Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill

TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this

I seek leave for the Committee stage debate to be taken as one question, with separate votes on the provisions of the bill.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) Link to this

It is a pleasure to speak on Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill. National agrees entirely with it. We very much cooperated with the Government during the process of this bill. It was right that we questioned the Government from time to time on its processes. We had a rather mealy-mouthed interpretation from the Labour list member who emanates from the deep south, Lesley Soper. I thought it was a bit mean in spirit compared with the very generous spirit of the National Party towards this bill and its supporters.

If we look at Parts 1, 2, and 3, we see that a huge number of pieces of legislation have to be amended by the bill in order for us to fulfil the various requirements of the convention. There are not only amendments to the Human Rights Act 1993—an excellent Act brought in by the last National Government—but also a variety of amendments to a huge spectrum of other statutes, ranging from the Community Trusts Act to, as my learned colleague Chris Finlayson pointed out, such unlikely legislation as the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act, the Taranaki Scholarships Trust Board Act, the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, and a whole variety of others.

I shall for a moment concentrate on some of the issues around those suffering from psychiatric disabilities. We had a very strong submission from the Mental Health Commission, which pointed out that ratifying the convention was important because the vulnerability of disabled people, including people with psychiatric disability, demanded international safeguards at the highest level. The convention enables disability to be understood and addressed at a social level, and will serve as a positive framework for positive reforms of New Zealand law, Government policies, and community attitudes that promote social inclusion of people with psychiatric disabilities. There are many areas of exclusion of people with psychiatric disabilities. For instance, they are excluded from education boards. There is no question that many people with a mental disability are able to make a very positive contribution to such boards, but under the present statute they are not able to participate, to be elected, or to be appointed to those boards. These changes will make it possible for them to participate, and I think that is very positive indeed.

I think it is also important to point out how significant the prevalence of mental conditions in New Zealand is. This was very much emphasised by the Mental Health Commission. It said that about 20 percent of New Zealanders are currently experiencing, or have recently experienced, a mental health, alcohol-related, or drug-related problem. Out of the 20 percent, 4.7 percent of the survey population were assessed as currently having a serious disorder. Once again, that points out how very important it is that the stigma, prejudice, and discrimination that exist at so many levels of society towards those with mental health conditions are corrected. This legislation, which will help correct that situation, is very welcome.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) Link to this

I want to take a brief call in the Committee stage of the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill, but before I do that I thank the Committee for agreeing to have this debate in one part.

The reason I want to take a brief call is to say, first of all, I have two Supplementary Order Papers in my name, and I want to ensure that members are aware of their production and their content. Given that every party has signed up to supporting them this is probably an exercise in futility, because we have already ensured that. But I would like to do that formally and put it on the record. Supplementary Order Papers 234 and 235 will be voted on as part of the bill.

The second reason I want to take a brief call is to acknowledge the comments made by Christopher Finlayson in the second reading, in which he acknowledged the huge amount of work that has been undertaken by officials and others in order to prepare what is actually quite a small bill. I thank Mr Finlayson for his acknowledgment of the officials. A huge amount of work has gone into a very small bill. As well as the officials, of course, we have had disabled people themselves being part of the discussion from the very start of the process that is the reason why we have this bill. We have developed a convention that we want to ratify, and the role of disabled people in actually developing the convention was not only a reflection of the principles of the Disability Strategy but also a role model, and it changed the way the United Nations operated. I just want to put that on the record.

The final point I want to make is that the reason I want my contribution to be short is that the people who are listening to this debate have a life, and actually, they want to spend some of it tonight by sleeping, There is no debate to be had; every single party is in agreement with this bill. I urge its rapid progress.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) Link to this

I take note of the incredibly popular suggestion that the Minister for Disability Issues has just made, and I shall speak quickly!

I would like to add my voice to those expressing the pleasure associated with this bill being a unanimous decision of the House. I note the huge number of pieces of legislation that have to be adjusted. Even in these days of computer technology, I am sure it is a massive task. I say to my colleague Paul Hutchison that I misled him: the bill does involve trout, because I notice that freshwater fish legislation is included—so, yes, trout are there.

The ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is particularly important for vulnerable members of society, and particularly for sufferers of psychiatric illness. Twenty percent of New Zealanders, we have just been told, are currently enduring some form of mental disorder. With modern psychiatric medicine, I guess we can say that in most cases it will be of a temporary nature—a temporary disorder—and thank goodness for that. None the less, we need legislation that prevents people from being marginalised, excluded, or isolated from normal life.

Schoolchildren with special needs are worthy of special attention. I have noticed, as I have gone round the New Zealand Educational Institute meetings that I have been invited to recently, the difficulty associated with the Government’s decision that 1 percent of schoolchildren be regarded as needing special-needs support. How on earth can a Government decide that a particular percentage of people will be worthy of assistance?

There is still a way to go yet in making this legislation the practical tool that I am sure everybody in the gallery hopes and expects it will be. I have enjoyed my exposure to this bill, to the information it has provided, and to the work of the select committee. I have enjoyed my involvement, and I feel that I am a wiser person as a consequence of having been involved. It is with pleasure that National members express support for this bill.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

I want to take just a brief call, because Dr Hutchison made one comment that I really cannot let pass—and I am sorry to spoil what has been a multipartisan mood in the House. The Human Rights Act 1993 is excellent legislation, but members opposite have no right to claim any credit for its pedigree as far as disability is concerned. The Minister of Justice at the time, Doug Graham, would not put disability in the Act as a ground of prohibited discrimination. It took the courage of Katherine O’Regan to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to put that ground, as well as that of sexual orientation, into the Human Rights Act, as the National Government of the time would not do it. Let it not be forgotten that that Supplementary Order Paper went through only due to the support of most members on this side of the House.

I am sorry to say it, but the debate I have heard tonight from members opposite is really disappointing. Those members still do not get it—this is not about trout, and it is not about river boards. When there are people in the gallery whose quality of life is at stake, it is really insulting to go on about the minutiae of bills like this. This is about their rights, and those members need to get that.