Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill

In the absence of any other takers—

💬 Tim Macindoe: You were up so quickly.

Yes, I know. I rise to take a call on the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. I refer to the four clauses of the bill and the importance of each of these clauses to ensuring that the Foundation of the Blind—or, as it is now known, the Blind Foundation—can continue to meet the purpose for which it has been designed.

What is important about the title clause, clause 1, is that it gives the Blind Foundation the ability to now ensure that its legal structure and its status within the community is fit for purpose for the work that it needs to do. The title of the bill is the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill, and what it will, in effect, do is repeal the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002 because of the need for the foundation to become an incorporated society. The need for the foundation to become an incorporated society is for the status and the conditions that sit around incorporated societies, which means they act for members.

It is a membership organisation, and that is really important to the Blind Foundation because it is an organisation that is not only for members but actually has a governance structure that is completely staffed by people who are either blind or have low vision. It is an organisation that is completely based on the needs of people who are blind and have low vision, including its governance structure, so everything it does as an organisation is for people who are blind and have low vision. It is a completely inclusive organisation. It actually demonstrates some of the best elements of that phrase that is often quoted in the disability sector: “Nothing about us without us.” This is an organisation that is completely inclusive, completely membership based, and knows what needs to be in place for members of our community who are blind and have low vision.

Why is that important? It is about being able to design facilities and services for people who are blind and have low vision, because you know exactly what you need. It is about being completely member-driven, knowing exactly what members need. It is what we would like to be as a society—completely inclusive for people who are blind and have low vision. The foundation has been set up to ensure that a couple of things happen: that people who find themselves in a situation where they become blind or are born with the condition are able to access appropriate services and have the type of equipment that people use. We all know about guide dogs, and we are all completely supportive of fund-raising efforts by the Blind Foundation to ensure that it continues to have those resources to provide services to its members.

It is also about communication and ensuring that what we might take for granted—the ability not only to communicate with each other but to communicate effectively with members outside of the blind community—is in place. That includes things like access to Braille, and it also includes things like access to audio descriptors. I know that many of our free-to-air television shows have audio descriptors as part of the programming for people with low vision, but all of our pay TV and many of those things that we take for granted—like being able to access and see the Olympics or the top rugby games—do not have audio descriptors attached to them. So, just in the passage of this bill, I want to advocate on behalf of the Blind Foundation. There is a way for us to go for people with low vision and with issues around blindness to actually have access to the kinds of things that we take for granted, and audio description of television programmes is just one of those things.

Clause 4 talks about the consequential amendment to the Copyright (General Matters) Regulations—in particular, regulation 5. That is around ensuring that the names of the associations with access to any of the publications that are produced in Braille are within the purview of that particular regulation. But in that regard I also want to make a plea around the Government’s response to the Marrakesh VIP Treaty. What that will do is allow greater access for publications that are in Braille to be imported into New Zealand, and for the blind community to have access to those publications. I understand that the Government is willing; I just want to ensure that we just gently encourage it to do that.

I also want to encourage the Government to seek out the two—at least two, I believe—other nations that need to sign up to this treaty for it to become something that we will ratify, so I would really encourage this Government to think about that. It is a small but very significant matter, particularly for the Blind Foundation. It has been advocating for a long time for the ratification of this particular treaty. I think, as we are passing this bill through the Committee, it is an appropriate time for us to discuss the issues that will make communication for people with low vision and with issues of blindness a little easier for them.

I thank the Minister for bringing this bill to the House. I want to thank the Blind Foundation for all of its hard work, for its service to the community, and also for raising matters in the wider disability context. I look forward to ensuring that this bill passes its third reading. Thank you.

I am very pleased to speak in this Committee stage of the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. Can I begin by acknowledging the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicky Wagner. This private bill that we are debating is in her name, and, as I have mentioned in a few prior contributions, I think it is quite apt, not only because of her own passion for the subject but because of the fact that she is the Minister responsible for these areas—not just, of course, for the blind, but for other people with a variety of disabilities. This is a very simple bill, as has clearly been indicated today by the request that we deal with this as one debate. The provisions themselves are relatively simple, and I will touch on some of those in this speech.

But I think what is really important to stress, and it is somewhat brought out in the bill—in its general policy statement in the explanatory note, and so on—is the purpose. The purpose is, in fact, far more important and symbolic than just the words themselves. This is the desire of the Royal Foundation of the Blind to take control, if you will, of its own destiny and its own work. The very purpose of this bill is to remove the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind off the statute book. It is probably not appropriate in the Committee stage—and we are not going to go through all the history of the bill and why it is here—but the reason we have clause 3 is to repeal our Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002. This is to allow the foundation to now act as an incorporated society for its members and supporters—those who are blind and those with low vision or vision impairment—to be able to control their own destiny, and, ultimately, to send a very strong signal, as all parts of this bill do, that the statutory requirements are no longer needed.

As you will imagine, the title itself is very simple—really just indicating what this is all about. I will point out—maybe it is just my love of semantics—it is very unusual to have the words “Act” and “bill” in the same place. That is important. The legislation is going to come into immediate effect once it receives Royal assent, as is pointed out in clause 2. There was no great debate in the Health Committee around any of these clauses. We know that the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind is working quite hard to prepare the transition; therefore, no transition elements were needed. Clause 3 is again a very simple statement—a simple repeal here of the previous Act of 2002.

The foundation itself has been around—I think, since 1908 if memory serves me right; the Minister will be able to clarify that for me a bit later—for about 126 years. I think last year it celebrated its 125th anniversary. I think in 1908 the original legislation was put in place. As former speakers have pointed out, there is a consequential amendment around copyright regulations from 1995—we have just been really clear about that. I suppose in this Committee stage we want to be really clear that, although we have brought this to the Committee with no amendments in our report—the bill went through the select committee and was passed unanimously with no amendments—it is not indicative of not having done anything. I know that is almost a triple negative in a series of words there, but the committee was actually very careful to go through this bill to ensure it clearly reached its intentions. Importantly too, it became an opportunity—and I thought it was quite important; we have not been able to note it in the clauses, rightly but unfortunately—for the wider discussion that was had with representatives of the foundation to understand some of the wider issues that are affecting those who are blind or with low vision.

Ultimately, through all these clauses, and by allowing the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind to become an incorporated society, the foundation is going to be able to continue to pursue its agenda and lobbying. I am very conscious of this insofar as 2 weeks ago, in my own area back up in Auckland, I had a good opportunity to go and meet with representatives, not only to talk though what was happening with the bill but, importantly, to hear the issues that they have. The previous speaker, Poto Williams, was elucidating one of them around the Marrakesh treaty.

The other issue, which I think is important to note, and which is going to come out of this bill, is around what was debated here in the Youth Parliament. It is around accessibility. I know—for the foundation, and those listening—that was well heard here, and I acknowledge my own youth MP who spoke very passionately on it. The foundation has a range of activities it wants to pursue and continue to pursue, and accessibility—or the mock bill that the Youth Parliament had—is just one example of them. This bill has four clauses—four very simple clauses. It does not even take more than half a page, but that is not symbolic of the larger work, if you will, that the foundation undertakes and wants to continue to undertake.

As I say, the Health Committee did spend a good amount of time on this. We gave it all due consideration. What it seeks to do has been very clearly articulated, and so we are very pleased to return here to the Committee stage, and look forward to any further contributions. Along with my colleague on the committee Poto Williams, I am very much looking forward to a third reading and progressing the bill further.

It will be a celebration, the day that this bill passes. The Blind Foundation, in numerous iterations, has been working in New Zealand, supporting and working with blind people, for over 126 years. I think most of us know where the original Blind Foundation buildings are in Parnell—enormous brick buildings. In those days there was a residential facility. There was a sheltered workshop. There was a whole lot of support, where people lived on the place.

I think that really reflects the changes that have happened in disability over those 126 years. Originally the organisation was named “for the Blind”. It was all about looking after people who could not manage in the real world and had to live in a sequestered regime in residential places in a place where ordinary New Zealanders did not come very often. I think it is really incumbent and actually a real celebration for this organisation that it can come to this stage where it is now becoming an incorporated society of the blind. It is no longer “for” the blind; it is “of” the blind. It is about people who are blind or who have low-vision impairments who can live a life as any other New Zealander does, who can have more choice and more control over their lives. If you look at the history of the 126 years, you can see how that has changed. I do think we need to pay tribute to the organisation for advocating for that change, for cannibalising its own organisation in the beginning and becoming a truly empowering organisation for blind people.

Right now the services that the Blind Foundation provides are to support people so that they can live a full life, to make sure that they can make the most of every opportunity that New Zealanders have in this country. I think we have had some mention of technology today. Interestingly enough, the blind community has always been good at taking up innovation. After all, Braille was one of those early technologies that allowed blind people to live lives as close as possible to ordinary New Zealanders in terms of reading and in terms of communication. Now we are seeing some fantastic new software and computerware that blind people can use to support them in the adoption of technology; the foundation is very strong in that area. There is a famous bit of software called Job Access With Speech (JAWS). It is fascinating because they use it in terms of software and computing. What it does is it reads words aloud really, really fast. You and I probably would not pick up the speed of the reading, but blind people are attuned to JAWS, and they can speed it up. It is fascinating to watch them using that technology.

There have been several turning points along the line because the legislation has changed, but the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002 was a turning point because that allowed the foundation the opportunity to become an incorporated society. Even though it took until 2012 for it to do that, it opened the door for it to take that control over its organisation. It was also the time that it changed the name to the Royal New Zealand Foundation “of” the Blind, rather than “for” the blind.

I think that this repealing is particularly important. It is important not only because it has given the organisation the opportunity to highlight in Parliament the work it has done, but also because it wants to make it very clear that there is no confusion between having a statute and giving it the independence going forward. I think that the fact that it is now totally on its own, controlling its own destiny, looking after its sector, and being completely independent of Parliament is a really positive move. So I would like to say thank you to the organisation. Thank you for providing those services for 126 years. I would like to thank the select committee for the work that it has done to get to this stage. Finally, I would like to say kia kaha to the organisation for the next 126 years. Kia ora.

Preamble agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.