Debating legislation is about getting things right, and that’s certainly the aim of the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill which was being debated at its committee stage in Parliament this morning.
This bill amends the Human Rights Act to include a definition of disability assist dog, making it clear that if anyone discriminates against a person, for example by denying a service to that person, on the basis that the person has or uses a disability assist dog, then they are in fact denying the service to a person on the basis of their disability, and therefore discriminating against them.
Photo: 123RF
But MPs have varying ideas about when legislation is right, and that’s why National MP Penny Simmonds tabled an SOP (Supplementary Order Paper) on this Bill, a suggested amendment concerning private trainers of assist dogs.
The Labour MP Angie Warren-Clark was among those who took issue with this.
“It was only raised with us in the house on the second reading, we didn't have the full participation of the member, Penny Simmonds, through the committee.
“It was not something that we should hurry through,” Warren-Clark said.
National’s Maureen Pugh was outraged about what she characterised as a bid to slow down the passage of this legislation.
“Well I’ve got to say this is an embarrassing display of filibustering on such a trivial… not a trivial bill but a trivial part of the process, when we should be actually assisting the disability assist dogs to get through this house without slowing it down in such a pathetic way. I’m so embarrassed by this.”
Her apparent slip of the tongue in describing the Bill as trivial earned Pugh a chorus of jeers from the government side, but the episode went to remind us that even at a late stage of legislation’s passage, MPs have the right to seek to make amendments.
Journey bigger than just a Bill
In the spirit of fairness, the Bill’s sponsor, Ricardo Menéndez March of the Green Party, said everyone’s input was welcome and that in fact this bill was just part of a bigger journey for disabled people.
“While I totally take the points from Labour members around berating the late stage at which this SOP was being brought forward, and I empathise with those statements regarding my wishes of having had a much more consultative process with the community, I also want to acknowledge that in the end of the submission process the feedback from disabled people was very much one of urging us to ensure that they are able to participate in their communities.
“So if this SOP was to go through, I think further consultation was needed, and I think submitters were really clear anyway that more work needs to be done, beyond this Bill,” March said.
Green MP Ricardo Menendez March in the House Photo: ©VNP / Phil Smith
In the end it went to a party vote, and the amendment was not agreed to, though the Bill was.
No legislation is perfect
But as Labour’s Poto Williams suggested a short time later, no legislation is perfect.
“It is about getting this across the line,” Williams said, citing the Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick.
“I’m sure many of us would have liked to have craft[ed] the perfect bill but I think we get this to a place where we can all agree it’s significantly advanced, this particular issue.”
She was actually referring to Nicola Willis’s members bill - the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which like the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill, progressed to the third reading stage.
