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

We move now to clause 4. This is the debate on clause 4, amendment to section 2, which is the interpretation. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for the opportunity. I’d like to say it again; I’d like to ask the member to give us a clarification in terms of the changes to the Human Rights Act—if you could actually inform us of that, thank you.

I thank the member for her question, but also with all due respect, the member was with us throughout the committee stages, and so I—whether this is a point of clarification or for herself, it’s in question, because it works better to know which bits of the Act we’re amending.

So, basically, just to clarify on section 2, what we’re inserting is the language around “disability assist dog” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dog Control Act 1996. I already spoke to that in earlier speeches, where, basically, we are drawing that link with what is in the Dog Control Act into the Human Rights Act to, basically, stop grounds of discrimination. So, hopefully, that answers your question, but I mean she has sat through the committee; if she wishes to do a bit of a speech to further raise awareness—or whether this is a bit of a gotcha question—I would welcome a further discussion.

Thank you for the opportunity, yes. Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a Thursday and it’s brilliant that we’re here today talking about the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill in the member’s name Ricardo Menéndez March.

So my question, really, is about clarification so that members of the public are aware of what—the Human Rights Act is important, so that’s why I asked the question, in terms of exactly what the changes are. So the disability assist dog—I want to really, if the member can please explain to me, I haven’t had a dog since I was in my late 30s. But I’d just like the member—his name was Goodie and he got stolen. So anyway—I used to call him Goodsy-Woodsy-Woo.

Anyway, I’d just like to ask the member, please, if he could explain to us the definition of “disability assist dog.” Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and if I can have your indulgence I’d just like to say: [Member uses New Zealand Sign Language] congratulations to the Deaf Society of Canterbury for their 100-year anniversary—all right!

💬 Hon Members: Yay!

I must say I was a bit nervous and awkward having a go at that, so it’s great to see that this bill is making lives a little easier. But I would invite the member just to talk to Supplementary Order Paper 145 that has been tabled in the name of Penny Simmonds. Certainly, the impression that I have is that it’s a little loose, probably, and it doesn’t look like it’s had, perhaps, the consideration and thoughtfulness that is necessary. Now, I’m not saying it’s ill-founded in principle, but we have a workable bill here that makes a great change and I’d just be interested in the member’s thoughts, because, at the moment, I’m yet to be persuaded that the proposed amendment, which broadens the definition which is in the principal section, section 2, in clause 4 of the bill, is really an effective amendment and a necessary amendment and one that doesn’t, perhaps, create more problems than it solves. So if the member would like to address that, that would be much appreciated.

Thank you. I’ll just go back to the previous member’s question and refer members of the public who may be tuning in for the first time to speeches in the first and second reading, where I think we traversed very thoroughly about the mahi that disability assist dogs do and perform. They enable people to participate in their societies. They can also perform lifesaving duties for people who have seizures. And in terms of what we are very much doing in the Act, it’s replacing “guide dog” with “disability assist dog”, because it does have a broader definition. But, again, if somebody is watching here for the first time, I think there are very thorough, explanatory speeches in the first and second reading, so I would be loath to use precious time to discuss a member’s bill, to traverse something we have done for many hours.

I cannot understate the importance of the duties that disability assist dogs provide for the community, but I also understand that other members have an interest in discussing Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 145 put in by Penny Simmonds, who, hopefully, is joining us remotely, but I can’t really tell. What she was looking for is to, basically, expand the language in section 2, in clause 4 of the bill, to also include not just disability assist dogs that have been trained or are being trained or have been certified as trained to assist a person with a disability by one of the organisations listed in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996, or by a private trainer recognised by one of the organisations listed in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

I think this is something that organisations like the Human Rights Commission encouraged us to explore—encouraged us to broaden the sorts of work animals that could be included in the Human Rights Act for the purposes of supporting disabled people and enabling them to participate in their communities. I do note the Human Rights Commission also encouraged any changes to have broader consultation with the community. So it is unfortunate that this SOP was brought, I guess, so late into the process, because that consultative process wasn’t able to happen. But I do think that the language is considered enough in terms of enabling both the guarantee that there will be a degree of discipline and acknowledging, as well, that if this SOP was to go through, further work would be have to be done by different departments to ensure that.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I want to ask the member on this really excellent bill—I just wanted to follow up on my colleague Dr Webb’s comment about the Supplementary Order Paper. I’m concerned about the fact that this has come late when, actually, it’s quite complicated, and you’ll remember the discussions we had with the various organisations talking about the need for these dogs to really be properly accredited. And I was concerned when I heard member Penny Simmonds’ comment that owners might accredit themselves and their own dogs loosely under some arrangement with one of the accredited organisations. That is concerning when you consider the safety issues.

I am a massive fan of disability assist dogs, but what bothers me is, as you say, the lack of consultation, the need for wider consultation if we were to do something like this, and isn’t it a complete answer that, actually, a new organisation that’s springing up to train a different sort of dog could actually be accredited by Order in Council, or am I incorrect?

Thanks, Mr Chair. I just would like to also circle back in regards to Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki’s question. Because it is relevant to the topic of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), I would like the member to go through, for the benefit of those listening, who the disability assist dogs training organisations are listed under the Dog Control Act. The reason I ask this is because of my concern about the SOP that sits specifically around the training and expertise.

I’ve had a little bit of a look in regards to what the training for the dogs is, in fact, and one of the things—so I looked at the low-vision foundation particularly. In fact, interesting story: I was quite keen to be a trainer or a volunteer to support these dogs for low-vision. Unfortunately, my husband wasn’t a fan of it because we would have to give the puppy back. So the training occurs from a period of 12 to 18 months with a volunteer, and, at that point, the volunteer then hands the dog over for a professional six-plus months training package. It costs thousands and thousands of dollars to do this. There is a huge network wrapped around, including the appropriate selection and picking of these dogs, and breeding, to get them to the right types of traits that they want. Some are smaller, some are bigger, and they are matched appropriately with people. The other thing that happens there is the full cost of that dog is paid for by the low-vision foundation. What happens there is the vet bills, the food bills, the registration bills, and respite—so if a family has something that occurs and they can’t look after the dog for a little bit of time, there is some respite.

This SOP recommends that there will be sort of a contracting out of the opportunity for these organisations that are well and truly safely listed and have a set of guidelines and have had many, many years of experience doing this—contracts that out to an individual person. That’s from my reading. Now, if I have my reading wrong, I would like to just acknowledge that, but the reality is it was only raised with us in the House on the second reading. We didn’t have the full participation of the member Penny Simmonds throughout our select committee process; it was not something that she was able to participate fully in. We did brush upon this idea of the extension. It was one thing that was outside of scope. It is not something that we should hurry through. The risk to our community is, one, reputational damage—what happens if a dog is not well trained and causes harm. In fact, I have circumstances where people who are not part of those organisations with clear, appropriate training have actually harmed community members, harmed the reputation of those dogs, and also caused great distress to the community and to their, I guess, person they’re matched with—I’m not quite sure of the term.

As a consequence, I think this is very clearly something that is worth considering in the future. It’s looking to perhaps solve a problem that we understand and know, and that is that we don’t have enough dogs happening, that they’re very expensive to get, and that there is a wait-list. We recognise that. But that’s not something that should be discussed in an SOP in the second reading. We need to give more attention to this matter. We need to have had discussed this. We need to have listened to the community and their views. We didn’t traverse this at all with their views. Accordingly, I don’t support—Labour does not support—this submission. Thank you.

Point of order, Mr Chair. There was a ruling in the previous Parliament about having party boxes on top. I see the member’s just removed his box.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! The person in the Chair is in charge, and if you’re going to take frivolous points of order, we’ll move on very quickly.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I’ve got to say, this is an embarrassing display of filibustering on such a trivial—not trivial bill, but a trivial part of the process, when we should be actually assisting the disability assist dogs to get through this House, without slowing it down in such a pathetic way. I’m so embarrassed by this at the moment.

I want to speak to Penny Simmonds’ Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 145. Now, this is a woman who has extensive experience in the disability sector, someone with a lot of credibility and a lot of empathy and knowledge about how the disability sector works but also what the challenges are for people actually inflicted with some form of disability that need a disability assist dog. So, in terms of the contribution made by the member who just resumed her seat, there can be huge wait-lists for people waiting on dogs to be trained. In the schedule, there is an extensive list of those organisations that provide that training. What Penny Simmonds’ Supplementary Order Paper simply does is add another opportunity for another form of training, and I’ll quote from the SOP: “by a private trainer recognised by one of the organisations listed in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996”. It is a complementary addition to the existing schedule and it will simply allow for the same competencies to be administered in the training of the dog, the same outcomes to be resolved, and, actually, maybe just give further opportunity for further training of these dogs so that they can become part of the system and go out to the people that need them. I think this is a very simple, practical addition to the bill and I urge the member in charge of the bill to give it serious consideration and support this amendment and this SOP. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Kia ora, Mr Chair, thank you very much, and I want to thank Ricardo Menéndez March for continuing to champion this piece of legislation, which, obviously, Mojo Mathers had—you took it on yourself to pick it up and run with it, and then to have it drawn out of the ballot is no easy feat.

I’m glad to be standing here in support of the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-discrimination) Amendment Bill, and talking here, obviously, around clause 4. I’m standing here in the House this morning with my poppy on, and it got me thinking about how big a role animals play in our lives. I remember back in 2014 and the commemorations for 100 years of the war to end all wars—World War I—and around the horses that went to war that never came back. In human history, obviously, animals—and particularly dogs, in this instance—serve us so well and are definitely our companions, our best friends, but also workhorses, or dog workers—however that is.

But I just want to come back to the Supplementary Order Paper, and I know it probably was a slip of the tongue, but I don’t think we’re being trivial at all this morning; I think we are actually leaning into this, and just wanting to get a sense. And if anything is trivial, I guess—I mean, I would like to hear from Penny Simmonds this morning to hear, if this isn’t a trivial addition, why it was only added on 7 April this year in terms of the fact that this was nothing that was discussed in the select committee that we’re a part of.

At the moment, with those eight organisations, under the Dog Control Act of 1996, that are able to train, I think, at the moment, that is appropriate, and, I guess, in terms of Ricardo Menéndez March, just wanting to hear a bit from you around whether you have engaged with some of those organisations to hear from them, in terms of it continuing to be just under that Dog Control Act of 1996, because I really feel that once we start getting into private trainers, there is risk. I guess, as I looked at the select committee and then also I remember in the second reading really looking into these different eight organisations and the different roles they play and how, like my colleague and the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, Angie Warren-Clark, said, there’s a role we as communities play to serve these organisations in terms of training, in terms of developing not pets but actually enablers for people with disability, for people who are looking for a disability assist dog.

So, yeah, I guess that is my question, really, in terms of your engagement with these organisations, in terms of what their reflections were. Was there any openness to having private trainers coming into this space? Because I think it is important to not trivialise this but to ensure that we get it right. The other part of it, I think, as I was looking back on some of those submitters, one of the questions was around if we bring this into the legislation—which actually baffled me—it might bring more dogs into public places. I thought, “Why is that a problem?” But, I guess, in talking with these disability assist trainers, they probably have really good perspectives on that, so I’d like to ask the member in terms of, I guess, any reflections and feedback on that, on those eight organisations: have you spoken to them? I guess your feedback would be appreciated.

I want to take this opportunity—and in my two previous contributions, I forgot to acknowledge those who are in this sector who train dogs. I could never, never understand what it is to be blind. We can talk about the value of having a guide dog or a disability assist dog, but we, as people with sight, will never understand that. So I just want to acknowledge everyone who is providing a much-valued and needed service, and I just want to honour the services of those people.

It’s important—members across from the other side have said that we’re trivialising this, but it’s important that we talk about Supplementary Order Paper 145, because I’ve asked the member for a definition. I want to talk about paragraph (b) in her proposed amendment to the definition of “disability assist dog” in section 2(1), where Penny Simmonds’ Supplementary Order Paper talks about the organisations listed in Schedule 5. I would like the member, just for the record, to name those organisations, and, in the same breath, I want to acknowledge that my nephew—he has a dog. She’s a black bitch, and her name is Swain.

I just want to acknowledge that everyone has a dog, but a disability assist dog is a different type of dog, and organisations who are going to recognise these private trainers actually need to be named in the House. So I’d like to ask the member to name those organisations in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996. Thank you.

I am concerned about this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Respect to the member who has brought it to us, but there was a lot of work done on this during committee. We heard from a lot of organisations, and you’ve already, yourself, mentioned the Human Rights Commission’s point of view, which is that any extension of that required further extension of the work done.

My concern, to the member who is actually bringing this wonderful little bit of legislation, is it’s too late and too little. But also, I really do want to hear from the member who’s brought the SOP as to her answer to the concerns that we’ve got: that this is going to end up creating a bit of a Wild West situation with the training of dogs. We don’t want that. This is so important. It would devalue the work to not have a proper regulatory regime, and particularly there’s one available by Order in Council if we need to extend.

I particularly want to ask the member who’s brought the SOP why she said in the House—and I may be wrong, but my memory is she said this—that this would enable owners to train their own dogs. It does create the possibility of a poorly regulated accreditation regime which will devalue the importance of disability dogs. That’s the question I’d like answered by the member who brought the SOP.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to continue on with some interrogation of the Supplementary Order Paper and seek clarification of what it adds, besides a few words. When you look at the Department of Internal Affairs advice about what you need to do to become one of the organisations on the list, it is rigorous—and it is rigorous for a very good reason. These organisations not only have to prove that they can train these dogs but that they can continue to support the clients, the people whose lives are enriched and enabled by having these well-trained dogs, these workers, in their lives.

When you look at the Department of Internal Affairs, they talk about making sure that the legal management and governance structures are there and that rigor is there so that there is accountability and an opportunity for ongoing support, because this is a very important role that these dogs play. We’ve been told that this is about improving access to these wonderful working dogs, and I understand the intent, but we’re talking about ensuring rigor, quality, and ongoing support, and that has been recognised in the procedures that the Department of Internal Affairs requires and the very high standards they set to allay the concerns that have already been mentioned about “what happens if?” or “what happens when?”, and as we have more of these working dogs in broader parts of our community.

I’m really curious to hear how allowing, I guess, the fraying at the edges of this very disciplined regime is going to assist ongoing access to quality working dogs. The people that they assist deserve no less. Others in the Chamber today have acknowledged the work of these organisations and the dogs that they train to help people in our community live full lives with dignity. So that is the question for whoever answers it from the other side: how is this Supplementary Order Paper really going to improve things.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a real pleasure to get another call on this matter. We still haven’t heard from the member whose name this bill is in as to why he believes that this is an appropriate Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and is supporting it. I’d be interested to hear. And I’d also be interested to hear if he could name the organisations who spend many, many, many years training and supporting these dogs.

I wanted to just ask the member Penny Simmonds if she has looked at Assistance Dogs International, which is the international movement around dogs and making sure that they are appropriately trained. They have a mission and a vision and values, and one of the values that they talk about is the dog health and welfare, the ongoing dog health and welfare. What we know about our organisations who train these amazing companions, these amazing dogs that do this work, is that they have, I guess, what we would call, an after-care service, a service that supports these dogs when they retire. So what thought has gone into on the welfare of these animals?

I’d also like to pick up on my colleague’s questions in regards to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), the guidelines for authorisation to certify disability assist dogs. It is, as my colleague Angela Roberts said, a very comprehensive list, and I want to know from the member whose name this bill is in whether, in fact, he has looked at this and whether it is compatible with the wording of the SOP, which enables, I guess, for me, a sense of contracting out, and where we have a very specific set of skills and work and training, and hundreds and hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars invested in these animals to be appropriate for, and the matching to, their person. I want to know whether, in fact, this has been thought out.

I guess, my final comment around this is that this is an interesting topic; don’t get us wrong. We do not take it lightly to be voting down this SOP and not supporting it. We certainly think that this is a matter of interest. Nevertheless, it was too late to bring it to this committee. We should have had the opportunity to engage and invite the community who this affects to discuss this matter with us. What we know about the disability community is they are silenced enough, and, therefore, we would say, “Nothing about us without us.”, right? So we would have liked to have invited the opportunity for those to submit on this matter, even though it is out of scope—even though it is out of scope. It would have been worthwhile having that discussion. So I’m really disappointed that that wasn’t brought to us and I would like the member whose name this bill is in to address that and to perhaps consider my views around the DIA and what his views are around the very stringent and important training that is required for these animals, and the regulation to ensure that they are absolutely appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to commend the efforts of the Labour members for using almost their full slots to make their contributions, specifically to ask me to list the organisations that train dogs that I think they can google if they really want to know. I appreciate they want me to know and to name them. But for those people viewing, I can give them a list, which is Assistance Dogs New Zealand, Hearing Dogs for Deaf People New Zealand, K9 Medical Detection New Zealand, K9 Search Medical Detection, Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust, New Zealand Epilepsy Assist Dog Trust, Perfect Partners Assistance Dogs Trust, Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Inc. Happy to send a paper list to the members if they genuinely would like to understand the comprehensive list.

Speaking to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 145, I would really like to hear members from National also explain their rationale for bringing this forward. But I do want to note and address some of the concerns that have been raised regarding the issue of disciplining, the sphere of—it was brought by, I believe, one submitter around the consequence of having more dogs in the public space. And while I totally understand the need for these dogs to have adequate training and that there are procedures in place, my understanding with the SOP is that this is why the language is very clear that it’s not just any private trainer; it’s a private trainer that has been recognised by one of the organisations listed in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act. While I totally take the points from Labour members around berating the late stages in which this SOP was being brought forward—I empathise with those statements regarding my wishes of having had a much more consultative process with the community—I also want to acknowledge that, in the submission process, the feedback from disabled people was very much one of urging us to ensure that they’re able to participate in their communities.

While organisations play a massive role in enabling these dogs to do their work, and, therefore, also ensuring that disabled people can participate, I also think that we should be taking the feedback from organisations like the Human Rights Commission, which are encouraging us to look at expanding the provision for these services. So, if this SOP was to go through, I think further consultation needs to be had, and I think the submitters were really clear, anyway, that more work needs to be done beyond this bill, both in terms of information campaigns and in reviewing the language that we use. So I think no one is disputing that. Again, we’re waiting to hear from the National members, but I think I also don’t want to fall into a sort of all-or-nothing space in terms of the discipline aspect of the training, because the SOP was, I think, quite precise in terms of naming that it would only be one of the organisations that can designate a private trainer.

Again, I would love to hear from the member Penny Simmonds. I do acknowledge her work in the disability sector, and I do want to also acknowledge the conversations I have had with Mojo Mathers, who drafted this bill on this specific issue. I think, as Parliament, we will need to be continuously taking steps to genuinely ensure that our processes are participatory. I know the chair was really great when it came to ensuring our select committee process was really inclusive, and I think, as part of that, we should continue genuinely engaging with disabled people to ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question is that Penny Simmonds’ amendment to replace clause 4 set out in Supplementary Order Paper 145 be agreed to.