![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Human Rights Commission Submissions |
Last Updated: 28 June 2015
HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT BILL
Human Rights Commission Submission to the Justice and
Electoral Committee
19 December 2013
The Human Rights Commission (‘the Commission’) welcomes the
introduction of the Human Rights Amendment Bill. The Commission
supports the
Minister’s initiative in promoting the legislation1.The Bill
has its origins in two discrete initiatives:
• The establishment of a full-time Disability Rights
Commissioner.
• Strengthening the composition, governance arrangements, and
functions and powers of the Commission.
1. Background
1.1 The Commission has recently undertaken an Organisational Review. As
part of this, the Commission reviewed the statutory framework
that governs the
Commission, including the work of Commissioners.
1.2 The Commission sought an opinion from Russell McVeagh as part of the
review process which is attached as Appendix 1. The opinion
has a schedule
comparing the status quo with the situation if the Bill were to pass in its
present form. The Commission draws the
attention of the Select Committee to the
following points in the legal opinion:
• The Board of the Commission is its governing body. This Board has
all the relevant statutory responsibilities set out in
the Crown Entities Act
and the Public Finance Act. It is also subject to State Services Commission
guidance for Boards and Board
chairpersons.
1 This submission is made on behalf of the Board of the Commission and consists of the full-time and part-time Commissioners appointed under warrant by the Governor-General upon the recommendation of the Minister of Justice.
• The Commission’s Board is not, and never has been, a group of
independent Commissioners. The Chief Commissioner chairs
the Board but is
otherwise subject to the direction of the Board, as are other Commissioners. The
Board sets the strategic direction
and general activities of the Commission.
These are found in the Commission’s Business Plan which
includes
the Commission’s Statement of Intent.
• Commissioners have three distinct roles: a governance role; a
strategic leadership role in areas designated in the Act or
by the Chief
Commissioner; and a role working alongside staff to carry out the general
activities of the Commission. The term “governance
arrangements”
has been used to refer to both the governance and strategic leadership roles of
Commissioners.
• The Chief Commissioner’s ability to designate spheres of responsibility among Commissioners has always existed, although the requirement that the Chief Commissioner consults with the Minister of Justice before making such designations was only introduced in the 2001 Amendment2. The designations are intended to ensure that there is a focus on key human rights issues and population groups, such as women, GLBT people and indigenous people. The designated areas are additional to the Commissioners’ statutory appointments. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner is also the Commissioner with responsibility for women’s
human rights. A copy of the current designations is attached (Appendix
2).
• The fact that the Chief Commissioner designates Commissioners to
play a strategic leadership role in areas other than
those designated
by statute means that the Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment
Opportunities Commissioner always
have other responsibilities in addition to
their statutory designations. Effectively, therefore, these Commissioners are
“full-time”
in the sense of working full-time for the Commission but
not exclusively on race relations and equal employment opportunities. This
is
also
2 The Justice and Electoral Committee considered that amending the role to require prior consultation with the Minister on delegation of functions did not compromise the Commission’s independence but simply recognised that a degree of discussion was likely to take place. Justice and Electoral Committee: Human Rights Amendment Bill 152-2 at 8.
the case with the current 0.8 full-time equivalent Disability Commissioner
who has responsibility for areas other than disability.
2. Strengthening the composition, governance
arrangements, and functions and powers of the Commission.
2.1 The aim of the Bill is to strengthen the Commission’s
performance by making certain changes to its functions, role and
structure.
2.2 The cabinet paper3 that preceded the introduction of the present Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) reflected concerns in the Re-evaluation Report4 which had been explicit about the need for the Commission to have a board (or “council” as it was described in the report), to ensure that the role and
strategic purpose of the organisation was achieved. The authors of the report
considered that this could not be accomplished if those
who governed the
organisation also worked in it. They envisaged the part-time Commissioners
playing a governance function and not
having strategic leadership roles or
taking part in the day to day work of the Commission. They also appear to have
seen part-time
Commissioners out-numbering full time Commissioners.
2.3 The explanatory note to the 2001 Amendment Bill stated that one of the aims of the Bill was to ensure that the Commissioners operated collectively to undertake and lead human rights education and advocacy, providing strategic leadership, policy, and direction to the Commission. It made some changes to give effect to a new governance structure – for example, to section 18, which spelt out the distinction between governance and management for the first time, and was designed to ensure that the day-to-day functions would be performed on behalf of the Commission by the General Manager and staff, “consistent with the focus of the Commissioners on leadership and strategic
direction”5.
2.4 The governance functions in the HRA were further clarified when the
Crown
Entities Act 2004 (CEA) came into force on 25 January 2005. A
primary
3 Cabinet Policy Committee POL (01) 100 17 May 2001: A New Institutional Framework for Human
Rights.
4 Ministry of Justice Re-evaluation of the Human Rights Protections in New Zealand (2000).
5 Justice and Electoral Committee, Human Rights Amendment Bill: Commentary 152-2 at 11.
purpose of the CEA was to provide a consistent framework for the
establishment, governance, and operation of Crown entities, including
the powers
and duties of board members. The effect of the CEA on the HRA was significant,
as it clarified both the governance roles
and individual duties of Commissioners
as Board members.
2.5 In line with best practice, the Commission has recently reviewed its
internal governance manual, which has been adopted by
the
Board.6
3. Part-time/full-time Commissioners, reduction in number of
Commissioners, plurality
3.1 As noted above, the original intention of the authors of the
Re-Evaluation Report was that part-time Commissioners were to
have purely
governance roles. However, a number of part-time Commissioners have been given
strategic leadership roles and are involved
in the substantive work of the
Commission. It is difficult for Commissioners who are appointed at a 0.3 full
time equivalent to fulfil
governance, strategic leadership roles and to be
involved in the Commission’s substantive work.
3.2 Disability and race relations issues account for the
majority of anti discrimination complaints to the Commission.
Commissioners
are not involved in the processing and resolution of such complaints, other than
to identify systemic trends in the
complaints received to determine the
strategic direction or future general activities of the Commission. Race
relations and disability
issues also take up substantial amount of the advocacy
and broader human rights work. As a result, almost inevitably these roles
take
up much of the designated Commissioner’s time.
3.3 Recruitment has started for a fifth Commissioner (up to 0.8 fulltime
equivalent as allowed under the current Act), one of
whose designations (which
will be made by the Chief Commissioner) will be responsibility for indigenous
peoples human rights (as
set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of
6 The Commission will make a copy available to the Select Committee upon request.
Indigenous People) and co-leadership of human rights aspects of the Treaty of
Waitangi, jointly with the Chief Commissioner.
3.4 The Commission is aware of the concern that the potential reduction
in the number of Commissioners could impact on the pluralism
necessary for
compliance with the Paris Principles. Compliance with the pluralism requirement
is seen as enhancing an institution’s
independence, credibility and
effectiveness, ensuring that a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) such as
the Commission can
effectively interact with all its stakeholders. One way of
achieving this pluralism is by ensuring diversity in Board of the
Commission.
3.5 The pluralism requirement of an NHRI is not limited to Commissioners
but can be reflected in the wider membership of the NHRI.
The current
composition of the Commission is clear in the extract of the Commission’s
Annual Report attached to this submission
(Appendix 3). The Commission considers
its current profile to some extent mirrors the diversity of New Zealand society,
but acknowledges
a deficit in the number of Pacific people and people with lived
experience of disability working in the Commission. Rectifying
this is
something that the Commission has in mind in its recruitment strategy.
3.6 The Commission notes that the Bill does not amend or repeal section
11 of the HRA, which outlines the characteristics that
are mandatory in
appointing Commissioners and designed to ensure diverse membership. It follows
that the changes proposed in this
Bill are, in the view of the Commission,
unlikely to undermine the requirement of pluralism.
4. Designation/Role specificity
4.1 At present, the Act provides for a Chief Commissioner and two Commissioners with a statutory designation – a Race Relations Commissioner and Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and up to five part-time Commissioners. As noted above, the Act also provides for the Chief Commissioner to designate other areas of strategic leadership for Commissioners, including to Commissioners with a statutory designation.
Currently there are three full-time Commissioners, one 0.8 part time
Commissioner and two 0.3 full-time equivalent Commissioners7. The
current EEO and Race Relations Commissioners were appointed this year under the
current Act, and will see out their five year
terms under the transitional
provisions.
4.2 The term of the current Commissioner with responsibility for
Disability Issues expired in March 2013 (18 months after his
appointment), and
has been continued as provided for in the Act. The Minister has
advised the Commission that it is her
intention to recommend to the
Governor-General that the term of the current Commissioner is extended so he
serves a five year term
from the date of appointment. The Chief Commissioner had
asked the Minister to consider the extension to ensure the continuity of
the
disability work. The Commission is grateful for the action the Minister has
taken in this regard following consultation with
the Minister of Disability
Issues. With no certainty that the Bill will pass through all its stages next
year, this brings an important
stability and continuity to the
Commission’s work on disabled people’s rights.
4.3 The Bill will dispense with the specialised statutory titles of Race Relations Commissioner EEO Commissioner but there will be a mandatory requirement that certain Commissioners will lead in the priority areas of race relations, EEO and disability. In recommending a person for appointment to one of the priority areas, the Minister must have regard not only to the criteria in section
11 but also the additional criteria in clause 9 (new section 13). Recruitment
to the relevant positions will emphasise the skills
and qualifications necessary
to perform these roles. Designation to areas other than race relations, EEO or
disability will be discretionary
and made by the Chief Commissioner after
consultation with the Minister, as is the case at present.
4.4 The Explanatory note to the Bill states that “No major
substantial change of the specialised Commissioner roles is intended
and in
practice these Commissioners can continue to operate as usual”. Since it
will be mandatory
7 A fifth, up-to-0.8 Commissioner is likely to be appointed in 2014. This Commissioner will also see out their term due to the transitional provisions.
to have designated Commissioners for race relations, EEO and disability, it
is unclear what would be lost by retaining the titles.
However, if the statutory
titles are to be removed, then the Commission recognises that, at
least initially, a significant
effort will need to be made to inform and educate
the public (particularly key stakeholders and partner groups in each population
and issue group) about the specialist roles, and the fact that in practice, the
focus of the previous statutory designation is not
lost. There will also need to
be better communication about the designations held by the various Commissioners
currently, so there
is greater awareness of the coverage provided by the
Commission among the Commission’s various audience groups.
5. Disability
5.1 The establishment of a full-time position of a Disability Rights Commissioner was a major reason for amending the Act given New Zealand’s commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Commission’s role in monitoring its implementation. The Commission remains strongly supportive of the role and welcomes the amendments to section 5(1) that will make it explicit that the promotion of the human rights of
persons with disabilities is a primary function of the
Commission8.
5.2 However, the Commission also reiterates that it has never been the
case that individual Commissioners have focused solely
on their statutory
designation. There has also always been some element of designation of
additional strategic leadership by the
Chief Commissioner. The present
Disability Rights Commissioner, for example, also has responsibilities for the
areas of violence
and abuse and the human rights of older people –both
areas which overlap with the human rights issues of persons with
disabilities.
5.3 If the disability community sees what is proposed as a retreat from
the commitment to establish a full-time role (despite
what is said in
the Explanatory note) it will be important that in making an appointment that
the
8 Having said that, the current Disability Rights Commissioner has expressed a desire to work 0.8 full- time equivalent, even if it was possible to be appointed “full-time”.
Minister takes into account suitability for the role in terms of the criteria
listed in clause 9 (new section 13).
6. Augmented section 5 functions
6.1 The Bill aims to clarify a number of the general functions of the
Commission, principally in relation to New Zealand’s
international human
rights obligations. We have already indicated our support for the amended
primary functions, but have two concerns
that should be addressed:
i. The first is relatively minor and relates to the use of
“diverse” in section
5(1)(b) and what will be the new section 5(1)(c). For some people, the
existing section 5(1)(b) is seen as reflecting the race relations
role that was
subsumed in the 2001 Amendment. This was not in fact the case. The section
5(1)(b) function applied to all the various
groups in New Zealand society, not
just different races. While section 5(1)(c) is clearly intended to reflect the
race function,
there could be some confusion if the same word is used in both
sections. We suggest this situation might be avoided by replacing
the word by
replacing the “diverse” in subsection (b) with the word
“different.”
ii. The second issue is more profound and relates to the Commission’s role in promoting the rights of indigenous people. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by New Zealand in 2007 provides a set of human rights standards that apply to indigenous communities. There is no formal provision for monitoring the Declaration. An international meeting of experts in Bangkok in December 2009 which included the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, representatives of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, addressed the role of NHRI’s in promoting the implementation of the UN Declaration. It concluded that NHRIs had a critical role to play in protecting and promoting the rights of Indigenous peoples at the national and local level. This aligns with the Commission’s practical experience in New Zealand. On this basis, the Commission believes it would be anomalous if the Commission’s primary
functions did not involve promoting the human rights of indigenous
peoples.
6.2 Many of the other changes to section 5 are consistent with
suggestions that the Commission has made in the past, often out
of concern at
the lack of an adequate process for vetting proposed legislation and policy for
compliance with New Zealand’s
international human rights obligations. At
present, the process simply involves checking to see whether what is proposed
does not
breach New Zealand’s international obligations. If the
Ministry of Justice considers that there is no breach raised,
no further
analysis or action is undertaken. This is particularly concerning in relation
to the economic, social and cultural rights
which are always open to the claim
that there is adequate compliance because of the concepts of progressive
realisation and limited
resources.
6.3 The Commission’s recent experience – for example
in relation to the Canterbury earthquakes and our
interventions before the
Court of Appeal in the Atkinson and CPAG cases – is that
proposed legislation and policy could greatly benefit from more stringent
analysis of the human rights implications
and impacts by officials . This is of
concern, not only to the Commission, but also the various international treaty
bodies which
have repeatedly raised it in their recommendations following the
reporting process Since there is currently no formal statutory requirement
to
promote and monitor New Zealand’s compliance with its international human
rights commitments, the proposed section 5(2)(kc)
would provide an avenue for
remedying this. It would also ensure a more consistent approach to both the
treaty body reporting process
and follow up on the recommendations.
6.4 We also welcome the augmented section 5(2)(c) function which would
mean that the Commission would be able to comment on NZBORA
compliance of
proposed legislation from a more formal
position9.
9We note in this regard that the Constitutional Review Committee specifically noted the public concern at the fact that legislation that was non-BORA compliant could be passed and lack of wide spread understanding at what was entailed in the section 5 justification process.
6.5 The ability to report to the responsible Minister (not just the Prime
Minister) on any existing legislation, proposed legislation
or administrative
provision under section 5(2)(ka) is a welcome extension to the
Commission’s functions and, in a sense, complements
the ability to seek a
declaration of inconsistency from the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the
Tribunal).
6.6 The Tribunal can determine that an enactment breaches section 19 of
the NZBORA (i.e. the right to be free from discrimination),
but under section
92J, the only available remedy is that the Minister responsible
for the administration of the
enactment must report the fact that an
inconsistency has been found to the House, together with advice on the
Government’s
response.
6.7 There have only been two occasions on which a declaration has been granted
- Howard v Attorney General 10 (in which the legislation was going to be changed despite this) and Ministry of Health v Atkinson & Ors11 (to which the government’s response was to change the relevant legislation to justify its position and prevent any further complaints). Given the time and cost that are
almost inevitably involved in litigation, it would be preferable to be able
to identify discriminatory legislation (or legislation
that infringed other
human rights) and negotiate a suitable compromise position in advance. Hopefully
this would be possible under
the new section 5(2)(ka).
7. Conclusion
7.1 The Commission supports the purpose of the Bill, subject to the
following matters being addressed:
i. The reference to “diversity” in section 5(1)(b) is
replaced with
“different”; and
ii. Consideration is given to adding the promotion of indigenous rights to
the primary functions of the Commission.
10 [2008] Decision No. 10/08 Reference No. HRRT 15/06.
11 [2012] NZCA 184 (14 May 2012).
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZHRCSub/2013/8.html