Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) : I move, That the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration.

This bill forms part of the steps that will enable New Zealand to ratify the United Nations convention. The bill will do two things. It will amend various legislative provisions that are considered to be inconsistent with the convention and, secondly, it will amend the Human Rights Act 1993 to clarify the scope of its provisions enabling a person to refuse to accommodate a person’s disability in certain areas of activity. The bill does not itself provide for ratification, but instead it removes obstacles from this path.

Historically, New Zealand has set a high standard for ratification of international human rights treaties. We ratify only when the Government is satisfied that our laws, policies, and practices are not inconsistent with the treaty at issue. Since the release of the New Zealand Disability Strategy in 2001, there has been sustained progress by Government departments and agencies in removing barriers that prevent disabled people from participating in society. New Zealand has received international recognition for our efforts.

Since 2002 New Zealand has been a leader in negotiations on the convention. We worked in partnership with disabled people in shaping the convention. This included ensuring that disabled people were part of our official delegation to the United Nations. We were able to use our experiences domestically with the New Zealand Disability Strategy to inform our contribution to the convention process. I was honoured to represent New Zealand at the United Nations on 30 March last year, where I signed the convention, along with 80 other States. This was the largest number of States ever to sign a human rights treaty on the same day. Since then I understand that 129 States have signed the convention and 28 States have ratified it, indicating very strong global commitment.

The convention does not create new rights for disabled people. Instead, it builds on conventional understandings of what is required to implement existing human rights as they relate to disabled people. The convention provides practical guidance on the implementation of those rights, both immediately in the text and over time through the regular periodic reporting process to the United Nations. Given the level of activity already undertaken to implement the New Zealand Disability Strategy and our human rights obligations, no one in the House will be surprised that an assessment by Government agencies showed that New Zealand policy and practice does not present any substantial issues of inconsistency with the convention.

Some domestic enactments require primarily minor and technical amendments before ratification can proceed. The bill proposes these legislative changes in two parts. Part 1 amends the Human Rights Act 1993. Discussion amongst officials indicated that the Human Rights Act is not sufficiently clear about prohibitions relating to discrimination. The proposed amendments will mitigate any risk of ambiguity. Specifically, the amendments clarify that partnerships, professional and trade associations, qualification and vocational bodies, educational establishments, and dealers in land, housing, and accommodation are required to accommodate or to take account of the needs of disabled people to an extent that is reasonable. By definition, reasonable accommodation does not impose an undue burden on those needing to make adjustments to accommodate disabled people. This is not a new obligation.

Part 2 of the bill contains amendments to various enactments that are concerned with disqualification from certain public offices where a person is mentally disordered within the meaning of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. This is an inappropriate and unintended use of the Act, which has no mechanism for determining legal capacity or capability to undertake a role or function. Although there is no problem with the Act itself, status under the Act should not be used as a proxy for determining capacity.

The amendments in Part 2 either do away with automatic disqualification for mental disorder or replace it with a test based on the exercise of certain powers under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. Different amendments were required for the various enactments, depending on whether the enactment already included an alternative test for incapacity. Part 2 also repeals two inconsistent provisions relating to the hospital rates of social security benefits and New Zealand superannuation.

As a result of activity to remove barriers to participation by disabled people, the Government considers there will be minimal financial costs incurred by New Zealand as a result of ratifying and then implementing the convention. The monitoring process already in place for the New Zealand Disability Strategy will be adapted to meet the convention’s different reporting requirements. There is widespread support and high expectation in the domestic disability sector that we will ratify the convention quickly and take a leading role in its implementation.

I appreciate the support of other parties in the House to expedite the passage of this bill. Ratification of this, the most significant United Nations human rights treaty of the new millennium, will add to New Zealand’s strong role in the United Nations as a human rights champion. I pay tribute to the many people and organisations that made the convention happen, officials both current and past, disabled people, and disability sector representatives. I thank my colleagues in the House for supporting and assisting the passage of the bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill. National is very pleased to support this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

I appreciate that the Hon Ruth Dyson has made considerable efforts to ensure that all parties were informed of this issue, even before her own Cabinet saw some of the papers. However, I am concerned about the likelihood of this bill coming up for some long time. It is worrying, given that it has been on the agenda, that the Government now wishes to see the bill rushed through by the end of September. National members are very happy to do what we can to make sure that it goes through expeditiously, but we feel that it should be thoroughly and properly scrutinised during that time.

National is highly aware of the support given to the convention by our own disability sector. We acknowledge the tremendous amount of work it has done in order to prepare for this happening. We also regard the New Zealand Disability Strategy and Pathways to Inclusion as fundamental documents that need support. But again, we are concerned that the ongoing select committee inquiry into disability services and how they might be improved has shown an incomplete implementation of the New Zealand Disability Strategy, not to mention Pathways to Inclusion. In fact, a graphic example of that occurred in Christchurch just 2 weeks ago. Although it may be slightly insensitive for me to mention it, I think I should.

There was an occasion at the town hall in Christchurch where an elderly man with Parkinson’s disease had been to a concert with his wife. His wife had attempted to pick him up outside the town hall, which she usually does, only to find the area cordoned off by the prime ministerial entourage. Much to her concern, when she approached the young police officer, she was told that if she did not move on she might be arrested. Consequently, her 80-year-old husband had to shuffle down the street—more than 100 metres in the wet and the dark—before she could pick him up.

Why this is of concern is that this demonstrates the fact that we have not properly implemented the New Zealand Disability Strategy in this country. The rhetoric is high, but it is very important that we meet the rhetoric with practical applications. And although the Prime Minister has said that she was shocked at this incident, I have rung the woman several times and she has said to me that there has been no apology whatsoever for the considerable shock and discomfort that this elderly couple experienced.

Undoubtedly, the purpose of this bill is to “amend legislative provisions that are inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” and to “amend the Human Rights Act 1993 to clarify the scope of its provisions enabling a person to refuse to accommodate a person’s disability in certain areas of activity.”, and New Zealand signed the convention on the opening day for signing, which was in March 2007. Just to reiterate the point that I made: anticipating getting this bill through Parliament has actually had quite a lot of time.

As the explanatory note of the bill states: “The Convention came into force in May 2008, when the Convention received its 20th ratification by a State Party.” I understand that there are now something like 27 ratifications, but they do not include ratifications made by Australia, the UK, or Canada. However, the ever-enthusiastic Disabled Persons Assembly tells me that Australia will sign up to this convention imminently.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Keep up—they have.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: It has already? Well, that is excellent. Last week it had not.

It is very important, in our view, that the select committee is given the opportunity to scrutinise the bill, as the changes to the domestic law are extremely widespread. It is very important that Parliament gets this right, as we want to ensure not only that the rhetoric is right but also that the practical implementation for the disability sector is right, which is very important.

Minister Dyson mentioned monitoring. This aspect, again, is quite important, because there is a framework to promote, to protect, and to monitor implementation of the convention in article 33. Although New Zealand has instruments such as the Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Ombudsmen, the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner, and others—and those are very important—it is also important to ensure that we put a monitoring regime in place. I understand that the Minister is planning for this to happen after ratification, and that she have it reported to her by 5 December 2008. It is also important to point out that the monitoring implementation of the New Zealand Disability Strategy to date has largely focused on the activity of central government departments, but it does not extend to local and regional government, and that is the sort of situation that led to what happened in Christchurch only a month ago.

The other area that perhaps has been lightly gone over is the financial implications of this bill. Again, the Minister said there are no immediate or significant financial implications. However, it is really important that the longer term ones are looked into. Again, I understand that Government agencies may experience increased pressure from disabled people and disabled sector organisations to accelerate activity to meet the obligations under the convention. As is already the case the risk will need to be managed through a considered setting of Government priorities and budget allocations, and open communication in respect of how the Government is meeting the convention’s obligations. This is very important in order to make sure that, once again, the rhetoric meets the practical applications.

Thirdly, I will talk about the timing issues, because it is necessary to get the legislation through by 30 September if indeed New Zealand is to become a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Certainly, the disability sector in New Zealand is very anxious that this happen. That is why National is keen to work rigorously at the select committee with other parties to make sure that we look at this bill thoroughly, and, hopefully, we can expedite it quickly.

I understand that if the legislation can indeed get through on 30 September, then ratification will take place 30 days after the deposit of an instrument of ratification. Thus, if New Zealand ratifies at least 30 days in advance of the conference of State parties, which must be held by November 2008, it will be able to participate fully in the conference. This would put New Zealand in the best position for ensuring that the standards we advocated during convention negotiations are not diluted. I think that that is very reasonable, provided that we ourselves have our own house in order. In addition, ratification of the convention will reinforce New Zealand’s reputation as a State that leads and demonstrates in practice a commitment to human rights.

National does indeed support this bill’s referral to the select committee. We are keen to work hard with the other parties and the Government to see that the bill gets the scrutiny it deserves, and, hopefully, it will be in time to ratify the convention in an appropriate way.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I rise for a moment to put on record the extraordinary story around the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and, in particular, to note that it was really a combination of work by Don MacKay, an extraordinary New Zealand diplomat; Ruth Dyson, leading the political thrust, and some key figures in the disability non-governmental organisation sector, including Garry Williams, the chief executive of the Disabled Persons Assembly; Mike Gourley, the president of the assembly at the time; and, notably, Robert Martin, who was previously a resident of Kimberley Hospital—which in itself in an extraordinary statement about the way in which people with disabilities were once treated in our society—and was part of the New Zealand official delegation. The delegation worked tirelessly and received international commendation for its work on this convention.

I also recognise the comments of both Minister Dyson and the Opposition spokesperson that New Zealand likes to do these things properly. That is why, quite rightly, the bill will go through the select committee process. It will be great to see it come back to this House and go through all stages before the election.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : National will be supporting the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill going to the select committee. The purpose of this bill is to amend legislative provisions that are inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to amend the Human Rights Act 1993 to clarify the scope of its provisions enabling a person to refuse to accommodate a person’s disability in certain areas of activity.

These amendments will enable New Zealand to ratify the convention that it signed on 30 March 2007. After signing the convention in March 2007 a process of consultation with disability groups and the Human Rights Commission began. As of April 2008 I understand that 126 countries have signed the convention and 71 have signed the optional protocol. This bill begins the parliamentary stage, and National will be supporting the bill going to select committee in order for public submissions to be heard.

If this bill is passed into law it will mean that a regular report to the United Nations on implementation will be required. The first report will be due after 2 years, and then after every 4 years. I read the United Nations fact sheet on persons with disabilities and, quite frankly, the facts were chilling. Around 10 percent of the world’s population, or 650 million people, live with a disability. This figure is increasing through population growth, ageing, and medical advances. In countries with life expectancies over 70 years, individuals spend 8 years on average living with disabilities. Eighty percent of people with disabilities live in developing countries. In OECD countries disability rates are significantly higher among groups with lower educational attainment. Ninety percent of children with disabilities in developing countries do not attend school. On average, 19 percent of less educated people have disabilities compared with 11 percent among the better educated.

In most OECD countries women report a higher incidence of disabilities than men. The World Bank estimates that 20 percent of the world’s poorest people are disabled and tend to be regarded in their own communities as the most disadvantaged. Women with disabilities are recognised as being multiply disadvantaged, experiencing exclusion on account of their gender and their disability. Women and girls with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Mortality for children with disabilities may be as high as 80 percent in countries where mortality among under-5-year-olds as a whole has increased below 20 percent. Unemployment among the disabled is as high as 80 percent in some countries. Often employers assume that persons with disabilities are unable to work. Companies report that employees with disabilities have better retention rates, thereby reducing the high cost of turnover. There is also concern about violence. Persons with disabilities are more likely to be victims of violence or rape, and less likely to obtain police intervention, legal protection, or preventive care. Research also shamefully indicates that violence against children with disabilities occurs at annual rates at least 1.7 times greater than for their non-disabled peers.

What about the New Zealand situation? I think we have a lot of work to do, according to the 2006 New Zealand Disability Survey. In 2006 an estimated 660,000 New Zealanders reported having a disability—approximately 17 percent of the total population. That figure is significantly lower than the two previous surveys in 1996 and 2001, and it is really unclear why there has been a drop in the percentage. The report does caution about making an inference about trends.

Māori have higher disability rates than other ethnic groups in every age. The majority of Māori with a disability—that is, 63 percent—are younger than 45 years old. Nearly one-third of children with disabilities and nearly one-quarter of adults aged 15 to 44 with disabilities were Māori. In 2006, 82 percent of people with disabilities were adults living in households, 5 percent were adults living in residential facilities, and 14 percent were children under the age of 15 living in households. The percentage of people with a disability increased with age, from 10 percent of children under the age of 15 to 45 percent of adults aged 65 and over.

An estimated 5 percent of children have special education needs, and this was the most common disability type for children. Chronic conditions or health problems, and psychiatric or psychological disabilities, were the next most common disability types. Conditions or health problems that existed at birth, and diseases or illnesses, were the most common causes of disability for children. The most common disability types for adults were physical and sensory impairments. Disease, illness, accidents, and injuries were the most common causes of disabilities for adults. The most common types of accident or injury causing disabilities were those that occurred at work. Nearly all adults living in residential care facilities reported having a disability—99.7 percent—and most had multiple disabilities and high support needs.

I would like to mention learning disabilities specifically. An estimated 5 percent of children have special education needs. That equates to 41,000 children in New Zealand. I visited a local SPELD group, which is the acronym for Specific Learning Difficulties, that caters for children who learn differently. Parents and SPELD tutors provide assistance to people of all ages with learning problems, notably dyslexia. It is thought that as many as 10 percent of the population may have learning problems. These children are often very intelligent, and often incorrect assumptions are made. One of SPELD’s greatest concerns is that children with learning disabilities almost inevitably develop behavioural problems as a result of frustration and anger, unless those difficulties are diagnosed and treated. The behaviour then becomes a symptom that attracts attention from school authorities that are oblivious to its real cause. One has to wonder how many adults with learning disabilities fill our prisons at the present time.

SPELD is concerned that learning disabilities are under-diagnosed, and that teachers are poorly equipped to intervene. Like anything in health, early detection means better outcomes, but this is not happening in this particular area. In summary, National will be supporting this bill going to the Health Committee. Thank you.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill going to a select committee. We will be very interested to read the submissions from the interested parties, because we do not have a member on that particular select committee. We must publicly say that we appreciate the efforts of the Minister to ensure that we have been fully informed of all aspects of the legislation, and we congratulate her on the work that she has done in this area to ensure that New Zealand performs well on the international stage. To win an award is a fantastic achievement in itself.

New Zealand First has a few concerns about the way that the process around conventions is carried out in this Parliament. Traditionally, we always amend the legislation after the convention has actually been signed. We believe that the process should be the other way round: legislation is amended and then we sign the convention. It has happened on many occasions, and we will be interested to find out why it has to happen like this.

New Zealand First recognises the right of every New Zealander to equality of opportunity. We have come a long way with the recognition of equal rights for all people, but we realise that there is still quite some way to go. Today I received an email from a deaf person who is experiencing some challenges with the lack of sign interpreters being trained at this point in time. We have to be fair and say that although the New Zealand Sign Language Act is not old legislation—it was only relatively recently passed—we expected that the training of sign interpreters would have shifted a little further south than just having one college up in Auckland. So we know that this group of people in particular are hindered by the lack of progress being made in this area.

New Zealand First is only too aware that 20 percent of New Zealanders have a long-term impairment, which is a significant number. In many cases the real handicap to full participation in society by people with disabilities is not the disability itself but the environmental barriers, ill-informed attitudes, and inadequate support services that we have here in New Zealand. I was very interested to hear from the previous speaker, Jackie Blue, that this includes people with learning difficulties, from those attending SPELD to those with more complex learning difficulties. Autism is another area that we really do have some challenges with in New Zealand. New Zealand First believes that the New Zealand Disability Strategy needs to be fully implemented. This needs to be done by both local and regional government, and it needs to be monitored continuously in order to ensure that changes are actually made.

I was interested to read in the commentary on this bill that a large number of minor amendments are affected by this bill. I was also interested to read in the bill that section 16AA of the Juries Act allows a judge to discharge the jury summons of a person with a physical disability. One of the grounds on which a person is not capable of acting effectively as a juror is physical disability. I found that quite surprising. This does need to be reviewed; it is important. Section 19(6)(b) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act of 2001 gives the chief executive a discretion to pay a lower rate of superannuation to hospital patients, “having regard to the patient’s capacity to appreciate the payments.” I found that to be of extreme concern. I believe that it does need to be reviewed; it is very surprising.

These amendments being made have to be made in other Acts as well, and there is quite a long list in the bill of some of the Acts that do need to be amended. I was interested to read that even the Human Rights Act needs some amendment. I thought that this Act in particular would already have worked through this particular issue. Obviously these examples all need input from affected parties, who were quite pleased to see that quite a lot of work has already been done in this particular bill. New Zealand First supports this legislation going to the select committee. We will be looking forward to the work the select committee will do, and to hearing back from it. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party is very pleased to support this bill today, to begin the process for the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This convention, along with the New Zealand Disability Strategy, is a step towards the recognition of human rights as rights including all human beings. It is quite nice to see a new UN convention that does that. We are very impatient for such rights to be extended to indigenous peoples, but we will not be holding our breath. I would like to give credit to Minister Dyson for her advocacy of the UN convention, the New Zealand Disability Strategy, and the issues around disabilities in New Zealand.

This UN convention is the first human rights treaty to be adopted in the 21st century. It is the most rapidly negotiated human rights treaty in the history of international law. Although the convention does not include new rights for people with disabilities, it spells out the rights that people with disabilities already possess, alongside everyone else. I think that the expeditious ratification of this convention is another signal to people with disabilities that we recognise how important and overdue this is.

The signing of the convention was the result of hard work by Government agencies and the disability sector. New Zealand consumer rights advocate Robert Martin, a member of the delegation, was the first person with an intellectual disability to speak before the UN General Assembly. Special thanks are due also to the Disabled Persons Assembly, the Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand, IHC New Zealand, IHC Advocacy, CCS Disability Action, the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, the New Zealand representatives of Disabled Peoples International, and Inclusion International. They were very active and effective in negotiating this convention, using the platform “Nothing about us without us”.

One of the key issues identified by those with disabilities, of course, is the need to develop and have access to their own leadership. The Green Party believes that people living with impairments are entitled to take leadership roles and to have a powerful voice for effective change in their communities and services. In the disability field, independent advocacy organisations like DPA (New Zealand), People First New Zealand, and the Down Syndrome Association struggle to get the resources they need to be effective. If we were to nominate a percentage of funds allocated to services to go directly to these initiatives, their share would increase automatically as the services grew.

I am very pleased to announce that today the Green Party has released our disabilities policy, Removing the Barriers. One key policy plank is that 3 percent of the disability services budget should be set aside to directly fund leadership training for people living with impairments and for independent advocacy organisations. These resources are critical, especially for the advocacy and proper audit of disability services. People with impairments are entitled to take leadership roles in auditing services. Too often, audits concern money and buildings but not the people whose lives are made either joyous or wretched by those services. Many of the tick-box audits are done by teams who lack the skills to evaluate whether the needs of tangata whenua and other groups are being met by a particular service.

The Green Party policy says that people with impairments are entitled to take leadership roles in the evaluation and auditing of services, and that tangata whenua must be involved in auditing all mainstream and kaupapa Māori services. We fully support the provision of services by Māori for Māori, and we would also work with the sector to resource and implement improved pay, conditions, and training for disabilities service staff and caregivers.

Also key to the disability sector is the provision of lifelong educational services. Despite the rhetoric, parents constantly have to advocate so that school principals and trustees understand their obligations and work in positive, non-discriminatory ways. Some teacher education still does not include a component on supporting children with diverse needs. Many children living with impairments are made to feel unwelcome when enrolling at their local school, partly because of prejudice but mainly because the resources are not adequate to meet those families’ needs. With individual funding capped, this means that children with moderate needs often miss out, and then we sit in this House and wonder why there are so many behavioural issues in our schools.

A recent report by the organisation See Here, which focuses on supporting children with mild and moderate vision impairment, has found that only 44 percent of Māori and 29 percent of Pacific Island children access vision screening programmes. Up to 20 percent of our children have mild to moderate vision impairment, which, if undiagnosed, can greatly impact on their learning and confidence, leading to learning difficulties and behavioural issues. Our policy supports the 2006 IHC Code for New Zealand Schools, and we agree with DPA (New Zealand) that schools must be brought into the New Zealand Disability Strategy implementation and reporting process. All children have the absolute right to attend their local school and have the resources available to do this. Schools must be accountable for the way they use disability funding. Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding must be doubled and the special education grant ring-fenced.

CCS Disability Action’s recent campaign, Early Family Support, has highlighted the fact that if a whānau has proper access to community services, their lives as a whānau can be significantly better simply because they have the support they need to lead an ordinary life. Our children’s policy supports an integrated framework to monitor the development of every child and young person through the coordinated assessments at key life stages, and we look to increasing the child disability allowance, given the extra financial needs that parents and caregivers have when raising a child with special needs.

We know that quality education is key to accessing quality employment. People living with impairments are still overrepresented in low-paid occupations and amongst the unemployed and those on benefits. Only a few have access to supported employment. Many with impairments are setting up small businesses, but with little support. Even the Government’s mainstream programme providing subsidies to Government departments employing people with impairments can be effective, but it urgently needs expanding. People with impairments who are in employment must have the same employment rights as all other workers. Exemptions to employers to pay statutory minimum wages to workers who have impairments should be granted only on the basis of the individual’s productive capacity and as assessed by the Department of Labour. Employers should also have access to financial assistance for adaptations for equipment and personal support where they employ people with impairments.

Many people living with impairments, particularly those with intellectual impairments, are subject to discriminatory treatment when it comes to sexual and reproductive rights. Currently, some people with intellectual disabilities are subjected to compulsory sterilisation and/or chemical castration. The Green Party believes that people with impairments are entitled to the protection of their bodily integrity just as much as anyone else and should not be subjected to treatment or invasive processes that they would not otherwise be subjected to, were it not for their impairment. The Green Party would ban all sterilisations and chemical castrations of individuals under the age of 18 years, unless they are being performed as a lifesaving measure or as a medical emergency. Implicit in this is the recognition that individuals under the age of 18 cannot be expected to provide informed consent to sterilisation or chemical castration.

The 2007 report from the Minister for Disability Issues on implementing the New Zealand Disability Strategy noted that three core Government agencies did not deliver on the obligation to report on progress. This highlights the need for advocacy and implementation, and the Green Party would establish a Disability Issues Commission to provide the leadership needed to ensure that disability services become more responsive, flexible, and empowering. The commission would work with key sector leaders and families to develop a national strategy, oversee and monitor its implementation, and provide advice to the Minister.

The Green Party fully supports individualised funding for all people living with impairments and their families who wish to choose this option, and services available must be available based on the level of need and not on the cause of impairment. The Green Party would get rid of the discrimination in funding between the Accident Compensation Corporation and the Ministry of Health.

Our new disabilities policy is very comprehensive. I simply cannot describe it all here in this 10-minute speech. So much still needs to be done, and we have amazingly skilled advocates in the disabilities community ready to do that work. We want to speed this legislation through the House as quickly as possible so that we can refocus ourselves on the implementation of the details, especially our own policy, and so that we can truly make a difference to the lived lives of the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders with impairments. Thank you.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) :Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kei te raruraru tonu au ki te whakapākehātanga o tēnei mea o te hauā. Ko te hauā ki te reo Pākehā, he disability, he kaha-kore. Kāre au e pai kia whakakorea tētahi āhuatanga o te tangata. E ai ki te reo tauhou o te rangatahi, ko te “dis” i te tangata, he whakaparahako i a ia, he whakaiti i a ia. Otirā, i a au e kōrero ana ki te tangata hauā, ahakoa nā te aituā, nō te whānautanga mai rānei tōna āhuatanga hauā, ka rongo au i te wairua motuhake o te kōrero. Tēnā, kua rongo au mō tētahi waiata kaha nei kua waiatatia, e ai ki tā ētahi, nā Patrick Thompson i waiata mai, koia hoki te kaiwhakahaere ratonga Māori o te Hunga Turi i tērā wā. Ko tāna waiata, kāhore he rangi, kāhore he reo engari, arā anō te hōhonutanga o te kōrero.

He wā whakahirahira tēnei e matapakihia ai te pire nei, te Disabilities (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill, kāti me mihi atu au ki te tūranga motuhake o Te Reo Waitohu o Aotearoa rāua ko te reo Māori hei reo e whakapūmautia i roto i ngā ture o Aotearoa. “Ko te reo Māori te kākahu o te whakaaro, te huarahi ki te ao tūroa.”Pēnei i te reo rangatira e whakaputa ana i ō tātou ake whakaaro hōhonu rawa atu mā tō tātou reo waitohu ka kitea ai ngā taonga kōrero a te Iwi Turi. Kei roto i ō rātou tikanga ka kite tātou i te hiahia manawawera o te iwi Turi Māori kia taea e rātou te ao Māori me tōna reo motuhake. Me whai wāhi ngā tangata Turi Māori i roto i ngā hui, ngā marae, ngā tangihanga kia whai wāhi ai ki te reo me ngā tikanga tuku iho tae atu ki te whakapapa.

Nō rātou anō tērā tikanga tō rātou mana motuhake, tō rātou mana tangata e ōrite ana ki ngā mana o ngā iwi katoa o te ao. Ko te herenga o ngā tikanga o te hunga hauā ki ngā tikanga o ngā iwi taketake, he take kōrero ka whakatakotohia ki tēnei marae kōrero. Ko te pātai nui ko tēnei, he aha te kāwanatanga e nekeneke ai kia kaua e whakahāweatia tētahi momo tangata, kia manaakihia rātou, kia whakawhanaungatia rātou ko ngā iwi o Aotearoa, i taua wā anō ka kaha whakahē kia pērātia anō mō tētahi atu momo tangata?

Ko te tikanga o te pire nei, he whakatika i ngā pōhēhē me te kī, ko ā tātou āwangawanga mō te hunga hauā he rite ki te kahakore o te tinana hauā tonu. Nō reira, ka whakarere kē tēnei pire i ētahi atu ture, pērā i te ture e mea ana, me kaua te tangata wairangi e tū hei mema komiti, hei kaitiaki rānei. Nā konei ka takataka mai ētahi whakarere kētanga ture, kia hāngai tonu tēnei motu ki te Kawenata o te Whakakotahitanga o ngā Whenua o te Ao mō nga Tikanga Tangata Hauā.

Ko tāmātou o te Rōpū Māori e pīrangi nei, kia whakatika te kāwanatanga i ōna ake mate hinengaro e kore ai ia e manaaki i ngā tikanga o ngā iwi taketake. E whakahau ana mātou kia whakamutua āna whakaaro kōaro, kia whakawāngia ngā whakaaro painga kanohi, i waiho ai ko Aotearoa tētahi o ngā whenua e whā anake i huri tuarā ki te Whakaputanga o ngā Tikanga, o ngā Iwi Taketake o te Ao. Kua tae ki te wā kia kaha tātou, kia mutu te mataku, kia āwhina i ngā iwi taketake ki te whai wāhi i waenganui i ngā iwi katoa, kia pakari. Ko tēnei te wā ki te āta whakaaro ake mō ēnei take, ki te titiro whakamua, ki te whakawātea mai i ngā taiapa, kia kōrero tahi me te iwi taketake.

Koia nei te wā nā te mea, i ngā marama tata nei kua tautoko te nuinga o te Pāremata o Kānata i tētahi mōtini tautoko i taua whakaputanga nei. Ko te wā tēnei hei whai atu i te kāwanatanga o Ahitereiria kua tahuri nei ki te whiriwhiri kōrero kia takahurihia te whakatau whakahē i te Whakaputanga o ngā Tikanga o ngā Iwi Taketake. Ki te kore tātou e mataara, ka whakarērea ko tātou anake o te ao, ko tō tātou kāwanatanga Reipa e pupuri ana i ngā ringaringa o Amerika, e whakahē tonu ana i ngā mana tangata o ngā iwi taketake, e kore nei tātou e tū ki te whakapai ake i te noho a ngā iwi taketake o te ao.

Ka kite mātou i roto i a mātou whiringa kōrero me ngā iwi taketake hauā, ko te pire nei he taumata tiketike mō ngā iwi hauā. E mōhio ana mātou ki ngā kōrero mutunga kore a ētahi mō ngā tikanga motuhake o te hunga hauā, arā, ngā arapiki ki ngā whare nunui o te marea. He rite tonu ki ngā kōrero nō mai rā anō mō te iwi Māori, ngā kōrero e rangona ana i roto i tēnei Whare mō ngā tikanga motuhake e ai ki ngā whakapae hei whakarangatira i a mātou.

Kāhore he tangata kapō atu i te tangata kāore e hiahia ana ki te kite. Ko tā te pire nei he huri anō ki ngā tauira kia hanga tātou i tētahi kaupapa āwhina i te hunga hauā, kia ōrite ō rātou tikanga ki ngā tikanga o te katoa. He tohutohu tonu kei te haere, kia whakakore i ngā taiapa e aukati ana i te hunga hauā, kia whakawāteatia rātou. Tērā te whakatauākī tika, “Taihoa e, tangohia te koi i te kanohi o tō teina kia tangohia rā anō te poro i tōu ake kanohi.”

E mōhio ana tātou, ko ngā hua ki te hunga hauā i Aotearoa nei, he iti iho i tō te hunga kaha: ngā tūranga mahi, te utu mahi, nga tohu mātauranga, te hauora o te tangata. Ka whakakaha ake te whakataunga nei i te Rautaki Hauā kia ora ake ai te hunga hauā. Ko te tūmanako, mā te whakaaetanga ki tēnei kawenata e waia ai te hunga kaha ki te hīkoi i te taha tonu o te hunga hauā. He manaaki i ngā wawata o te hunga hauā, ehara i te whai i ngā taumata i tohua mō rātou e ngā kaimahi kāwanatanga. He whakangāwari i ngā ratonga mō te whānau kua ruarua noa iho ngā kaimahi e torotoro ana i a rātou. Kia whakamauru atu te hunga hauā ki ngā tohunga kia riro mā te whānau anō e whakatutuki. Kia mātau ake, kia whai tikanga te whānau kia taea te hiki i ngā taumahatanga o te wā, koia nei tāna mahi. Kia piri ngā whānau ki ngā ratonga, kia piri ngā ratonga ki te kāwanatanga i runga i te whakapono me te aroha.

Heoi anō, ka waiho ki mua i te Whare tēnei kōrero whakahihiko ngākau mai i a CCS Disability Action. Ko tō rātou kupu whakakaupapa, Te Hunga Hauā Mauri mō ngā TangataKatoa he kōrero māna. He kōrero whakamahara i a tātou, he mauri tō tēnā, tō tēnā he ōrite katoa. Ko tā rātou hiahia ki te whakapū ki roto i aua kupu kōrero kia noho kotahi ngā iwi maha, ngā tangata rere kē katoa o Aotearoa. Kua taea tētahi taumata teitei mō tēnei motu ki te tautoko i tētahi ture whakapūmau i te Kawenata a te Kotahitanga o nga Whenua o te Ao mō ngā Tangata Hauā, otirā, he ture anō hei whakapūmau i te Whakaputanga o ngā Tika o ngā Iwi Taketake o te Ao. Kei Mr Assistant Speaker, he tohu tērā, tūturu he ōrite katoa ngā mauri! Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[The concept of disabilities is one I have always had a problem with. “Dis” is commonly applied to words to show an absence of something, a removal, a separation, a disadvantage. In the lingo of the street, to “dis” someone is to indulge in disrespectful talk. Yet when I speak with people who, whether by accident or by birth, experience limitations in their movements, their senses, or their activities, I often find myself in awe of the additional powers they bring to our conversation. Indeed, I have heard of what some say was the most powerful song they have ever heard, that sung by Patrick Thompson, who at that time was the Māori services manager for the Deaf Association. It was a song in which no sound was transmitted, but the meaning was profound.

It is a particularly powerful week to be considering the Disabilities (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill, as I recognise the unique status of the New Zealand Sign Language and te reo Māori as two of the three official languages of New Zealand. “ The Māori language is the cloak of thoughts, the way forward in a sustainable world.” Te reo rangatira enables our most vivid thinking to be understood; the use of sign language also enables the rich artistic expression of the stories and traditions of the Deaf culture. Within that culture, we recognise the passionate desire of the Māori Deaf community to access te reo Māori and Te Ao Māori: Māori Deaf who deserve to be full participants in hui, marae events, and tangi, and therefore to increase their access to Māori language and culture, including genealogy.

This is their right to self-determination, to enjoy the full and equal entitlement of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The intersection between the rights of people with disabilities and the rights of indigenous peoples is an association we are pleased to bring to this House. The irony that the Māori Party demands be part of this debate is to ask the question: how can the Government move to support rights to address discrimination and social inclusion for one group of New Zealanders, while at the same time vehemently opposing them for another group?

This bill before us now seeks to demonstrate that the accumulated myths and fears about disabilities are as much a handicap as may be any physical limitations that flow from actual impairment. So the bill has the effect of amending various statutes, such as removing the automatic disqualification of persons with a mental health disability from certain public or fiduciary offices. The bill sets in train a chain of amendments that will make our nation consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

What we are seeking as the Māori Party is that the Government seek to address its own mental health limitations in recognising the rights of indigenous peoples. We seek to urge this Government to overcome its prejudices, to face the racist attitudes that have resulted in New Zealand being one of only four countries to oppose the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Now is the time to dig deep, to confront those fears, and to enable the full participation and engagement of indigenous peoples in society to progress unhindered.

Now is the time, because in the least few months a majority of the Canadian House of Commons have adopted a motion in support of the declaration. Now is the time to follow the leadership of the Australian Government in announcing that is consulting with stakeholders about reversing its opposition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If we do not watch out, because of this Labour-led minority Government we will be the only country left in the world holding hands with the United States in rejecting the opportunity to respect the human rights of tangata whenua and to make a stand to improve the lives of indigenous peoples right throughout the international community.

We understand from our consultations with indigenous peoples with disabilities that this bill today is being thought of as a significant benchmark to meet the needs of disabled peoples. We know the perpetual myths that some in society see associated with the signs of what they call special privileges for the disabled: the ramps and elevators of public buildings. It is a similar argument that Māori have always experienced: the references to so-called race-based special privileges that are so frequently chucked around this House.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. What this bill does is to build on best knowledge about what is required to actually enable disabled peoples to enjoy human rights on an equal basis with others. It delivers guidance about how to remove barriers that may serve to deny disabled peoples the opportunity to take up their full human rights. It may be a case not so much of focusing on the splinter in your brother’s eye, but of pulling out the log from your own.

What we know in terms of outcomes for disabled peoples in Aotearoa is that they typically experience lower employment rates, lower incomes, lower education attainment, and more inadequate health than non-disabled peoples. This convention will serve to strengthen the New Zealand Disability Strategy to help to make a real difference in the lives of disabled peoples. We hope that the greatest thing that could come from signing up to this convention is the willingness for non-disabled persons to walk in the shoes of the disabled. It is about respecting the outcomes that individuals and family are seeking, rather than bureaucrats prescribing outputs that they consider in their best interests. It is about ensuring that service delivery is whānau-friendly, minimising the number of agencies traipsing through their lives. It is about reducing the reliance on formal and specialist support structures by instead building up the strength of family capability. It is about families having knowledge and strategies that will give them greater resilience during cycles of stress. It is about building relationships of trust between both services and family, and services and the State.

Finally, I want to leave with the House the inspiration I have found in the words of CCS Disability Action, including all people. Their foundation statement, Te Hunga Hauā Mauri Mō Ngā Tāngata Katoa, forms the basis of their identity. This statement is a powerful reminder that all people have a life force and that all life force is equal. The vision that CCS Disability Action believes in, encompassed in its foundation statement, is to build a truly inclusive New Zealand—a country that embraces diversity. It would be a moment of great significance in our history, if we could not only move to support legislation to enact theUN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but if we could also support legislation to enact the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Such an act would be a powerful sign that all life force is indeed equal. Greetings to you, and to all of us. ]

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the first reading of the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill. United Future believes it is a good thing that New Zealand joins with other countries, and that we benchmark ourselves against international best practice and against international standards.

United Future believes that New Zealand is a world leader in its thinking and its philosophy towards the disability sector, but we also believe that New Zealand is currently underperforming when it comes to meeting its own standards, let alone any international ones. Let me give members some examples. Currently, schools in my area are dipping into their general operational grant to meet the shortfall in Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding for students with special needs. This is unsustainable and unacceptable. Any Government that is serious about changing outcomes for people with impairments needs to look seriously at new money for that part of the education sector.

In some areas in New Zealand we have a chronic shortage of appropriate respite carers for children with high and complex needs, for teenagers with high and complex needs, and for adults with high and complex needs. However, I suggest—and United Future would suggest—that if we were actually supporting families better with their impaired family members, the need for respite may drop significantly.

Previous speakers have talked about the need to increase and improve the services around supported employment opportunities and about the general ability for people to participate in things that are happening in their community. We need to upgrade the needs-assessment protocols here in New Zealand, and we need to make sure that needs-assessments are kept separate from those who fund and provide services, so that honest and true assessments are done even if we have to admit that we cannot currently meet the level of service that those needs require. We also believe that New Zealand is falling behind in some areas in providing services in a timely way, and that people are waiting far too long for an upgrade of essential equipment to help them participate in everyday New Zealand society.

United Future supports the call from the sector to have a much greater level of individualised funding. We have too few people—we could count them; it is fewer than 100—who are currently receiving individualised funding. This is the only sector in New Zealand society whose members get told how to live their lives, who is going to walk in the door, and who is going to clean their flat. They have so little say, so little power, and so little autonomy over their own lives.

We also believe that the way in which we audit service providers needs to be fixed up. Currently, we are very focused on compliance and safety standards. We have very little focus on service development, an area that would be hugely welcomed by people who are reliant on those services. We do very little to include the clients themselves in the audit process.

United Future agrees with the Green Party that currently this sector does not enjoy proper parliamentary scrutiny. We would welcome the establishment of either a commission or a ministry that focused solely on the needs of this sector in a holistic way, so that clients are not having to get needs-assessment for every little pottle of money around Government departments that they need to access. We would also like to see parliamentary scrutiny of how that money is spent, because one of the things that concerns us is that there is a huge amount of wastage currently. That alone, if it were tidied up, could provide some much-needed resources to people who currently go without.

Our approach to accommodation within the community needs to be reviewed, because what we have done is close down institutions, and in many cases we have established a lot of mini-institutions with similar philosophies and similar protocols. We need to change that so people have homes to live in, not an institutions.

It is unacceptable to United Future that there is a huge gap in services between those with trauma-based disabilities and those with non - trauma-based disabilities. I think we have to be honest about the fact that this is going to be costly, and that the money is not going to be easily found in current budgets. So we need to be looking at new funding models to discover how we are going to address the complete inequity that currently exists for people with non - trauma-based impairment.

I think greater acknowledgement needs to be given to those who enjoy a different culture because of the world they live in due to impairment. I think the deaf community is a classic example of a group of people who enjoy a specific culture of their own, and that needs to be recognised, acknowledged, and celebrated here in New Zealand.

In the last couple of weeks my family has welcomed into our ranks a new little girl who has Down’s syndrome. We are very excited to have her as a member of our family. I have spoken to her grandparents and parents and said this is a great time in New Zealand for a special child like this to be born into our family. I believe that the types of things we are setting in place by ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will be building for her a future that 20 years ago families would not even have been able to dream of. So our commitment to this is at a very personal level. We are also committed to all those we have spoken to over the last few months who live with impairment, and who, because of the constraints and barriers we place as able-bodied people on their inclusion, are therefore labelled disabled. United Future is happy to support this first reading.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : It is my pleasure to rise tonight and speak to the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill. New Zealand signed the convention at the United Nations on 30 March 2007, along with 80 other States. Since then, 129 States have signed the convention and 28 States have ratified it. The convention does not create new rights for disabled people. Instead, it builds on conventional understandings of what is required to implement existing human rights as they relate to disabled people.

When signing the convention in March 2007, the Hon Ruth Dyson stated: “It is important to bring the Convention into force as quickly as possible, so as to fill the gaps that exist without it and to redress some of the discrimination and injustices that persons with disabilities have faced over many years.” Yet legislation was introduced into Parliament only in July 2008. Disability is a significant issue for New Zealand, and for many New Zealanders. The 2006 New Zealand disability survey estimated, for example, that 414,000 disabled people—one in 10 of all New Zealanders—relied on some form of disability support. Of these, about 105,000 people needed daily help with tasks such as preparing meals, shopping, housework, bathing, or dressing. A further 308,000 people need an assistance device or help with heavier or more difficult household tasks.

Most disabled people live at home, with a small proportion living in community-based residential services. Although most support is provided by family, friends, and other people in the community, disabled people can also receive a range of Government-funded support through a range of Government agencies to help them live as others do at home and in the wider community. This ranges from support with household and personal care to support for education and employment and to move around the community. Much of the support is provided directly by paid and unpaid caregivers, but also it can include items of equipment and home and motor vehicle modifications.

Over the past 50 years there has been a considerable shift in the way that disability and disability supports are thought about. This shift has been away from the medical model of disability and an emphasis on charity towards disabled people, to a focus on human rights for disabled people and the social model of disability. Under the medical model, disabled people are seen as having various illnesses and diseases that require intervention, especially by people with specialist medical knowledge. This leads, for example, to many services being provided through hospitals and being delivered by health professionals. At its extreme this model can lead to some disabled people being removed from society because they are perceived as being unable to function effectively.

Associated with this was the notion that some disabled people were more deserving and therefore entitled to support. The human rights approach focuses on disabled people being recognised as having the same human rights as all other members of society. This led to notions such as mainstreaming and normalising the lives of disabled people, with implications for disabled support. Disability was included as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993, and in 2001 it was extended to cover discrimination in Government services. Then in 2007 the Government signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In 2001 the New Zealand Disability Strategy was developed in collaboration with disabled people and their representative organisations and was based on the social model of disability. It has a vision of a fully inclusive society in which people with impairment live in “a society that highly values our lives and continually enhances our full participation.” This strategy emphasises that improvements for disabled people will arise from changes in societal attitudes and in their environment, as well as improvements in disability supports themselves.

The type of pressure for change is not unique to New Zealand. For example, Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People set out a programme of initiatives for improving disability supports in response to serious concerns that had emerged in the United Kingdom. That document had a strong focus on improving the lives of disabled people through moving to individualised funding and supporting disabled people to work.

In 2001 New Zealand moved in a positive direction with the New Zealand Disability Strategy, but unfortunately there has been limited progress in implementing this strategy. Firstly, the disability strategy is given insufficient priority within Government agencies. This is reflected in various types of issues. No Government ministry has overall responsibility for policy funding and implementation. This means there has been a lack of guidance, and that has led to approaches to implementation that are inconsistent with each other.

Although central government agencies are required to have disability strategy implementation plans, there is a lack of a national implementation plan that applies to local and central government. The monitoring of the strategy is not robust enough, and its coverage does not extend to all Crown entities, local authorities, disability support providers, and all community organisations. Second, there is still inadequate involvement of disabled people in decision-making processes at all levels. Third, there continue to be negative attitudes towards disabled people within society, which many disabled people see as the single biggest barrier to disabled people leading an everyday life and achieving full participation in society.

These attitudes are a reflection of such things as society continuing to do things in ways that exclude disabled people and disabled people having difficulty finding employment. Nowhere does it tell us who is accountable for the ongoing difficulties, although it states we should improve the disability-related accountability of Government agencies. It seems there is far too much emphasis on holding others accountable and no indication of how Government agencies themselves will be held accountable.

We can have as many strategies and conventions as we want, but this country needs commitment to implement change. So why is this country in a worse position when it comes to workforce training than ever before, despite the creation of such things as Careerforce? Why is there no cross-departmental strategy to implement the national disability strategy 5 years after it was launched? Who will take responsibility for seeing that families and people with disabilities are not passed endlessly from one place to another? How will the issue of the very significant funding discrepancies to support people with high needs in everyday services be addressed? Why can we not develop an effective, national developmental evaluation programme that is cost-effective, does not involve endless duplication, and is neither difficult nor costly compared with present processes?

The disability community fairly vigorously stated its belief that when disability gets involved in competing with health it will inevitably come off second-best, and that when it comes to resource allocation, it is offered, at best, bureaucratic medical-model solutions to what are disability issues. Despite these changes the Health Committee, during the disabilities inquiry, heard of many problems related to ministry-funded disability supports, and some of the stories heard by the committee were particularly distressing.

The committee heard about the following types of things. Disability supports are funded and provided in ways that unnecessarily limit disabled people’s choice and control over the supports they receive and how they live their lives. Many submitters pointed to the National Health Committee’s report, To Have an “Ordinary” Life which described the ways in which community-based residential services for people with intellectual disabilities limit their choice of controls over their lives. The disability supports that some people receive are not of an acceptable quality and expose them to unacceptable risks of harm. This was emphasised recently with the release of a report by the Health and Disability Commissioner, which describes the deplorable quality of support that one person received in a residential service. Disabled people’s autonomy is not always respected and supported.

The select committee heard about the lack of advocacy support, inadequate complaints processes, and inappropriate responses to concerns when matters of risks of harm are raised. There are gaps in the availability of disability supports. They unreasonably limit the ability of some disabled people to participate in the wider community. The select committee was told about gaps in the funding available for home and vehicle modifications. The disability strategy has not been implemented as much as disabled people would like or consider acceptable. The responsibility of human rights in terms of disabilities stops with central government. Without the ability to implement and make change, conventions and strategies are just words. What disabled people actually want are actions.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.