Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill

Thank you. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge the member who is in the chair, Ricardo Menéndez March. I’m guessing it is a very difficult—well, it’s quite an exciting opportunity for you.

I would like the member to please have an explanation for us in regards to how he came to this legislation, and I would be also particularly interested in the definition of “disability assist dog” and why he believes that this is the most appropriate term. Thank you.

Thank you to the member Angie Warren-Clark for the question. So, in terms of the whakapapa of the bill, it all came about last decade when members of the Deaf and disabled community raised the issue of the struggles to access adequate housing due to discrimination that they were facing because they had a disability assist dog. They were working with Mojo Mathers and the late Murray Whittington, who raised the issue of the discrimination that he was facing. Back in 2015, Mojo drafted this bill, and now I’ve had the privilege to carry it through the House.

Why we’re using the language of “disability assist dog” is that it’s defined in the Dog Control Act, and what is really clear is that there is rigorous training that occurs in order for these dogs to be certified. I think as submitters have said—and many of us, actually, have spoken about—these dogs are not pets; they do mahi, and this is why we are linking the definition and sort of drawing on the relationship with what’s in the Dog Control Act.

Submitters have also raised previously—which I agree with—issues around the need to ensure that these dogs can behave with the discipline required to enter these public spaces. But it is really clear, as well, that we have measures in the Human Rights Act that prevent discrimination towards disability assist dogs, because to discriminate against a disability assist dog is to prevent certain people from participating in their communities.

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member in the chair, because I’m mindful that this is your first time in the chair, I’m just going to ask a series of questions and then take a seat and let you respond—you don’t have to respond immediately to me. Sorry, Mr Chair, just explaining that.

I’m particularly interested in the interpretation section of the Human Rights Act, and I wanted you to, I guess, draw out some more information in regards to that. So, in the interpretation section, the meaning provides for “disability assist dog”—that we’re changing under the Dog Control Act. I wanted you to just talk to the committee in regards to why it’s important that this aspect is discussed—thank you—and why you’ve landed on this.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Can I just remind the member that this is clause 3; the piece you were talking about is in clause 4.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got a small question for the member regarding the Human Rights Act and whether he thinks that there could be some conflict between other humans in terms of—I’ll use the scenario that someone perhaps with an allergy to dogs is in a restaurant, say, or a cafe, and someone with a disability assist dog comes in. Do you consider that there is a conflict there, and which person or which animal would have precedence in that scenario?

I thank the member for the question. On that hypothetical, I think part of why having discrimination on the grounds of having a disability assist dog is important is that it could allow, for example, if there was to be a grievance in such a hypothetical situation, for, say, if the disabled person may have to be excluded from a cafe because somebody else had an allergy, they could take that process with the Human Rights Commission. I think that’s why this is important, because then they can decide as the mediators whether that would be a ground to take it further or to explore how that occurred.

So I think this is the important thing that we currently don’t have, right? If there was to be exclusion because of whatever reason, because you had a disability assist dog, currently it would be pretty much impossible to take a complaint to the Human Rights Commission and have that mediation happen. I mean, I don’t want to dwell too much on the specifics of that hypothetical, but I do want to speak as to why having this in the Act allows those processes and that mediation to take place, and I think that is a really important component to that.

I think we’re all clear—and submitters were really clear—that while this is a really important amendment, there will be other steps, such as an information campaign built on things that were discussed, as well as ensuring that people know the processes that they can take regarding the Human Rights Commission when these grievances occur.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The member Ricardo Menéndez March—I didn’t quite understand what he just explained. If the member can please—sorry, I’ll take this off—[Removes mask]—let us know which parts of the Human Rights Act this amends. I know that the general policy statement talks about—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! I think that we need to keep these issues for the next section.

I thought we were doing clause 3.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We’re only on the Human Rights Act changes—clause 3.

Sorry, Mr Chair. I’m asking the member to clarify the changes to the Human Rights Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): And those changes are in clause 4.

OK. It says, “This Act amends the Human Rights Act”. I’m talking about that.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Well, the bill does amend the Human Rights Act, but I think the changes you’re talking about are in the next clause.

OK. All right. Well, perhaps I’ll take a seat and let another member take the opportunity to ask a question.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 Section 2 amended (Interpretation)