self-determination of the person living in a disabling society and the carer who is trying to support that person in their self-determination.

I know that is very complex for people who have avoided this issue and who just lump it all together into “health and disability”, a tidy little package: “People with something wrong with them. What can we do to fix them?”—a disempowering model, not a 21st century model, and not appropriate.

If I had spoken on the commencement, I would have talked about another name for the bill, which would have been “Too Little, Too Late, Too Bad, Shut Up”, because that is actually the real name of this bill. [Interruption] Shall I say that again: “Too Little, Too Late, Too Bad, Shut Up”. That is what this clause does when it does not recognise its impact on the Human Rights Act. It fixes itself in a bill, in a law, that has not been set up with the right order in terms of health and disability, which is what I am talking about. The principal Act is amended, and what it does is entrench a definition of people’s rights as carers and as people needing care that is problematic.

I would like to think about the dark room where all of these decisions got made, a dark room that has been dark since 2000-and-something, where they have been talking about amending the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act and they have come up with this clause. How did they do that? They did not do that by consulting with the people most affected, because otherwise we would not be here today with this mess in clause 3. We would actually be in a clear situation where we had a decent piece of legislation before us that was a facilitator of the rights-based approach that is necessary to empower people.

I move, That the question be now put.