Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill, Human Rights Amendment Bill (No 2)

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

I move, That the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill and the Human Rights Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. Passing these bills will enable New Zealand to proceed to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This action will reinforce our leadership role with other States in the promotion of human rights for all people and continue our leading role with regard to the convention, in particular. Passing these bills will result in New Zealand being confident that our legislation, our policy, and our practice are not inconsistent with the convention, and that its ratification can proceed. I appreciate the support of other parties in the House, which has made this possible. The commitment of the whole House sends a clear signal about the value that must be placed on the inclusion of disabled people in our society.

I commend these bills to the House.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of this very important and benchmark legislation, the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill and the Human Rights Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a great day when all parties in Parliament support legislation such as this. It is, however, really important also that when there are concerns about process, they are taken in a constructive light. And there were concerns about process with this legislation. However, the National Party has done everything possible at every stage to make sure we are in full cooperation with the Minister. And I must say the Minister has also done a great deal to ensure that we were well informed beforehand, and that we were able to do what we wished to do.

However, we were, of course, concerned about the fact that a broad range of parties were unable to have time to submit on this legislation, and that was something that I think does require a reality check. This is very serious legislation, and this convention is very serious, and we take it seriously. We do not want to have false expectations. We want to ensure that the aspirations of this sort of legislation can indeed be translated into reality. That is why we were concerned that people like the Certified Builders Association, the unions, and businesses that are affected and have to make the real, practical changes to their buildings or their access ways, and that do indeed have financial implications imposed upon them, are appropriately consulted, so that indeed, I say to Mr Chauvel, these expectations can be realised. I hope the member takes it on board that this is not a rose-tinted pass to everything happening suddenly. It must be done piece by piece, stage by stage, in a practical, sincere, and appropriate way. That is the way the National Party would have appreciated it being done if we possibly could have.

However, I am absolutely delighted with the way everybody has worked to get this legislation through. I, too, thank all of the officials, because I know they have had to do a tremendous amount of hard work over this very short time span. I understand there is still more hard work to come in order to achieve the realisations that the legislation promises.

I also sincerely want to thank the disability sector for the tremendous amount of work it has done for many years in order to bring this about. I know that it has spent, on its part, year after year lobbying all sorts of different people, including the National Party, and I must say that it has been for me a source of constant inspiration and learning to have had connection with the whole disability sector, whether it be CCS Disability Action, or IHC or, of course, DPA. It has been a great pleasure and a real privilege to be involved with the thinking and the sincerity that have been behind bringing this about tonight.

Indeed it is a great occasion that we come to the third readings of this legislation. It is quite complicated in its background; it has heavy implications in a whole variety of legislation, including the mental health legislation that I mentioned earlier on. There are quite subtle changes in the way things are changed to ensure that people who are suffering mental illnesses are able to fully participate in a whole variety of circumstances—such as on school boards—that they have not been able to in the past.

Passing this legislation is indeed another step in terms of implementing the New Zealand Disability Strategy, and in terms of going along the pathway to accessibility and ensuring that New Zealand becomes a fully inclusive society. So it is with great pleasure that the National Party supports this legislation’s passage in its third readings.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this

On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the third readings of the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill and the Human Rights Amendment Bill (No 2). This legislation has been an absolute pleasure to be involved with. It is a really great occasion to see it passed tonight. We have to say thank you to the officials, who have done the job very well, and we appreciate that.

We in New Zealand First believe that this legislation is a very positive move forward for the disability sector and is very worthy of support. Of course, it has that support from all parties in this House. That universal support, I must say, is very rare, and when attained, it can actually be celebrated. It can be seen as the result of some very successful and useful discussions with all parties involved. I counted up the number of Acts that are affected by this legislation, and it is 23, so it is quite a significant number.

I also thank the Minister Ruth Dyson. Her advocacy and dedication has ensured that all parties now have a disability policy and are aware of disability issues.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I will take only a very brief call on the third readings of this legislation. It is sufficient to just say that United Future sees this legislation as not a small but a significant legislative step. But it is a step in a journey that still has some measurable distance to be covered, so I say our commitment to this step tonight goes with a larger commitment to the ongoing need for policy development and the delivery of services that empower people to live lives of their own choice. We are committed to that. I thank all parties, I thank the officials, and I thank those in the sector who have taken the time to get into United Future’s face over the last 3 years in order to ensure that we listened to them, that we continue to listen to them, and that we continue to learn, so that everything we advocate for on their behalf reflects what they want. Thank you.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) Link to this

These third readings are, I guess, are an opportunity for members, in company with their colleagues, to express thanks to those who have been involved in the preparation of this legislation. It certainly was useful to have that degree of preparation. This is also an opportunity to acknowledge, again, the support for the legislation from the disability sector.

I am sorry that Mr Chauvel, my colleague on the Justice and Electoral Committee, was not present to hear earlier speeches. To some extent I felt he tried to cheapen the debate. Mr Chauvel should know that trout actually do play a part in therapy, and on more than one occasion I have fished on the banks of the Arnold River in Westland, by arrangement, with people recovering from mental illness.

This legislation has a very wide reach, and it is important to ensure that it is fully and effectively developed, rather than it being just a much vaunted piece of rhetoric. We have to reach beyond the disability sector to create an understanding and awareness amongst people who, through no fault of their own, do not have a clear understanding of the implications of this legislation. For the disability sector this legislation is a line that it has been waiting to reach, and I congratulate it on reaching that line. For the rest of us, it is just a beginning. The work begins now. I am sure the work and preparation that has been done by the present Minister, Ruth Dyson, is a tribute to the way things can be done. The rest of us must make sure that it is followed through so that the real benefits continue on well beyond this evening’s celebration. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

I am delighted to take a brief call in the third reading stage, when we analyse the legislation as it has emerged from the Committee stage. The Committee stage tonight was fairly brief, but it is worth mentioning just one or two things.

The first is that we had an extraordinary contribution from Mr Chauvel toward the end of the Committee stage. It is worth noting. He took exception to something Dr Hutchison had said about the provision in the Human Rights Act 1993 to prevent discrimination on the ground of disability. He said that the provision came not from the National Party but from Kathy O’Regan, who was then the MP for Waipa. He failed to acknowledge that Kathy O’Regan was the National member for Waipa, and that it was the National Party members who pushed issues of discrimination.

The next issue from Mr Chauvel’s funny little outburst that I want to address concerns his suggestion that we on this side were focusing on the words of statutes, rather than on concepts. I know that an analysis of the words of statutes is not exactly Mr Chauvel’s strong suit, but when we look at the words of, particularly, the statutes contained in Part 2, we see how pervasive discrimination against disabled people has been, and why there needs to be detailed analysis of statutes to enable that discrimination to be overcome. The point is that the amendments in Part 2, which I referred to briefly in the course of my first reading speech, are primarily concerned with statutes that seek to disqualify certain people from public or fiduciary offices in a wide variety of ways, be it from juries, from boards, from river boards, or from the various other institutions that are created by the statutes referred to in Part 2. We all know that most statutes creating those sorts of bodies provide for automatic disqualification on grounds such as bankruptcy or criminal conviction, but another common ground that pervaded all those statutes was disqualification—automatic disqualification—where a person was mentally disordered, and there was reference to the Mental Health Act 1969 and, more recently, the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. What the changes seek to achieve is to do away with automatic disqualification for mental disorder, and, rather, to replace it with a test based on the exercise of certain powers under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act of 1988.

That is why, for example, the officials undertook a detailed analysis of the various sections of the Juries Act where this discrimination was pervasive—for example, section 8, which prohibits certain people from serving on a jury. The legislation removes the prohibition on people with a mental disorder serving on a jury, but retains the prohibition on people with certain other disabilities.

So the words are very important. Of course, if we as parliamentarians are to do our job justly, we need to focus on the words, because it is the words that matter and it is the words that create the discrimination that the United Nations convention seeks to address. As we ratify it into our domestic law, we have to deal with those pieces of legislation.

I found it incredible, as I was reading through the legislation in the course of the select committee hearing, to note that the discrimination even extended to regulations, as Mr Auchinvole said. The issue, of course, is not trout, as Mr Chauvel would have us believe in that rather demeaning manner of his; the Freshwater Fish Farming Regulations 1983 actually contain extraordinary regulations that allow the manager of a licensee’s estate appointed under the Mental Health Act 1969 or the Aged and Infirm Persons Protection Act 1912 to transfer and operate a licence in certain circumstances. That is the kind of thing that needs to be swept away, and it certainly happens with this legislation.

I once again congratulate all those who have been involved in all stages of this legislation, from those in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who represented the New Zealand Government and people when the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was being discussed, to the Ministry of Justice officials who dealt so carefully with the various pieces of legislation to ensure that this good-quality product was achieved.

I end by saying that, yes, National members had some concerns about process, but we swept those to one side because we were more interested in dealing with the substantive matters, and out of deference to the good people who made very powerful submissions to the select committee—and I do not think there was one member on the committee who was not very interested in those submissions and did not follow them closely. But there were shortcomings. For example, the closing date for submissions was 21 July 2008, but the original bill was referred to us only on 22 July. The proper analyses that should have been done were not done.

Putting all of that to one side, the National Party was supportive of this legislation because, in an incremental way, it sweeps away some of the law that has formed the basis of discrimination against disabled people over the years. But that is only the first step, as Mr Auchinvole said. One can deal with the words in a statute or the words in regulations, and that is the foundation on which we can move from statutes and regulations to practices, to the way that people with disabilities are able to contribute to New Zealand society to the fullest extent. National members are pleased to support the third reading of this legislation, and the sooner it is passed into law the better. In fact, a very good argument could be made that because the convention was ratified in March 2007, the Government could have moved much more quickly on this matter, and it could have been law before now.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

I share the sentiments, or some of the sentiments, of Chris Finlayson—certainly, that the sooner the legislation is passed, the better it will be. I know that it will be passed this evening, and I think it is great that we have the support of all members in the House for it. As I said earlier, some members were a little reticent about coming forward, in terms of making money into a little more of a consideration than I think it needed to be. But with good advice, and certainly with compelling submissions, this is the point we are at now.

This is the time when we should acknowledge, as we did before, all the work that has gone before us. This is the final stage in the process, and, as important as it is, I say much has been done by many people in leading us to this point. I particularly want to acknowledge all the work that went in—work that actually made New Zealand a leader in terms of these rights. There are too many people involved for me to name them all, but in particular I want to acknowledge Don Mackay, who really played a huge leadership role in this area. Certainly, I know that everyone in this House and those who have seen the work that Don has undertaken will join me in acknowledging him in this House.

I think this legislation is historic—and I am looking at the clock, because I am not going to let so much time go by that this legislation does not pass tonight. I would very much like to add, along with everybody else, my full support for this legislation to go forward. Thank you very much.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) Link to this

It is obvious that the support of the House for this legislation tonight is important. We have heard some very good speeches on the whole area of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have had people here who have expertise in this area, and, although I was not on the Justice and Electoral Committee, I certainly realise the importance of this legislation for those people who are in the gallery tonight. National has much pleasure in supporting this legislation.