Human Rights Amendment Bill

I have got here that Tim Macindoe was speaking. He has 6 minutes remaining to speak if he so wishes to, but given that the honourable Andrew Little has called, I will call him.

Perhaps my speech will be taken as being on behalf of Mr Macindoe himself anyway, because I am sure he would concur with what I have to say. This is not a frivolous matter. This is a matter to do with human rights, not only domestic human rights but our international human rights, as well. The Human Rights Commission plays a very important role not only in administering our Human Rights Act and the very important role that that piece of legislation plays in our country but also in being the voice, perhaps the conscience, if you like, of the nation when it comes to matters of human rights issues of discrimination and issues of fairness and equity, whether between races and ethnicities, whether between sexes, or on any other ground. So we take this issue very seriously.

The motivating force, as I see it, behind the Human Rights Amendment Bill—having read both the bill and the regulatory impact statement, which I might say I thought was somewhat inadequate; it set out options and then simply chose an option without a great deal of analysis—is efficiency. But it is clear from that document and from the bill itself that this is once again a very important piece of legislation, carrying with it very important principles, and carrying with it a very important institution, which is being faffed around with on grounds of efficiency alone. It says “efficiency and effectiveness” but it is really about cost-cutting. One of the things that the bill does is that it reduces the number of commissioners. It concentrates the role of commissioner under the Human Rights Act into full-time roles as opposed to the flexibility that is available at the moment with a combination of full-time and part-time roles. So there is a real question about whether or not that is going to add to the effectiveness of the administration of the requirements of the Act. It will almost certainly be efficient. It will allow costs to be cut, but whether it will allow it to be effective remains another point.

There is a very important change, a very subtle-looking change, that the bill makes in clause 5, which amends section 5 of the present Act, the Human Rights Act, in particular subsection (2)(k). Presently, section 5, “Functions of Commission”, talks about a range of things. One of those functions is “to report to the Prime Minister on …”—and one of the three things it can report to the Prime Minister on is—“(iii) the implications of any proposed legislation (including subordinate legislation) or proposed policy of the Government that the Commission considers may affect human rights:”. Most members of the House will recall, of course, that it was that section that was invoked by the commission only some months ago as the Government passed its legislation on the rights of the family caregivers of disabled people. When the commission intervened in the way that the statute clearly contemplated, in full compliance of its rights in the Act, that prompted the Prime Minister to respond by, effectively, threatening its funding. So we look at this provision in the Human Rights Act and we consider that it needs to be jealously guarded.

The Human Rights Commission is meant to be independent. It is meant to express independence and that is confirmed in sections 7 and 19 of the current Act. Section 7(1) says of the commission in determining the general nature of its activities: “Subject to the role of the Minister in the process of setting and monitoring the strategic direction and targets of the Commission under … the Crown Entities Act 2004, the members of the Commission acting together determine the strategic direction of the general nature of activities undertaken in performance of the Commission’s functions.” It is up to the commissioners to decide what its strategic priorities are, and what the issues are that it chooses to engage in and embark on. That is confirmed in section 19 of the present Act, which is headed, interestingly, “Duty to act independently”. We know that when a Crown entity has a requirement to act independently, it is acting independently of the Government of the day. That is, indeed, what section 19 says: “the Commission must act independently in performing its statutory functions and duties,”.

There is a good reason for that and that is because although there are many countries around the world where human rights are given short shrift, they are abused, and people are treated shabbily, we do not exactly have that experience here. But the reality is that Governments, even in the worst countries and even in the best countries, can find themselves not complying with, and in breach of, basic human rights. It is important that we see human rights as something that is separate from the political fray and as something that is not open to the horse-trading of the political system. That is why we say that the Human Rights Commission is independent and must be independent. That is why when our Prime Minister threatened our Human Rights Commission on the basis of funding, because it chose to exercise its statutory right to report on a matter that it considered was in breach of the Human Rights Act, that was a matter that ought to have horrified—and, indeed, did horrify—many New Zealanders. That is why the independence of the Human Rights Commission is so important.

So when we see parts of this bill that suggest that its independence is under threat, we must be concerned. We see in clause 6 new subsection (1B) of section 8, which says: “A Commissioner must lead the work of the Commission in any other priority area that is designated by the Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner may designate an area of work as a priority area only after consultation with the Minister and the other Commissioners.” I am concerned at the reference to the involvement of the Minister now going beyond just setting its budget to now interfering in the decisions that commissioners must make about the priority work that the commission must do, because sometimes the priority work might be challenging the Government, telling the Government that legislation that it has on its book or bills that it is proposing to push through the House are in breach of citizens’ human rights. That is a role that a properly supported and well-resourced Human Rights Commission ought to do. Ours does it and it has attracted the wrath of the Government of the day. That is not good. That is not a healthy development, at all.

So we look askance at this bill and we say that we hear the language of efficiency and effectiveness, but when we look at the fine details of the bill, this starts to look like legislative measures at undermining the role of the Human Rights Commission not only in upholding the rights of the citizens of New Zealand but challenging those institutions that might threaten it. Some of those institutions will be private, but some will be public, and the institution, of course, with the greatest power and the most resources that can threaten citizens’ rights, if it is not this House, is certainly the rest of Government.

We need to know that the Human Rights Commission is properly supported and is well resourced, and when it does challenge the Government of the day—whether it is a National Government, whether it is a Labour-led Government, whatever the hue of the Government—the institution of the Human Rights Commission is there, has the correct statutory powers, and can interfere and intervene in accordance with its powers and its duties to do so. So it is for that reason that we are looking very closely at this legislation. It is not just simple legislation truncating the number of commissioners or consolidating their roles; it goes beyond that. So we will have a close examination of the bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee. We will ask the questions. Hopefully we will get good advice from the officials beyond just what has gone into the regulatory impact statement and we will find out whether or not this is actually necessary in order to have a Human Rights Commission that can fully acquit itself of its role. We will do that. We will support this bill to the select committee so that we can undertake that examination, because it behoves all of us to ensure that, of the many important institutions in Government, those institutions that directly affect citizens’ rights and their place are protected and looked after, and we want to make sure that the Human Rights Act continues to do that.

I rise to take a short call on the first reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. The Human Rights Commission was set up as a body to investigate, promote, and protect human rights. Having a dedicated Disability Rights Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission reinforces this Government’s commitment to promoting and monitoring mechanisms that will really make a difference to the lives of disabled people. New Zealand ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 25 September 2008. This bill not only supports this convention but also the direction of the Government.

I look forward to this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee, to hearing submissions, and to furthering the course of this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

The decision by the Government to create the position of a Disability Rights Commissioner was prompted by the pulling from the ballot in 2010 of a member’s bill from my colleague Catherine Delahunty, the Human Rights (Disability Commissioner) Amendment Bill. Catherine’s bill provided for the creation of a designated disability commissioner to sit alongside the current specialist designations of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner. Catherine withdrew her bill in good faith when the Government announced that it would be creating the role of the Disability Rights Commissioner. This was done under the assumption that any bill establishing such a position would be along similar lines to her bill.

Following the withdrawal of Catherine’s bill, we were pleased that the Government moved quickly to appoint New Zealand’s first Disability Rights Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission, Paul Gibson. Like many in the disability community, we welcomed Paul’s appointment, because Paul was so clearly the right person for the job. Not only did he have a proven track record as an advocate for the disability community and a wealth of knowledge and expertise on disability issues, he also brought to the role a lived experience of disability and a strong commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In addition to welcoming Paul’s appointment, we were celebrating that there was finally a full-time, designated Disability Rights Commissioner, which was something that the disability community had pushed for for such a long time.

Given this background, the Green Party had hoped to be supporting this bill tonight, as we had expected something along similar lines to Catherine’s bill—something that would deliver for the disability communities. So it was with some dismay, to say the least, that we found that not only does this bill fail to create the role of a specialised disability commissioner in the way that was provided for in Catherine’s bill but also it proposes a restructuring of the Human Rights Commission and its role, which has consequences for its future work. Instead of creating a designated disability commissioner to stand alongside existing specialist designations, as we had expected, this bill actually removes the specialist designations of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and Race Relations Commissioner from the Human Rights Act. Instead, it adds these to the list of functions of the commission.

Although this bill does add disability rights to that list of functions and stipulates that there must be a commissioner designated by the chief commissioner to lead work in disability along with other priority areas, we are very concerned about the impact of this larger restructuring on the focus of these roles, particularly as commissioners will be expected to work in more than one priority area. We believe that the effect of this move will inevitably weaken the focus on these areas. Commissioners will become human rights commissioners with primary responsibility to the work of the commission as a whole, rather than to the work that they are leading. This has worrying implications, particularly for disability, where there is so much work to be done. There is so much work that has to be caught up on after decades of being kept in the dark—being kept out of the policy debate.

In contrast to this bill, Catherine’s bill was clear and specific to disability. In addition to creating a designated disability commissioner, it also spelt out specific criteria for their appointment and an extensive list of functions specific to a disability commissioner. This list was developed in extensive consultation with the disability community and reflected the significant input that it had into it. That bill outlined 13 functions for a disability commissioner and included a number of important elements that are missing from this bill, including explicit requirements for the disability commissioner to actively engage with different communities of persons living with impairments, to act as an advocate for their interests, rights, and well-being, and to assist the Government with work towards the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. None of these functions is in the much-simplified list of functions in clause 12 of this bill.

This bill is not delivering for the disability community, and it will not be delivering for the other communities that will also have their needs watered down by this bill. The restructuring and reframing of the roles, with a shift to more broad and generalist skills, will affect the choice of people being appointed to the lead commission work and priority area. Someone with a broad understanding of human rights may not, and probably will not, bring with them the specific knowledge, understanding, and background in disability that is so urgently needed in this country for this role to be effective in making a difference for disabled people.

Also, the criteria for their appointment in clause 12 do not include a key one: knowledge of the various communities of people living with impairments in New Zealand. This, in our view, is absolutely essential for an effective disability commissioner. There was a strong push from the disability sector for a disability commissioner with lived experience of disability and a proven track record as a disability advocate, and that is not just symbolic. In our party we have seen the difference that Mojo Mathers has made in providing a link to people in a variety of disability communities in the country. They know that they do not have to explain to her—that she gets it—because she has had that experience and she has that role of advocacy. This bill is robbing the disability communities of the guarantee of that person, and it is a shame.

Furthermore, although the bill stipulates that there must be a commissioner appointed to lead the work in the three priorities, it does not guarantee that they will get to work full time on these issues.

This bill is a wholesale review of the Human Rights Commission done by stealth. If we are going to have a full-time position for a disability commissioner, then let us do it and not just say we are doing it, which is what this Government has been doing. This is also happening within the context of the Government’s decision to freeze funding for the Human Rights Commission until 2020. That decision has resulted in a 15 percent staffing cut at the commission.

This Government has very few checks on the power of government and has minimal tools to fight discrimination. By the response to the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013, we know that people in this country care about human rights. This bill is letting them down. Over the past 2 years I have seen far too many pieces of legislation that are in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We need a strong institution to uphold human rights in this country. We have a long way to go for people with disabilities, particularly, to be able to achieve equality in this country, and they deserve an institution and people representing them who are able to understand them and who will strongly advocate into this place for their rights to be realised. We will be strongly opposing this bill as an undermining of those rights and aspirations.

New Zealand First will support this bill, the Human Rights Amendment Bill, going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We generally support the scheme of the bill because it gives effect to New Zealand’s international human rights obligations, but we do have a number of reservations. The Minister of Justice said that the bill replaces the current mix of full-time and part-time human rights commissioners with full-time commissioners only, but the bill does not specify whether the appointments must be full-time or part-time. New Zealand First wants to see a specific provision in the bill for full-time commissioners. If that is what the Minister intended, then that is what the bill should say. So we will be seeking an amendment along those lines.

Concerning the roles of commissioners, instead of a particular role identification in the bill, which would mean that a commissioner has sole responsibility for a priority area and would be unavailable for other work, the bill provides that there must be a commissioner appointed, other than the chief commissioner, to lead the work of each of the priority areas, which are race relations, equal employment opportunities, and the new role in the area of disability rights. The chief 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 Human Rights Commission itself. But the areas of race relations, equal employment opportunities, and disability rights are still explicitly recognised as priority issues for the commission. New Zealand First does agree with that approach. It allows for the specialisation needed in the three priority areas, while allowing for the flexibility needed to ensure that the other areas are well provided for too.

But New Zealand First is concerned that there is no special priority area for age-related human rights issues. There are many such issues. Ageism is rife in New Zealand. People are discriminated against on the basis of age right across the employment spectrum. Their plight is largely ignored in this country, except, of course, by New Zealand First. We will hold the line against any increase in the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation, for example. No other party can be relied on to do so. Labour has already commenced the attack. There is also ageism in ACC benefits. People who reach 65 years have their ACC compensation confiscated from them upon application for New Zealand superannuation at age 65. That can occur even shortly after the compensation was granted. This shows that the Government does not understand that New Zealand superannuation and ACC are entitlements, not social security benefits. New Zealand First wants to see age discrimination identified as a human rights issue. We know that this Government does not care, but we in New Zealand First do.

Concerning the number of commissioners, the bill provides for a minimum of four and a maximum of five commissioners, including the chief commissioner. Will this be sufficient, with the extra workload resulting from the disability area and the growing workload of the commission? It seems unlikely to me that five will, in fact, be enough. And even if it is enough now, it is unlikely to be sufficient within a relatively short period of time. Human rights issues and human rights work is a growing area in our legal system and must be properly resourced. It would be wise, I think, to legislate for a maximum of seven commissioners, so that their number can be increased if needed and when needed, without the need for further legislation. We think this is justified because, as I have said, this is a rapidly increasing area in our legal system, and it needs to be properly provided for. I look forward to discussion on that issue at the select committee stage.

As to the need for the appointment of suitable people for the lead areas, I note that the chief commissioner has 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 agree with that, but I also note with satisfaction that in new section 13, under clause 9, and in addition to the criteria in section 11 of the principal Act, the Minister must have regard to the candidate’s “(a) understanding of the principles and practice of the priority area in question … (b) appreciation of issues, trends, and developments … internationally … (c) ability to perform the functions stated in section 16.” Section 16 itself is amended in clause 12 to ensure skills in leadership ability and the ability to contribute to public debate. That is a very important part of the function of these commissioners. I think that these provisions are pretty well-thought-out. They will ensure that commissioners are better able to promote and participate constructively in debate, and the commission will not be the sort of ivory tower that we have seen it be in the past.

Turning now to the functions, powers, and responsibilities of the commission, there are changes to these in clause 5 of the bill. I think they provide more certainty about the commission’s mandate to undertake its activities, and they provide for promotion of compliance with New Zealand’s international human rights obligations. Concerning statements, I think this is an important new provision. The bill makes explicit in clause 5(3) that the commission may make public statements on any matter concerning human rights and, in particular, may comment on the position of the Government in relation to matters that may affect or infringe on human rights, and that is not clear in the current Act. It is very important that this clearly be allowed, and I congratulate the Government on putting this provision in the bill. It will be helpful to everyone interested in human rights issues in New Zealand.

The bill also provides that the commission must report on existing or proposed legislation, including subordinate legislation; administrative provision; or policy of the Government that the commission considers may affect human rights. And it must report not only to the Prime Minister but also to the Minister responsible. I welcome that new provision, as well. It will mean that the commission will have an open and clear responsibility to inform the public, irrespective of what the Government policy may be.

Lastly, concerning equal employment opportunities, the bill provides functions for the commission in relation to equal employment opportunities, including the use of benchmarks to evaluate the roles that certain instruments play in promoting equal employment opportunities, and also to lead the development of guidelines and voluntary codes of practice and to work with other bodies promoting equal employment opportunities too. I think that those are important provisions, as well, and they will provide another aspect to the work of the commission.

There is much to commend this bill, but, as I have said, there are also areas where amendment is indicated. However, for the time being, New Zealand First will vote for the bill to proceed to the select committee.

It is my pleasure to take a call on the Human Rights Amendment Bill tonight. This bill does change the role and structure of the Human Rights Commission to strengthen its performance. It also allows it to be more versatile and to change as times change, as well, and to keep up to date.

I do want to just quickly touch on one part of the bill in a bit more detail, which is about the Disability Rights Commissioner. I think it is a long time coming, actually, that the disability sector is getting a commissioner. I remember back in about 2008 the Social Services Committee had an inquiry into disability services. We heard from hundreds of submitters that they felt they did not have a voice, they felt they were not represented, they felt they were the poor cousin to health in many instances, and they were overlooked and overseen. So I think that this has been a long time coming, actually, and it is good to see that those people are going to have a voice, they are going to be heard, and they are going to be represented, and the Human Rights Commission is exactly the right place for them to be. When we were looking at how we could enhance their voice and how we could get them better representation, this was one of the suggestions, along with a number of other suggestions, about what we could do for them. I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to the select committee process and to hearing from submitters. Thank you.

It gives me great pleasure, actually, to rise to speak to the first reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. I think that this bill is to be welcomed, despite the fact that we have some concerns about it, but one would hope that the process of the Justice and Electoral Committee would see many of those concerns addressed and removed. But my reason for supporting it, in particular, is that it gives this House an opportunity to have a look again at those processes of developing, confirming, ratifying, implementing, and monitoring human rights, both domestically and internationally, and I do not think we have paid enough attention to that in the past.

First of all, I would hope that this legislation would generate a better understanding of human rights in Parliament and, thereafter, a better understanding of human rights out amongst civil society. Here in New Zealand we do have a creditable history of contributing to the international human rights framework and acknowledging many of our own human rights challenges. My party was instrumental in advancing the UN human rights agenda during and after World War II. The National Government ratified the international covenants on human rights in 1978, giving us as a country international legal obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights. This has in the past been a bipartisan commitment between the two major parties, and I hope that it will become a multipartisan commitment across this MMP Parliament.

We need to assist the public, I think, in understanding that we are legally bound to respect, protect, and fulfil rights to an adequate standard of living for health and well-being, education, work under decent conditions—all of those things that relate to the everyday life of New Zealanders. But beyond that, we are legally bound also to observe and implement those conventions on human rights that we have seen fit to sign up to but may not yet have ratified. I welcome this bill for the opportunities that it gives us to explore these things, and I hope that in the course of debating this bill we will be able to strengthen executive and parliamentary human rights mechanisms.

In addition to that, I hope that in the context of this bill we will be able to argue for human rights education. I hope that as part of civics education within the school curricula, human rights education, as envisaged in the World Programme for Human Rights Education, be included in our school curricula, in the education system, and in the professional development of public servants. So, to start with, those are my general comments about the opportunities that this bill actually provides us.

I want to come to some of the concerns that we have about it. Our major concern on this side of the House is that the amendment bill removes the three designated specialist commissioners already in place and their functions, in preference for the ability of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to delegate all or part of these functions to one or more commissioners. In the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Ministry of Justice it is clear that it has recommended this position. It recommends replacing the current three full-time commissioners and five part-time commissioners with no fewer than four and no more than five full-time commissioners, and for the roles to be changed around. But one of the things that is going to be important in the consideration by the select committee is what we lose in the course of that if we do not have a designated Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, a designated Disability Rights Commissioner, or a designated Race Relations Commissioner. What is to be lost in the course of removing these tagged and designated roles and subsuming them into the role of a commissioner who is responsible for these things—amongst others? There are risks in that, and the Labour Party is concerned about those risks.

I want to highlight one other point that my colleague Andrew Little made very well but that bears repetition, and that is in new section 8(1B), inserted by clause 6, which says that “A Commissioner must lead the work of the Commission in any other priority area that is designated by the Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner may designate an area of work as a priority area only after consultation with the Minister and the other Commissioners.” One of the purposes of the Human Rights Commission is to uphold standards and human rights, both domestic and international standards of human rights, and to hold the Government to those standards. It has to be independent. Its determination of what is a priority work area should not be determined by a Minister.

I understand the phrase “after consultation with”, but it says “only after consultation with the Minister …”. I understand that the Minister might want to be consulted when priority areas of disability, equal employment opportunities, and race relations are set down in the legislation as priority areas, even though we no longer have a tagged commissioner with that designated responsibility. But I am concerned that we have already seen one example, from the Prime Minister, no less, who has threatened the Human Rights Commission with a loss of funding, for speaking out against the Government’s position on the Government Communications Security Bureau.

The Prime Minister thought it was OK to do that because he thinks he is running a company not a country. He thinks that if he is running a company, he can instruct employees on what to do. This is a more complex exercise, being the Prime Minister, than being the chief executive officer of a company. I would have thought that 5 years in the job would teach him that. So the first moment when the Human Rights Commission exercises its legislated right to report directly to the Government—to report directly, as it is allowed to do under legislation—the Prime Minister takes a swipe at the commission and says “Watch out for your funding, guys. If you’re going to turn up with reports like that, you’ll have to watch out for your funding.” That completely demonstrates the Prime Minister’s—and, I suspect, the National Party’s—lack of understanding about the importance of the independence of the Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Commission is there to defend the human rights of New Zealand citizens, especially when the Government does not observe them. It is absolutely beholden on the Human Rights Commission to tell the Government when it is not observing its own citizens’ human rights. In addition to that, it is the Human Rights Commission’s job to promote international human rights and to promote the understanding of those in New Zealand. So I am pleased that there are a couple of clauses in the bill that make the independence of the Human Rights Commission more explicit, but, please, would somebody show the Prime Minister those clauses.

It is a privilege to rise to take a brief call in this important first reading of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. I am going to carry on in the generosity of spirit of the first half of the Hon Maryan Street’s previous speech and acknowledge the very good work done by a previous Minister for Disability Issues, the Hon Ruth Dyson, in shepherding through New Zealand’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008. Having been at that time on a diplomatic posting in the Islamic Republic of Iran, with human rights being a significant part of my portfolio in that job, it was interesting to see the reaction in a country that was very unlike New Zealand to that effort. We were seen as a world leader. I am very glad that we are continuing to look at ways that we can improve the status of disabled people in New Zealand.

An interesting anecdote was that we were surprised in having to explain to the Iranian Government why at Auckland Airport there was a priority lane for disabled people, where they were getting advance treatment but Government officials were not. That is in New Zealand; it is the opposite situation in some countries. We on this side of the House believe very strongly that people are born free and equal in dignity and are entitled to having those human rights observed, and I am very glad that we will be creating a full-time human rights commissioner role with leadership in disability issues. Thank you.

I advise the House that this is a split call.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is not a split call? Then I call the honourable Dr Rajen—

💬 Hon Maryan Street: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not a split call, as I understand.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes. That is what I have just said, yes. In that case, then, I call the honourable Dr Rajen Prasad.

It is a pleasure taking a call on the Human Rights Amendment Bill, particularly because I did have the role of human rights commissioner for 5 years and have lived through the previous manifestations of some of the things that are coming through here. But first it is important to say that this side of the House is not averse to improving human rights legislation, and for that reason alone we will support this to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is inevitable that there will be occasions when the environment has changed so much that an Act as important as the Human Rights Act needs to be modernised, and if that is what this amendment bill is trying to do, then there is every reason why we should support it.

However, I would say this: in the area of human rights it is important for Parliament to reach consensus, because these human rights are the rights we have by virtue of being human, and there ought to be no dispute and no difference amongst the various sides of this House about the instrument we develop to promote those rights for our citizens. So we will work very hard in the select committee to achieve that consensus, but fair warning is served by the Greens and also by us that we will want certain changes to this bill before it comes back in a form where we will support it. We will debate those matters at length during the select committee process.

It is interesting that this bill recommends changes to the structure of the Human Rights Commission. Again, there are no strong views that I have as to whether or not the structure proposed is a better one, but it is certainly worth experimenting with. However, what is to be reflected on is that the structure that is recommended in this bill is the old structure—the structure that was changed in 2000 by an amendment bill. The arguments made then were the exact opposite of the arguments being made here. The arguments were that we wanted to reduce the commissioners to a governance role, and therefore part-time commissioners would be much better. That was part of the argument that the consultants made to give us the very structure that is now being changed. What is being recommended here is to go back to the old structure. Well, if that is the experience of the Human Rights Commission, then we should follow it. We want to hear the arguments in the select committee.

But the regulatory impact statement, however, makes a very interesting argument. It says that the present way of appointing commissioners actually is inflexible, and in fact this compromises the Minister to some extent. Well, I will need some convincing that that is to be so. The regulatory impact statement actually says that the Minister himself—herself, in this case—in determining who are to be the designated commissioners, does not enable flexibility within the commission and it actually compromises the role of the Minister. Well, it does not. I refuse to see that. However, this is an argument that the Ministry of Justice has pursued for a long time. It has not liked the independent commissioners. In the 2000 reforms the only bit of my recommendation that was followed by the then Government was to retain the specialist commissioners, and they have served us well. So the part-time commissioner change—we will see. Let us hear the arguments, let us hear what is proposed, and if this is a better governance structure, then we will have no difficulties with that particular one.

But there is another issue here. The explanatory note of the bill says this, and I read: “a full-time position of Disability Rights Commissioner within the Commission will be established.” The bill does no such thing. It actually does not do that. So why does the explanatory note say that that is what the bill does? The bill actually distinguishes no specialist commissioners. What it does is it establishes generic commissioners to be given designated roles, but they will not be called those roles; they will simply have a generic responsibility. That is where we begin to dig into the reasons behind some of the changes being proposed here, and we do not support just generic commissioners. We support the specialist commissioners, because in every case those specialist commissioners have been very, very effective—incredibly effective. Look at the work of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. She was one of the most successful—

💬 Sue Moroney: The previous one.

—the previous one—commissioners we have had. She was so successful. Why are we doing away with that? The sector that advocates the particular area, actually, in a sense, identified with that role and had ownership with it. The same can be said for race relations people. At a time when New Zealand society is diversifying to the extent that it is, and there is so much identification amongst the diverse communities with that particular role, this Government is trying to do away with that role. Why? It is for no reason. The Disability Rights Commissioner is the same. That role must be retained—I agree with the Greens. So we will argue for that in the select committee.

We wonder why it is that the Government is doing this, because the real issue in this commission is not the specialist commissioners. The real issue is the inability of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to actually manage this commission in such a way that it all works well. So there is a governance problem—the problem of the role of the chief commissioner—that is being addressed, in one of the most dramatic ways possible, by doing away with the very roles in the commission that are the most effective. I would rather the select committee really tussled with how to underscore the responsibility of the chief commissioner. I would like to see that role strengthened if that is the real issue. So we will be asking the select committee why the changes and what it is they are expected to achieve. If we can be convinced, then we will want the officials to rewrite this piece so that that role is strengthened—the role of the chief commissioner. It does have an implication for the Minister to appoint chief commissioners who have a human rights background. In order for us to have a commission to operate in the way in which these recommendations seek, then, indeed, that particular role has to be changed appropriately.

There is a lot here that is below the surface. As is typical of the Ministry of Justice, it has proposed a structural change. It has written its regulatory impact statements, and in fact there is still much more to be thought through and done in order to keep those things in this commission that are good, which are the specialist commissioners. We have no objection to the number of full-time commissioners. That is fine. The role of the chief commissioner—let us face that head-on and ask why we need to strengthen that; if so, what is the best way of doing it? What we do not want is for the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater, because if we did that, we would lose the very things that are important to us. So with those comments, I bring my speech to an end. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)