DRAFT

DRAFTDisabled People’s

Organisations Report

to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities

on New Zealand’s implementation of the

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

4 April 2014

1

DRAFT

2

DRAFT

Dedication

This report is dedicated to the disabled people of Aotearoa New Zealand, past, present and future. Their strength of will and tender

spirit adds more to our lives than our society has yet to comprehend.

We are committed to working collectively to enable a society that values all our contributions.

For the disabled people of Aotearoa, past, present and future, we work to create a better world.

3

DRAFT

[Insert Maori mihi and quote]

4

DRAFTIntroduction and purpose of this reportNew Zealand has a good official record of promoting participation, inclusion and accessibility for all disabled people however, the experiences of disabled New Zealanders indicates that official policy can often differ from actual practice.1 For example, the 2010 monitoring report: Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand, noted that:

Social participation by disabled people emerged as the biggest single issue... Other major issues identified were negative experiences relating to health… lack of employment… access to disability related services and supports… barriers to making complaints, and a general lack of awareness and responsiveness about disability issues. The high cost of living, gender and ethnicity further compounded these issues.

This submission is from the group of New Zealand Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs). New Zealand’s agreed understanding of what constitutes a DPO is elaborated on page 6 below. The voice of disabled New Zealanders is the primary focus of this DPO shadow report. Disabled people have spoken out. Disabled people have a right to a better life and to live as non-disabled New Zealanders live. The collective voices of disabled people, through their representative organisations, are recorded here. The purpose of this DPO report is to provide the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities with a strong collective voice from disabled New Zealanders on the implementation of the CRPD in New Zealand. In this way the voice of disabled New Zealanders can sit alongside the New Zealand Government report on the CRPD implementation in our country.This report has drawn heavily on reports that DPOs have produced and includes issues and information raised across the disability sector. It provides details on key issues for disabled people, including on issues that seem lacking in the official information from New Zealand. On the world stage New Zealand is often considered an international leader in progressing the rights and full inclusion of disabled people. New Zealand is doing very well in some areas but this should not 1 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A

report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 26.

5

DRAFTsuggest we rest on our laurels. We have a responsibility to continue to improve the lives of disabled New Zealanders so that when other countries look to New Zealand we may inspire them to also do better in upholding the rights of disabled people in their country.

Good practiceNew Zealand is fortunate in having some good practice initiatives, in the past and present, which help inform and influence disability sector work. The DPOs wish to acknowledge these examples of good practice and highlight the opportunity, and the need, to replicate good practice across all disability work areas.A few examples of good practice in disability issues in New Zealand includes:

a LeadershipNew Zealand provided international leadership during the drafting of the CRPD including by ensuring a Government and disabled people’s partnership in the CRPD drafting discussions. More recently, in 2009, the Government established the Ministerial Committee on Disability Issues to provide increased coordination across agencies in advancing the implementation of the CRPD. The Ministerial Committee is chaired by the Minister for Disability Issues and includes other Ministers who hold key portfolios.2 The Ministerial Committee meet three times per year and provides policy direction and leadership on priority disability issues. The Ministerial Committee on Disability Issues is supported by the Chief Executives' Group on Disability Issues, which is tasked to lead and co-ordinate government agencies implementation of the Ministerial Committee's priorities on disability issues. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development chairs this group.At the time of writing the Ministerial Committee was drafting its fourth Disability Action Plan, a process that began in late 2013. This is the first time that the Ministerial Committee and the Chief Executives Group have strategically engaged with DPOs to jointly develop a Disability Action Plan using a partnership model. As a result, DPOs have had considerable influence in drafting the current Disability Action Plan and

2 The Ministerial Committee core members are the Ministers for Justice, Health, Housing, Education, Accident Compensation Corporation, Social Development, Senior Citizens, Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment and the Associate Minister for Transport.

6

DRAFTpriority work areas. This fourth Disability Action plan includes and acknowledges continuing initiatives from previous year’s action plans and includes a move to new initiatives. It further supports the shift to “person directed” disability supports. As this partnership approach in developing the Disability Action Plan is new it would benefit from being reviewed for ongoing implementation and improvement in the development of future plans.

b DPOs - Government engagement and partnershipNew work looking at developing more formal engagement and partnership processes for government and DPOs began in late 2013. This work is in the formative stages but the Government should be acknowledged for recognising the pivotal role that DPOs have in providing expertise and informing government decisions. These discussions have also acknowledged the need to ensure DPOs have appropriate capacity and resources. Ensuring DPOs capacity will in turn mean that the DPOs can work more effectively with the Government to ensure services and supports targeted at disabled people and their families work well for them.The DPOs collectively agreed on a definition of the roles and attributes that define a DPO. This includes organisations that have the following:

1 a national structure and focus2 organisational goals and objectives that reflect the CRPD3 are governed by a majority of disabled people4 a majority of members are disabled5 a mandate or authority to speak on behalf of its members6 engagement with its members including by sharing information.3

When the Government and DPOs began meeting to develop more formal and transparent ways of engagement a list of principles were jointly agreed on4. The agreed five principles that should underpin how DPOs and the Government engage and work together are (summarised here):

1 Government will engage with DPOs as representatives of disabled people

2 We involve the right people, at the right time, in the right work3 “Disabled People’s Organisation (DPO) Roles and Attributes. Working draft – 3 December 2013)4 “Principles to underpin our new engagement model” Principles agreed at DPO-Government

Workshop at Brentwood Hotel, Wellington on 19th August 2013”

7

DRAFT3 We value the contribution of each party and make it easy to

engage4 We will be open, honest, transparent and creative in our

engagements5 We jointly learn, and review, how to engage with each other,

reviewing our work and sharing good practice.5 This work is on the right path towards developing robust and transparent processes for all government agencies to engage with disabled people. Going forward, it will be critical that such processes continue to be developed and consistently implemented, and are closely monitored and regularly reviewed.A recent good example of a government department carrying out transparent and effective engagement with DPOs can be seen in the Ministry of Social Development’s recent work around New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL). As a result of a recent Human Rights Commission Inquiry into New Zealand Sign Language6, the Government committed resources to do more work, including developing options for the long-term promotion and maintenance of New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL). The Ministry of Social Development complied closely with the Principles of the new engagement model to establish an Expert Advisory Group with a majority of Deaf NZSL users as members. The Expert Advisory Group worked in partnership with the Ministry of Social Development to reach a proposal for the Government to consider. The establishment and work of this Expert Advisory group is a good example of putting into practice the DPO-Government engagement principles referred to above.

c People centred approach to disability servicesThere are a few good, small scale and new initiatives aimed at transforming disability services to a people centred approach and ensuring disabled people have a real say in their services.

The Ministry of Health’s “New Model for Supporting Disabled People” a demonstration project being trialled in one town and its surrounding region7. An evaluation of this project during the 2012 calendar year indicated that 27 people and their families had achieved some real changes in their lives including attending courses, working part time, attending a gym, developing a home-based business, solving transport needs and organising a support group for disabled

5 “Principles to underpin our new engagement model” Principles agreed at DPO-Government Workshop at Brentwood Hotel, Wellington on 19th August 2013”

6 Human Rights Commission (2013) “A New Era in the Right to Sign He Houhanga Tongo te Tika ki Te Reo Turi: Report of the New Zealand Sign Language Inquiry” (September 2013)

7 The Ministry of Health’s New Model for Supporting Disabled People demonstration project in the Bay of Plenty.

8

DRAFTpeople. As at August 2013 a total of fifty-nine people had asked to work with this new project.8

This new approach has potential to benefit a large number of disabled people. However, uptake of the services has been slower than expected.9 At the current rate of progress it will be many years before the service changes are rolled out across all disability services and available to all disabled people as a realistic option.

Another example is the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social Development’s “Enabling Good Lives project” that is being trialled in Christchurch, Hamilton and Wellington. The Enabling Good Lives approach includes providing facilitation-based supports for people to do everyday things in everyday places in their community.

A further Enabling Good Lives demonstration project has been established in Christchurch with a focus on 40-50 students with high and very high needs who are transitioning from school. The project aims to provide more person-centred support to disabled youth in their local community and to provide more choice and control over the support they receive.

The Enabling Good Lives projects are informed by an Enabling Good Lives Advisory Group in Christchurch and a national Enabling Good lives Leadership Group.10

Going forward the roll out of these person centred approaches needs to pick up momentum and maintain compliance with the new Government – DPO engagement model to ensure more disabled people can benefit from these new approaches.

d Electoral CommissionSince 2005, the Electoral Commission has been working to improve access to electoral events for disabled New Zealanders. Action plans were developed for the 2005, 2008 and 2011 general elections that detailed new and continuing initiatives to improve accessibility of venues and information.11 These initiatives were developed and implemented in consultation with disabled people and DPOs.

This has resulted in an increase in accessible information about voting, including voting information in Easy Read, Braille, large print and New Zealand Sign Language, captions on television advertisements, information on accessible

8 Disability Support Services e-newsletter. No.50 August 2013.9 Evalue Research (December 2012) New Model for Supporting Disabled People: Synthesis of

Year 1 Evaluation Findings.10 Cabinet paper (July 2013) Enabling Good Lives Demonstration in Christchurch. Accessed 10

October 2013 at: http://www.odi.govt.nz/what-we-do/improving-disability-supports/enabling-good-lives/cabinet-paper-july-2013-enabling-good-lives-demonstration-in-christchurch.html

11 Electoral Commission (2014) “Access 2020: Electoral Commission Disability Strategy. P 2.

9

DRAFTpolling places, disability awareness training for Election Day staff and DVD resource kits and guides for voters with learning/intellectual disabilities. These initiatives have all been developed in close consultation with disabled people and DPOs.

The Electoral Commission’s post-election survey includes surveying disabled people. Following the 2011 general election the disability survey indicated a high level of awareness of accessible voting information and a majority commented positively on the accessibility of voting processes.12

In 2014 the Electoral Commission released a new Disability Strategy to provide a long-term framework to achieve the Commission’s goals and objectives. Objectives include that by 2020 disabled voters will be able to cast an independent and secret ballot in parliamentary elections, including via online electronic voting.13

The DPOs wish to acknowledge the Electoral Commission for its commitment to continually improve and review accessibility and to do this in close consultation with DPOs.

Article 4 General ObligationsThe New Zealand Government has made noteworthy commitments to consult with and work in partnership with disabled people. In 2001 the government worked closely with disabled people to develop the Government’s first Disability Strategy and between 2004 and 2006 the government ensured disabled people were present and influencing New Zealand’s contribution to the development of the CRPD. More recently in 2010 the Government established the Independent Monitoring Mechanism under Article 33, which is made up of the Convention Coalition Monitoring Group (a coalition of seven DPOs), the Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman.

Despite a few examples of good working partnerships, engagements between government agencies and Disabled Peoples Organisations is most often ad hoc, inconsistent, and lacking in transparency. DPOs and disabled leaders have reported that government departments are often unwilling to work with them.14 It is not surprising then that there are reports of considerable disparities in the way different government agencies consult with disabled people and enable their participation in decision-making.15 This led to the DPOs and the Independent

12 Colmar Brunton (2012) “Disability voter and non-voter survey report”. Report prepared for the Electoral Commission, March 2012. P 2 & 3.

13 Electoral Commission (2014) “Access 2020: Electoral Commission Disability Strategy. P 214 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report

on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 90.15 Human Rights Commission (2012) “Making Disability Rights Real Whkatūturu ngā Tika

Hauātanga: Annual Report of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the

10

DRAFTMonitoring Mechanism to call for significant improvement in this area.16 Improvements need to ensure DPOs are involved in the development of legislation and policy and to recognise the importance of having leadership on disability issues come from disabled people themselves.

DPOs began collectively meeting under the auspices of Article 4.3, reaching agreement on a definition of a “Disabled People’s Organisation”. Then the Government joined the process and in August 2014 the DPOs and Government together agreed on a new engagement model. The new engagement model developed thus far comprises five principles to underpin government engagement with DPOs and to ensure the participation of disabled people and DPOs in decisions that affect them. The five principles are that Government will engage with DPOs as representatives of disabled people; will involve the right people at the right time; will value the contribution of each party and make it easy to engage; will to open, honest, transparent and creative in engaging with each other; and to jointly review and learn how to engage with each other.

These discussions have included DPO capacity and capability issues in order to sustain their existence into the future, enable them to maintain effective connections with disabled people and to contribute effectively to this new way of working with Government.17 This will require sufficient resourcing to ensure DPOs can effectively participate and provide representational leadership.

This new partnership and engagement principles between DPOs and the Government is still forming and requires further development, such as implementation planning, reviewing and monitoring to ensure all government agencies comply with this new model.

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 4

1 That the Government work with DPOs to ensure implementation of the new engagement model across all government agencies, and that the Government actively promote, monitor and review progress in implementing this new engagement model

2 That the Government continue to support DPO capacity and capability issues, including by providing funding and resourcing to DPOs to ensure they can contribute effectively to engaging with the Government and to

Rights of Persons with Disabilities 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012.” P 8.16 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report

on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 26.; and Human Rights Commission (2012) “Making Disability Rights Real Whkatūturu ngā Tika Hauātanga: Annual Report of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012”. P 8, 10.

17 Human Rights Commission (2014) IMM report 2012 – 2013. Article 4. P 29.

11

DRAFTensure leadership on disability issues comes from disabled people themselves.

Article 5 Equality and non-discriminationa Discriminatory amendment to the Public Health and

Disability Act In 2012 the Court of Appeal affirmed that the policy of not paying family carers to provide disability support services to adult disabled family members constituted unjustifiable discrimination on the basis of family status. In direct response to this decision the Government passed the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Act under urgency18 on 17 May 2013.

This amendment limits the circumstances in which family members can be paid, the category of family members that can be paid (e.g. parents but not spouses) and imposes a payment system with a lesser pay rate for family than is offered to non-family members using a different delivery system. Furthermore the Act has closed off further legal action on this issue by declaring that no further complaints can be made regarding the payment, or otherwise, of family members as care givers.19 The Act effectively outs the Human Rights Commission’s jurisdiction and removes any potential domestic remedy for unlawful discrimination relating to government family care policy.20

The Act was passed under urgency (in one day) despite the Attorney-General reporting it was inconsistent with the right to judicial review and potentially inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination.21

The passing of this Act was greeted with despondency and despair by disabled people. Instead of fixing an historical inequality this Act has increased and set in law further inequality for disabled people and their families.

The Act and the manner in which it was passed has attracted widespread criticism, including from the New Zealand Law Society.22 It was also highlighted by the UN Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review. During the interactive dialogue for New Zealand’s second Universal Periodic Review New Zealand was

18 Meaning that despite there being significant human rights implications, neither the Commission nor the public were able to make submissions on the Bill.

19 New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Act, Section 70E.20 Submission of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission to the 18th session of the Human

Rights Council; New Zealand’s Second Universal Periodic Review. (2013) “Report on New Zealand’s Human Rights Performance” (17 June 2013) p 8.

21 New Zealand Law Society Human Rights and Privacy Committee (June 2013) “Submission to the 18th session of the Human Rights Council. Shadow Report to New Zealand’s 2nd Universal Periodic Review”. 17th June 2013. P 5.

22 Ibid.

12

DRAFTasked to “to address the controversial issues around Public Health and Disability Act” and to ensure that governmental programmes were beneficial to all without discrimination”.23

The Independent Monitoring Mechanism (established under Article 33) has recommended urgent reconsideration of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Act and in particular to repeal those sections that limit further legal action and limit the circumstances in which family members can be paid and the categories of family members that can be paid.24

This limitation on disabled people making complaints regarding government family care policy is particularly concerning given that New Zealand has not signed the CRPD Optional Protocol.

a Reasonable accommodationThe Human Rights Act 1993 does not provide a clear definition of “reasonable accommodation” and this has been problematic to the detriment of disabled people. A reported lack of understanding of reasonable accommodation is at the heart of many complaints and enquiries to the New Zealand Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Commission commented that:

“the interests of disabled people would be better served if the HRA [Human Rights Act] contained a general obligation to accommodate disability and a definition of reasonable accommodation”.25

The Independent Monitoring Mechanism (established under Article 33) also highlighted that reasonable accommodation requirements are not well understood or properly applied. They recommended in 2012, that guidance on the requirements and application of reasonable accommodation be developed.26

23 United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Eighteenth session (January 2014). “Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: New Zealand.” Geneva, 27 January – 7 February 2014, p 8. (A/HRC/WG.6/18/L.1)

24 Submission of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities “Making disability rights real Whakatūturu ngā Tika Hauātanga” (17th June 2013), p 11, in Annex 3 of the Submission of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission to the 18th session of the Human Rights Council; New Zealand’s Second Universal Periodic Review. (17th June 2013).

25 Human Rights Commission Letter to the Justice and Electoral Committee 1st August 2008. Accessed on 19th December 2013 at: http://www.hrc.co.nz/hrc_new/hrc/cms/files/documents/02-Dec-2008_14-13-54_Letter_to_Select_Committee_Disability.html

26 Submission of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities “Making disability rights real Whakatūturu ngā Tika Hauātanga” (17th June 2013), p 11, in Annex 3 of the Submission of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission to the 18th session of the Human Rights Council; New Zealand’s Second Universal Periodic Review. (17th June 2013)

13

DRAFTThe New Zealand Government report on implementing the CRPD in March 2011 stated that the Ministry of Justice is “currently developing guidance on reasonable accommodation for public activities”.27 However, the DPOs are not aware of any progress on this.

Furthermore, the Convention Coalition monitoring group (made up of DPOs) have recommended that reasonable accommodations, including in employment, need monitoring and reviewing every four years.28

b Gaps in human rights protectionsSome human rights matters that impact on the promotion and protection of human rights for disabled people are unclear or missing from the Human Rights Act 1993 and as a result disabled people are not afforded the same human rights protections as non-disabled people. Examples include:

i. The prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act do not include “language”. This was criticized by the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Committee who expressed regret that New Zealand does not consider it necessary to protect all the prohibited grounds of discrimination stated in the Covenant, in particular language.29 The exclusion of “language” as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993 means that Deaf people may only claim discrimination under “disability” yet there are times when Deaf people experience discrimination on the basis of their language: New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL).

ii. The Human Rights Act 1993 Sections 61 through to Section 69 deal with other forms of discrimination, including racial disharmony, sexual harassment and victimization.30 Section 61 provides that it is unlawful to publish material that is abusive or insulting if it is likely to excite hostility against a group of people by reasons of their colour, race or national or ethnic origin. This limitation on publishing abusive material exciting hostility applies only to racial or ethnic groups and not to disabled people.

Recently, a high profile public figure published abusive and insulting material against disabled people highlighting the need to ensure equal protections for disabled people. This high profile public figure published an

27 “First New Zealand Report on Implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, March 2011”. Report submitted by the New Zealand Government to the United Nations Convention Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, p 11.

28 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 82; and Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2010: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand” (2010), p.6729 Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: New Zealand, CCPR/CO/75/NZL (2002), paragraph 9.30 Human Rights Act 1993. Sections 61 – 69.

14

DRAFTopinion that it would be a “fantastic achievement” if all women pregnant with a baby with Down syndrome aborted their baby, and that Down syndrome was “eradicated”. Similar statements regarding eradicating New Zealand Maori or Asian or Islamic people could have been the subject of a formal complaint under the Human Rights Act. Having no limitations or checks in place on publishing such abusive and insulting material against disabled people affords lesser protections to disabled people.

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 5

3 That the Government urgently reconsider the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Act and repeal those sections that limit further legal action and limit the circumstances in which family members can be paid and the categories of family members that can be paid

4 That the Ministry of Justice prioritise work to development of guidance on the requirements and application of reasonable accommodation and the protections under the Bill of Rights Act

5 That the Government reviews the Human Rights Act 1993 to ensure it provides disabled people with human rights protections equal to non-disabled people, including protections of unlawful discrimination relating to publicising abusive or insulting material that is likely to excite hostility against disabled people.

Article 6 Women with disabilitiesDisabled women are disproportionately represented among those who lack qualifications, those who do not work and those living on low incomes.31 There is also evidence that disabled women experience much higher rates of sexual violence.32

During New Zealand’s second Universal Periodic Review in January 2014, Human Rights Council Working Group recommended that New Zealand “develop, in partnership with civil society, a national action plan for women with defined targets, to address issues such as violence against women, pay inequality, the situation of Māori and Pacific women, and women with disabilities”.33 A further

31 Statistics New Zealand (2006) Household Disability Survey. 32 Kingi and Jordon, (2009) “Responding to sexual violence: Pathways to recovery” Report

commissioned by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs33 United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review

Eighteenth session (January 2014). “Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: New Zealand.” Geneva, 27 January – 7 February 2014, p 21. (A/HRC/WG.6/18/L.1)

15

DRAFTrecommendation highlighted the need to strengthen public policies to combat the high rates of violence against women belonging to minority groups, including disabled women.34

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 6

6 That the Government commit to increasing statistics and information about the situation of disabled women

7 That the Government develop a national action plan for disabled women, in partnership with DPOs, with defined targets to address issues such as violence against women, pay inequality, health inequalities, educational inequalities and health and wellbeing for disabled women

8 That the Government ensure programmes and work addressing disparities between disabled and non-disabled people’s educational qualifications and employment includes a specific focus on disabled women.

Article 7 Children with disabilitiesIn 2006 there were an estimated 90,000 children under 15 years who had a disability. This amounts to 10 percent of all children under age 15. Almost half of these disabled children (46 percent) had special education needs. Nearly one-third (31 percent) of all disabled children are Māori, this compares with 14 .6 percent of New Zealand’s whole population being Māori.35

Disabled children are over represented in child poverty statistics with half of the children who receive the Government’s Child Disability Allowance living in benefit dependent homes.36 Disabled children are also more likely to be living in one-parent households with an estimated 28 percent of disabled children living in one-parent households compared to 18 percent of non-disabled children.37 Furthermore, disabled children (27 percent) were less likely than non-disabled children (39 percent) to live in above average income households.38

34 United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Eighteenth session (January 2014). “Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: New Zealand.” Geneva, 27 January – 7 February 2014, p 23. (A/HRC/WG.6/18/L.1)

35 Statistics New Zealand 2006 Quick Stats about Maori. 2006 Census.36 A reported 48 percent of children who receive the Child Disability Allowance live in benefit

dependant homes. Ministry of Social Development (2012) “The Statistical Report for the year ending June 2012”, p 100 – 101.

37 Office for Disability Issues; Statistic New Zealand. (2009) “Disability and Informal Care in New Zealand in 2006”. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand, p 14.

38 Office for Disability Issues; Statistic New Zealand. (2009) “Disability and Informal Care in New Zealand in 2006”. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand, p 15.

16

DRAFTDisabled children are 3 – 4 times more likely to be abused or neglected than their non-disabled peers.39

Disability advocates have called for the repeal of sections in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 because they unnecessarily provide for less favourable treatment of disabled children than non-disabled children. Sections 140, 141 and 142 of this Act provide extended care agreements and are used when a family cannot provide the day-to-day care their child requires. Extended care agreements are not intended to be permanent with the intent being that the child or young person will return home. If there is no chance the child may return home the child should then move to the care of another family and not remain under an extended care agreement indefinitely. However, section 141 contains separate provisions for mentally and physically disabled children including that extended care agreements may be extended indefinitely when the child is placed in an approved organisation. There are reports of section 141 being used to keep disabled children in full-time residential care when another family is able and willing to care for the child in their home.40 These separate provisions afford disabled children lesser rights and protections than non-disabled children, including lesser rights to family life and are thus inconsistent with the CRPD Articles 23.3 and 23.4. Disability advocates have called for the repeal of these sections of the Children Young Persons and their Families Act.41

The Government’s new Disability Action Plan 2014 - 201842 identifies the need to review care processes for disabled children under the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act. Going forward this review work will require the close involvement of, and monitoring by, the DPOs to ensure laws and policies are made consistent with the CRPD and to ensure the work programme is appropriately developed and progressed.

In New Zealand there is no requirement to collect and provide disaggregated statistical information on abuse of disabled children. The Ministry of Social Development’s statistical report includes information on reports of concern about children, but does not identify the number of disabled children within this group and who may need further action or support.

39 Murphy, Nancy (2011) “Maltreatment of Children with Disabilities: The Breaking Point” in Journal of Child Neurology 26(8), 1054-1056.40 CCS Disability Action (2013) “Including All Children: Submission on the Vulnerable Children Bill”.

30 October 2013, p 8.41 CCS Disability Action (2013) “Including All Children: Submission on the Vulnerable Children Bill”.

30 October 2013.42 To be published on ODI’s website in May 2014: “Disability Action Plan 2014 – 2018” [insert link].

17

DRAFTInternational evidence43 suggests that disabled children are some of the most vulnerable members of society, yet the Government’s Children’s Action Plan 2012 contains no mention of disabled children.44

During New Zealand’s second Universal Periodic Review in January 2014 it was recommended that the New Zealand Government combat child poverty, particularly for Māori children, Pacific children and disabled children.45

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 7

9 That the Government urgently develop an action plan for disabled children, in consultation with DPOs and parent groups, and that such an action plan consider ensuring better statistical information on disabled children, research into the number, circumstances and needs of disabled children and abuse of disabled children; and that the Government commit resources to implement such an action plan

10 That the Government consult closely with DPOs to progress the review of the current care and support processes for disabled children under the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act and to ensure disabled children’s right to home and family is equal to non-disabled children and consistent with the CRPD.

Article 8 Awareness raisingDisabled people report that their participation in society is often limited by people’s negative or unaware attitudes. Disabled people have called for a national awareness campaign that targets all sectors of society.46 Currently, the government has a community-based “Think Differently” campaign, aimed at improving attitudes and behaviour towards disabled people. However, DPOs have expressed concerns that this campaign is not being carried out in close consultation with, and actively involving DPOs, and the new engagement model have yet to be considered or implemented. As a result some decisions have been made that appear to be inconsistent with the CRPD.

43 See, for example The State of the World’s Children 2013 – Children with Disabilities (2013, UNICEF, May 2013) available at http://www.unicef.org/sowc2013/report.html

44 New Zealand Government (2012) “Children’s Action Plan: Identifying, Supporting and Protecting Vulnerable Children” October 2012.

45 United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Eighteenth session (January 2014). “Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: New Zealand.” Geneva, 27 January – 7 February 2014, p 19. (A/HRC/WG.6/18/L.1)

46 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2010: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand” (2010), p.50

18

DRAFTThe government fund a national public education campaign aimed at reducing stigma and discrimination faced by people with mental illness. This campaign called “Like Minds, Like Mine” has been successful in improving public attitudes towards mental illness.47

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 8

11 That the Government’s Think Differently campaign develops clear and transparent plans to engage with DPOs and disabled people, consistent with the new engagement model principles48, to ensure that DPOs can provide meaningful input and leadership on changing attitudes and behaviours towards disabled people

12 That the Government commit to a national disability awareness campaign and to plan and progress this in partnership with DPOs.

Article 9 Accessibility

a The built environmentAccessible building standards and compliance and monitoring of those standards need reviewing and up-grading to improve the accessibility of the built environment in New Zealand.49

Current building accessibility standards are not mandatory and were last reviewed more than a decade ago.50 The Government announced in December 2013 that it will conduct a review of the current building regulatory system and how it is meeting the needs of disabled people.51 This review aims to gain a better understanding of how building access requirements are being implemented in new and older buildings and the extent to which the requirements provide for access to buildings for disabled people. Recommendations from the review are due mid-

47 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 17.

48 DPOs and Government joint agreement of “Principles to underpin our new engagement model” (August 2013)

49 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 23, 82; and Human Rights Commission (2012) “Better Design and Buildings for Everyone: Disabled People’s Rights and the Built Environment”. P 13 & 14.

50 Human Rights Commission (2012) “Better Design and Buildings for Everyone: Disabled People’s Rights and the Built Environment”. P 13 & 14

51 New Zealand Government Ministers Maurice Williamson and Tariana Turia (2nd December 2013). Accessed on 17th February 2014 at http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/progress-disability-access-review

19

DRAFT2014. The involvement of DPOs in this review is weak and should be made formal and transparent. DPOs involvement in the review process and ensuring compliance with the CRPD are vital to the success of this review.

The Earthquake Disability Leadership Group was established to advocate for the rights of disabled people in the recovery of Christchurch, including ensuring the rebuild of the city results in a fully accessible city. The Earthquake Disability Leadership Group is led by disabled people and includes DPOs. They have been successful in providing a united and effective voice in planning around the rebuild of Christchurch. However, building accessibility issues continue to be an issue in both Christchurch and across all of New Zealand.

b HousingAt present accessibility in New Zealand’s housing stock is covered in the Building Act and its associated building standards, but not in a way that gives equal access to disabled people. There are no mandatory requirements to ensure disabled people have the same access to housing as other citizens.52

Research has shown that disabled people’s housing needs are not being met by New Zealand’s current housing stock.53 This research further suggested that Government funding for housing modifications is primarily for basic needs and does not consider the autonomous functioning of a disabled person or the overall welfare of the family, including when children are involved. For example, non- disabled family members and housemates are expected to undertake all the cooking for a disabled person because the presence of other adults in the household is interpreted as making accessible kitchen modifications unnecessary. There were further reports of disabled people fearing for their safety in the event of a fire because only one accessible exit is seen as necessary.54

Some groups of disabled people are particularly vulnerable to not having their housing needs met. They include young people in transition to adult life; people dependent on funding through the health sector; people who are renting; people who do not have access to the resources and support of families; and people whose families have low incomes.

Inaccessible housing affects the productivity and social life of disabled people and their families and needs priority action by the Government.

c Transport

52 Human Rights Commission (2013) “Monitoring Human Rights in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: A report by the Human Rights Commission” (December 2013), p. 75.

53 Centre for Research Evaluation and Social Assessment and the Auckland Disability Resource Centre (2007) “Housing and Disability: Future proofing New Zealand’s housing stock for an inclusive society”. Report commissioned by the Centre for Housing Research and the Office for Disability Issues. May 2007. P i.

54 Ibid., p ii.

20

DRAFTAlthough New Zealand’s transport legislation includes some provisions for disabled people there are ongoing problems with enacting such statute.55 There have been some initiatives and improvements in transport access for disabled people but the development of national accessibility design standards for all public land transport (recommended in a 2005 report of the Human Rights Commission) have not been progressed.56 Furthermore, it is understood that there is insufficient monitoring and data on transport accessibility for disabled people.

The Land Transport Management Act 2003 specifies that Regional Land Transport Programmes must report on compliance with certain obligations including “improving access and mobility”. However, these terms are not well understood or consistently applied.

The Government provide funding assistance for disabled people to access public transport, including a subsidised taxi service called the “Total Mobility Scheme”. However, there are reports that this scheme is under-funded and inadequately implemented leading disabled people to call for improvements to make the Scheme nationally consistent and equitable.57

The Government’s new Disability Action Plan 2014 – 201858 identifies the need to review transport services issues for disabled people via a stocktake to determine options for improvements. Going forward this review work will require the close involvement of, and monitoring by, the DPOs to ensure consistency with the CRPD and to ensure the work programme is appropriately developed and progressed.

d Information and servicesAccess to government services and information in New Zealand remains a significant and worrying barrier to disabled people’s participation in society, as reported by disabled people and evident in complaints to the Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Ombudsmen.59

55 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. Large Print Version. (2012), p 34.

56 Human Rights Commission (2012) “Making Disability Rights Real – Whakatūturu ngā Tika Hauātanga: Annual report of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012, p 32.

57 Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand (July 2008) “The Great Barrier Brief: Register of Issues – Blind People Speaking for Ourselves”. P 1.; and Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand”. (2010), p 44, 61, 62.

58 To be published on ODI’s website in May 2014: “Disability Action Plan 2014 – 2018” [insert link]. 59 Human Rights Commission (2012) “Better Information for Everyone: Disabled People’s Rights in

the Information Age.” (October 2012), p 5 & 8; and Deaf Aotearoa New Zealand (2010) “Deaf Way” Report, undertaken by Fitzgerald and Associates (February 2010), p 24; and Human Rights Commission (2012) “Making Disability Rights Real Whkatūturu ngā Tika Hauātanga: Annual Report of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the Rights of

21

DRAFTDisabled people have reported government information, correspondence and forms are often inaccessible and this includes high risk information such as medical consent forms and medicine labels.60

New Zealand Government Web Standards are based on international “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines” and are mandatory for core government departments. However, compliance with these standards is low, and the standards have been criticised for their limited scope, ie: not including District Health Boards, local authorities and schools.61 Full compliance with international and domestic standards of information accessibility will require more careful planning to ensure they can be progressively implemented.62

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 9

13 That the Government ensure all building legislation and building standards align with the CRPD, including incorporating universal design principles and making compliance with accessibility standards mandatory for all new and renovated public buildings

14 That the Government ensure accessible building regulations are appropriately implemented, enforced and monitored

15 That the Government improve the housing modifications policy, funding and practice to ensure the provision of customised accessibility features to meet individual needs.

16 That the Government develop clear and transparent plans to engage with DPOs to ensure they can provide meaningful input and leadership in work resulting from the Building review and ongoing work with the government on building accessibility.

17 That the Government progress plans to improve the accessibility of transport services for disabled people, in close consultation with DPOs.

18 The NZ Transport Agency review compliance with, and understanding of, the Land Transport Management Act’s provisions for “improving access and mobility” to ensure it includes all disabled people and is consistent with the CRPD.

Persons with Disabilities 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012.” P 13 & 14.60 Human Rights Commission (2012) “Better Information for Everyone: Disabled People’s Rights in

the Information Age”. Human Rights Commission: Auckland, New Zealand. P 8.61 Human Rights Commission (2012) “Better Information for Everyone: Disabled People’s Rights in

the Information Age.” (October 2012), p 5 & 13.62 Ibid. P 7.

22

DRAFT19 That the Government progress plans to improve the accessibility of

government agencies information, in close consultation with DPOs, and that this work includes raising compliance with New Zealand Government Web Standards and to extend the scope of mandatory compliance with these standards to crown entities, including District Health Boards, local authorities and schools.

Article 11 Situations of risk and humanitarian emergenciesDisabled people are often among the most vulnerable in situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies. The aftermath of the 2010 and 2011 major earthquakes in Christchurch highlighted inadequacies in the readiness and response to disabled people following the earthquakes. Since then there have been a number of initiatives to improve accessible information and planning for disabled people in emergencies. The Earthquake Disability Leadership Group was established to advocate for the rights of disabled people in the recovery of Christchurch, and has been effective in providing a united voice on disability issues.

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 11

20 That the Government continue its commitment to involving disabled people and DPOs in all work around the recovery and rebuild of Christchurch

21 That the Government ensure clear plans are in place that provide for the protection, safety and continuation of services and support to disabled people in emergency situations.

Article 12 & 13 Equal recognition before the law and Access to JusticeThe Convention Coalition monitoring group (made up of DPOs) reported in 2012 that New Zealand most often uses substituted decision-making which is not consistent with the supported decision-making approach advocated for in Article 12 of the CRPD.63 Concerns are around implementation processes and the lack of checks and monitoring in place to ensure appropriate safe guards.

63 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 28 & 29.

23

DRAFTThe three pieces of New Zealand legislation most relevant to the application of article 12 are the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and the Intellectual Disability Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation Act 2003. Although all these statutes contain provisions that support the ability of disabled people to make their own decisions to the greatest extent possible, it is not clear whether these pieces of legislation are compliant with the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities “General comment on Article 12”64. It is also not clear whether the provisions are implemented in a manner consistent with supported decision-making principles. For example, recent reports about the administration of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) by mental health clinicians without consent are concerning to the Independent Monitoring Mechanism (established under Article 33). In 2011 ECT was administered without consent 495 times. In 2012 that figure rose to 690. 65

Significant concerns have been raised that people with mental illness are being subject to overuse of compulsory treatment powers under New Zealand’s Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. This Act has been criticised for its lack of human rights principles and changes to the Act are sought to make it consistent with the CRPD.66 The number of people under compulsory treatment has increased significantly in the past five years, and Māori people are over-represented in those numbers.67 Disabled people have called for the elimination of seclusion in mental health detention facilities68. There have also been calls for better monitoring and review of the detention and treatment of people with intellectual/learning disabilities and people with mental illness.69

The Government’s new Disability Action Plan 2014 - 201870 identifies work needed on legal capacity and supported decision-making. Going forward this work will require the close involvement of, and monitoring by, the DPOs to ensure consistency with the CRPD and to ensure the work programme is appropriately developed and progressed.

64 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (November 2013) “General comment on Article 12: Equal recognition before the law”. Eleventh Session 30 March – 11 April 2014. CRPD/C/11/4.

65 Radio New Zealand report, 31 December 2013. http://www.radionz.co.nz66 John Dawson and Kris Gledhill, (2013) New Zealand Mental Health Act in Practice. Victoria

University Press: Wellington, New Zealand. P 25.67 Ibid.68 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A

report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 13.69 Human Rights Commission (2012) “Making Disability Rights Real Whkatūturu ngā Tika

Hauātanga: Annual Report of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012.” P 14.

70 To be published on ODI’s website in May 2014: “Disability Action Plan 2014 – 2018” [insert link].

24

DRAFTRECOMMENDATIONS Article 12

22 That the Government commit to improved monitoring of disabled people who have been subject to other people making decisions for them under statute and who have been provided compulsory treatment, including improving data collection

23 That the Government ensure mechanisms, including checking and monitoring processes, are in place to protect disabled people from abuse, exploitation and /or neglect in situations where their decisions, choices and preferences are legally being made by others

24 That New Zealand’s legislation and policies be reviewed to ensure disabled people can exercise their legal capacity, including through supported decision-making and to ensure New Zealand legislation, policy and practice complies with articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the CRPD.

Article 14 and 15 Liberty and security of person, and Freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishmentCompared to the general population, prisoners have significantly higher levels of mental illness. It is estimated that almost a third of the prison population experience mild to moderate mental health problems.71 Mental health care for prisoners has been a significant concern for some time. The Office of the Ombudsman is currently monitoring a project between the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Health to improve mental health care in prisons. This project will need to be closely monitored including ensuring the close consultation and involvement of people with experience of mental illness, including by their representative organisations.

The Mental Health Foundation have recommended reviewing and amending the mental health legislation to ensure it recognises that people with mental disorder do not automatically lose their capacity to consent to treatment; ensure that electro-convulsive therapy is genuinely administered with informed consent; and further investigate the reason for the disparities in hospitalisation of Maori and

71 Department of Corrections (1999) “National Survey of Psychiatric Morbidity in New Zealand Prisons”; and Ministry of Health (2001) “Services for People with Mental Illness in the Justice System”

25

DRAFTprioritise access to, effectiveness and responsiveness of community and primary services.72

RECOMMENDATIONS Articles 14 and 15

25 That the Government progress a review mental health legislation, policy and services, in close consultation with people with experience of mental illness, including through their representative organisations, to ensure consistency with the CRPD.

Article 16 Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuseAbuse and violence towards disabled people continues to be invisible due to a lack of data and recognition in research. Recently, several incidences of abuse and violence against disabled people have been exposed publically and in research.73 In 2008, a Parliamentary Social Services Select Committee Inquiry highlighted ways to address these issues but there has been little progress on the Inquiry’s recommendations.

In 2013 a research project looking at abuse experienced by disabled people living in the community who require high levels of support, found a number of structures in place that maintain the status quo. These included low awareness of disability abuse, silencing processes, a lack of appropriate monitoring, poor management practices and inadequate reporting options.74

Similarly, a report reviewing Ministry of Health funded disability provider services, “Putting People First”, recommended several improvements needed to performance management systems so that no provider, and no disabled person, falls below the radar. This included maintaining high standards by not continuing to award new contracts to providers who have previously not met the required contracted performance standards.75 This review also made several

72 United Nations Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Eighteenth Session. (2013) “Summary prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21: New Zealand” (4 November 2013), A/HRC/WG.6/18/NZL/3. P 673 Dr Michael Roguski (June 2013) “The Hidden Abuse of Disabled People Residing in the

Community: An Exploratory Study” prepared for Tairawhiti Community Voice.74 Dr Michael Roguski (June 2013) “The Hidden Abuse of Disabled People Residing in the

Community: An Exploratory Study” prepared for Tairawhiti Community Voice, p vii.75 Karen van Eden (2013) “Putting People First” A review of Disability Support Services

Performance and Quality Management Processes for Purchased Provider Services.” (November 2013) Report prepared for Hon. Tony Ryall, Minister for Health, p 7.

26

DRAFTrecommendations to ensure disabled people can speak out when they are unsafe and ensure appropriate and safe complaint resolution processes.76

This review report “Putting People First” also recommended the Ministry of Health establish a Panel of Experts to assist the Ministry to safeguard the wellbeing of disabled people. It further recommended that membership of this panel include appropriately skilled disabled people.77

Concerns have been raised that New Zealand’s legislation provides less protection to disabled people than non-disabled people. New Zealand’s Domestic Violence Act 1995 provides the most comprehensive definition of abuse in New Zealand legislation. It covers physical, sexual and psychological abuse between parties who would ordinarily share a household or have a close personal relationship. It is not clear whether this covers abuse between a disabled person and their care-giver.78 The “Putting People First” report recommended that the government undertake work to ensure New Zealand legislation covering disabled people provides the necessary protection to keep disabled people safe from serious harm.79

The historic abuse and violence against disabled people perpetrated in institutions and social welfare homes in the past has been acknowledged only to a limited extent. Ensuring the safety and wellbeing of disabled people today and tomorrow requires acknowledging past mistakes and providing processes for dealing with those.

The lack of data and lack of progress in this area is a significant concern and warrants urgent commitment and resources by the New Zealand Government.

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 16

26 That the Ministry of Health adopts and promotes a policy of zero tolerance of abuse of disabled people in all Ministry funded services and support

76 Karen van Eden (2013) “Putting People First” A review of Disability Support Services Performance and Quality Management Processes for Purchased Provider Services.” (November 2013) Report prepared for Hon. Tony Ryall, Minister for Health, p 1.

77 Karen van Eden (2013) “Putting People First” A review of Disability Support Services Performance and Quality Management Processes for Purchased Provider Services.” (November 2013) Report prepared for Hon. Tony Ryall, Minister for Health, p 15

78 Dr Michael Roguski (June 2013) “The Hidden Abuse of Disabled People Residing in the Community: An Exploratory Study” prepared for Tairawhiti Community Voice, p49; and Karen van Eden (2013) “Putting People First” A review of Disability Support Services Performance and Quality Management Processes for Purchased Provider Services.” (November 2013) Report prepared for Hon. Tony Ryall, Minister for Health, p 16.

79 Karen van Eden (2013) “Putting People First” A review of Disability Support Services Performance and Quality Management Processes for Purchased Provider Services.” (November 2013) Report prepared for Hon. Tony Ryall, Minister for Health, p 16.

27

DRAFT27 That the Ministry of Health continue to implement recommendations in the

“Putting People First” review report, in a timely manner, to ensure no disability provider and no disabled person falls below the radar

28 That the Government urgently commit to developing a work programme, in partnership with DPOs, with targets and timeframes, to ensure there are robust processes to acknowledge historic, recent and current abuse of disabled people and clear and appropriate processes to address these issues.

Article 17 Protecting the integrity of the personUnder New Zealand law80 everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment. For those people deemed to lack competency this right is specified under the Protection of Personal and Property Act (1988).81 Disabled people have expressed concerns that compulsory interventions are often the first resort rather than the last.82

In New Zealand a court order is not required for sterilisation without consent of intellectually disabled people under the age of 18.83 A Parliamentary select committee considering amendments to the Care of Children Act in 2004 heard from disability advocates raising concerns about the lack of legal protections for young disabled girls and women being sterilised. However, the recommendation to require a court order for such procedures was not accepted due to a lack of supporting information.84 Thus highlighting the problem of having insufficient data. Data and information on sterilisation of intellectually disabled people of all ages, including girls under the age of 18, is insufficiently recorded and reported.

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 17

80 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (1990) Part 2.1181 Protection of Personal and Property Act (1988) Part 2, 18(f).82 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A

report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 2883 Carol Hamilton (2012) “Sterilisation and intellectually disabled people in New Zealand – still on

the agenda?” in Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 7:2, 61-71: Published online 15 November 2012., p 62; and New Zealand Human Rights Commission, News and Issues, Disability (10th November 2013) “Non-concensual sterilisation laws for children outdated”. Accessed on 25 March 2014 at: http://www.hrc.co.nz/2013/non-consensual-sterilisation-laws-for-children-outdated

84 Carol Hamilton (2012) “Sterilisation and intellectually disabled people in New Zealand – still on the agenda?” in Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 7:2, 61-71: Published online 15 November 2012., p 65

28

DRAFT29 That the Government commit to increasing the quality of data and

information on involuntary medical treatment, including sterilisation and contraception of young disabled girls, boys and adults. And, that the Government commit to reviewing data and information to address any issues that may be revealed, including reviewing sterilisation statutes and practices toward ensuring consistency with the CRPD. And that the Government commit to funding research into issues that may assist in increasing the quality of such data.

Article 19 Living independently and being included in the communityDisabled people in group residential homes say they continue to experience oppressive living arrangements such as not being allowed to live with their partners, families or friends.85

There is a lack of age-appropriate residential facilities for disabled people severely restricting their residential choices and sometimes forcing them to live in rest homes (old people’s homes) or to move away from their families to live in one of the few age appropriate residential facilities.86 This issue is particularly acute in Christchurch due to the loss of buildings from the 2011 earthquake.

A Ministry of Health survey found there were approximately 750 disabled people under the age of 65 living in rest homes.87

The lack of accessible and appropriate housing has also being found to be particularly problematic for disabled youth. Disabled youth have reported having to remain with their family longer and/or accept housing options that are less conducive to developing their independence.88

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 19

30 That the Government commit to plans to increase options for quality residential facilities and housing for disabled people, including ensuring real choices for disabled people about where they can live

85 Ibid. P 30.86 Ibid. P 31.87 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report

on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 92.88 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2013: Youth.

A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2013), p 37.

29

DRAFT31 That the Government relocate all disabled people under 65 in to the

community over the next two years.

Article 20 Personal MobilityThe Government provides some mobility assistance to disabled people, including a subsidized taxi service and funding to assist with installing wheelchair hoists in taxis. The Government provides some funding for making personal vehicles accessible, but this funding is insufficient and many disabled people depend on charity funding to cover the costs of having their vehicles adapted.

Guide dogs are fully funded via charity money and receive no Government funding. Currently, there is a one year waiting list for getting a guide dog.89 There are inconsistencies in laws and policies that refer to guide dogs, companion dogs or disability dogs, and some tension between the Dog Control Act and protections from unlawful discrimination under the Human Rights Act. These impact on the rights of access and participation for disabled people with service animals.

Disabled people have called for definitions of "access and mobility" and "transport disadvantaged" in the Public Transport Management Act 2008 and the Land Transport Management Act 2003 to be amended to include specific reference to the needs of disabled people. Further, disabled people called for the promotion of and better use of best practice documents, such as, the “Pedestrian Planning Guide” and “Is This the Right Bus?”.90

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 20

32 That the Government review provisions for disabled people in statute and in practice to ensure all disabled people the greatest possible independence in personal mobility.

89 Blind Foundation / Home / Support Us / Red Puppy Sponsorship, accessed on 26 March 2014 at: http://blindfoundation.org.nz/support-us/red-puppy-sponsor

90 Accessed on 26 March 2014 at: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/pedestrian-planning-guide/ ; and Blind Citizens New Zealand. Accessed on 26 March 2014 at: http://www.abcnz.org.nz/node/53; cited in the Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012)., p 84.

30

DRAFTArticle 21 Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to informationNew Zealand Sign Language was officially recognised in 2006 with the passing of the New Zealand Sign Language Act. However, the Act was criticised for its lack of dedicated resources or funding for the promotion and maintenance of the language, and for its lack of provisions for NZSL in education.

The Human Rights Commission’s Inquiry into New Zealand Sign Language 2013, highlighted key gaps that the Government need to address to ensure deaf and other disabled people can realise their rights via NZSL. In partnership with the Deaf community the Government has progressed proposals towards establishing a NZSL Board to provide strategic advice and oversight on the promotion and maintenance of NZSL.

Access to information is discussed in Article 9 of this report.

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 21

33 That the Government commit to establishing, in partnership with the Deaf community, a NZSL Board to provide strategic advice and oversight on the promotion and maintenance of NZSL, by July 2015.

Article 23 Respect for home and the familyDisabled people have reported that it is harder for disabled people to adopt a child and easier for authorities to remove a child from their disabled parent than non-disabled parents.91

The New Zealand Adoption Act 1955 Section 8 (1)(b) gives the courts in certain circumstances the power to dispense with consent of a birth parent or guadian to adoption. The court may dispense with the consent of any parent or guardian if it is satisfied that the parent or guardian is “unfit by reason of any physical or mental incapacity”. Providing disability as a separate ground for dispensing with parental consent is discriminatory and inconsistent with Article 23 of the CRPD.

Disabled children’s rights to home and family are discussed in Article 7 of this report.

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 23

91 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 56 & 93.

31

DRAFT34 That the Government reviews the Adoption Act and policies around

adoption and fostering to ensure compliance with the CRPD.

Article 24 EducationAccess to funding and support services for disabled children in education is a common theme among complaints made to the Ombudsman and the Human Rights Commission.92 The largest area of disability complaints to the Human Rights Commission is in the area of education.

A survey looking at children with the highest level of support needs found that over half of the students were able to attend their local school, yet many parents reported ongoing difficulties to achieve an education that met their child’s needs.93 Families’ aspirations are rising, but the education system is slow to respond and is lagging behind public expectations.94

A leading disability services and advocacy organisation is progressing legal proceedings against the Ministry of Education claiming special education policies are discriminatory. This is in response to a high number of complaints and concerns received about disabled children being treated differently to non-disabled children in matters to do with enrolment, access to the curriculum and participation in school life.95 This complaint was denied public funding for representation in the Human Rights Review Tribunal and so the organisation are self-funding legal representation for these proceedings.

The Independent Monitoring Mechanism for the CRPD noted, in 2012 and 2014, three concerns regarding education for disabled children:

1 The lack of an enforceable and specific right to education for disabled children

2 The lack of learning outcomes data for disabled students

3 The lack of a plan to take NZ from a mixed segregated-inclusive education system to a fully inclusive education system.96

92 New Zealand Human Rights Commission (2012) “Making Disability Rights Real – Whakatūturu ngā Tika Hauātanga: Annual report of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012, p 20, 21 & 69.

93 Ibid. P 64.94 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report

on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 91.95 IHC, Education Complaint, accessed on 27th February 2014 at:

http://www.ihc.org.nz/campaigns/education/education-complaint/ 96 New Zealand Human Rights Commission (2012) “Making Disability Rights Real – Whakatūturu

ngā Tika Hauātanga: Annual report of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012, p 69.

32

DRAFTNew Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) was declared an official language by the New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006.

The Human Rights Commission’s NZSL inquiry found that the government provides “too little too late” to facilitate children’s and families access to NZSL, particularly in those crucial early years.97 In response to this Inquiry the Government has progressed a work programme to make NZSL more available in education. Going forward this work needs to involve DPOs and compliance with the new DPO – government engagement model to ensure consistency with the CRPD.

Disabled youth have reported experiencing isolation and exclusion within the school system, and have reported experience bullying and intimidation in schools.98 A 2013 study of disabled youth found that most of the 27 disabled youth interviewed reported experiencing intimidation and/or bullying in high school.99

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 24

35 That the Government establishes an enforceable right to education for all that is consistent with the CRPD

36 That the Ministry of Education establishes a transparent and permanent disability advisory group, with a majority of disabled people and including DPOs as members, to provide oversight, advice and disability leadership on all the Ministry of Education’s work for disabled people

37 That the Ministry of Education develop plans, in close consultation with disabled people, including disabled children, through their representative organisations, to take New Zealand from a mixed segregated-inclusive education system to a fully inclusive education system

38 That the Ministry of Education establishes initiatives that promote the value of difference and affirm the identity of disabled students

39 That the Ministry of Education provide annual disaggregated data on the learning outcomes and achievement data of disabled students in compulsory education

97 Human Rights Commission (2013) “A New Era in the Right to Sign. He Houhanga Rongo te Tika Ki Te Reo Turi: Report of the New Zealand Sign Language Inquiry” (September 2013), p 35.

98 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2013: Youth. A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2013), p 37

99 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2013: Youth. A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2013), p 9.

33

DRAFT40 That the Ministry of Education implements whole of school anti-bullying

programmes that ensures schools are safe and nurturing places for disabled students

41 That the Ministry of Education provide disaggregated data on the types and extent of bullying experienced by disabled students in schools

42 That the Tertiary Education Commission provide annual disaggregated data on the learning outcome and experiences of disabled people in tertiary education.

Article 25 and 26 Health, and Habilitation and Rehabilitation

a Systemic disparitiesIn New Zealand funding for health services and rehabilitation services is provided from a number of sources; the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Ministry of Health and District Health Boards which include hospitals.

Disabled people in New Zealand are generally supported by two separate support systems, one for people who are disabled by injury or accident, and another system for people who are disabled through illness or congenital disability. There are significant inconsistencies and inequalities between these two systems with people disabled by injury and accident faring better in terms of service delivery, rehabilitation and care.100 If a leg or sight is lost through diabetes, the overall outcomes are likely to be much less favorable than if sight or a leg was lost as the result of an accident.

This funding model for rehabilitation services has further been criticised as an obstacle to a comprehensive rehabilitation system. The current funding model leads to inequalities in access to and provision of services (with stroke services being a good example of this)101. A redistributing of funding to support a new rehabilitation model has been proposed.102 As rehabilitation can often involve different agencies, departments, funders and Ministries (e.g. Health, Education and Justice), all of these need to be included in the development of a new funding model.

100 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 48 & 118.

101 Ministry of Health, Health Workforce (2011) “Rehabilitation Service and Workforce Forecast: Final Report, December 2011.” P 28.

102 Ministry of Health, Health Workforce (2011) “Rehabilitation Service and Workforce Forecast: Final Report, December 2011.” P 28.

34

DRAFTDisabled people continue to report negative experience in health services reporting discrimination, inequality and a lack of dignity and respect in health services.103

b Learning / intellectually disabled peopleThe serious poor health status of people with intellectual/learning disabilities has been well documented in New Zealand, including in a 2003 report of the National Health Committee.104 However, there has been minimal progress on addressing this.105 The lack of progress in this area has been commented on by other UN monitoring bodies including the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review in 2014.106

The Government’s new Disability Action Plan 2014 - 2018107 identifies the need to improve health outcomes for disabled people with a specific focus on intellectually/learning disabled people. Going forward this review work will require the close involvement of, and monitoring by, the DPOs to ensure consistency with the CRPD and to ensure the work programme is appropriately developed and progressed.

c MaoriAs a population Māori people have on average the poorest health status of any ethnic group in New Zealand108 Māori people are disproportionally represented in

103 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2010: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand” (2010), p.49, 50.

104 National Health Committee report (2003) “To have an ordinary life – Kia Whai Oranga Noa”; and Ministry of Health “Health Indicators for New Zealanders with an Intellectual Disability” (2011); and Ministry Of Health (2011) Health Indicators for New Zealanders with Intellectual Disability. Wellington: Ministry of Health; and Special Olympics New Zealand “Athlete Health Overview” (2012) Accessed on 14/2/2014 at http://www.specialolympics.org.nz/Be-a-Volunteer/Healthy-Athletes/Athlete-Health-overview.aspx

105 In 2009 the Government informed the United Nations in its first UPR report that a work plan was in place to address this issue. To date, some district health boards have plans in place, but overall there has been minimal progress. Quoted in “Submission of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Making disability rights real Whakatūturu ngā Tika Hauātanga” (17th June 2013), p 14, in Annex 3 of the Submission of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission to the 18th session of the Human Rights Council; New Zealand’s Second Universal Periodic Review. (17th June 2013); and New Zealand Human Rights Commission 18th SESSION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (June 2013) “Report on New Zealand’s Human Rights Performance New Zealand Human Rights Commission | Te Kāhui Tika Tangata. (17th June 2013), P 8

106 United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Eighteenth session (January 2014). “Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: New Zealand.” Geneva, 27 January – 7 February 2014, p 24. (A/HRC/WG.6/18/L.1)

107 To be published on ODI’s website in May 2014: “Disability Action Plan 2014 – 2018” [insert link]. 108 Ministry of Health, Health Workforce New Zealand, accessed on 14/2/2014 at:

http://healthworkforce.govt.nz/our-work/workforce-service-forecasts/rehabilitation

35

DRAFTmental illness statistics, experienced a poorer standard of living, higher unemployment, lower educational achievement and socio-economic status and consequently poorer health.109

The Government developed a Māori Disability Action Plan 2012 to 2017 Whāia Te Ao Mārama in collaboration with Māori disabled people, key stakeholders and the Māori Disability Leadership Group.110 The Māori Disability Action Plan establishes priority areas to enable Māori disabled people to achieve their aspirations, and to reduce barriers to Māori disabled people and their whānau gaining better outcomes. Additionally, this action plan created the Whāia Te Ao Mārama Monitoring and Advisory Group, an external group of Māori disabled people, which will meet six-monthly to review implementation progress and provide advice to the Ministry. 111

It is noteworthy here that New Zealand does not have a DPO representing Māori disabled people generally. New Zealand has an organisation called Ngāti Kāpo, which is a DPO representing Māori blind and visually impaired people.

d Pacific disabled peopleTotal rates of disability among Pacific people are similar to that of non-Pacific people, however Pacific people present with different patterns of disability. For example, Pacific children have higher rates of deafness and asthma than non-Pacific children.112 And, Pacific people present with higher rates of severe disability than non-Pacific people, which may reflect a failure to detect and manage chronic disease.113 Diabetes is acknowledged as the leading cause of premature mortality and disability for Pacific people, causing significant disability through heart disease, stroke, blindness, kidney failure and lower limb amputation.114

109 United Nations Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Eighteenth Session. (2013) “Summary prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21: New Zealand” (4 November 2013), A/HRC/WG.6/18/NZL/3. P 6.

110 Ministry of Health, Māori Disability Support Services, accessed on 28 April 2014 at http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/disability-services/maori-disability-support-services

111 Ministry of Health. 2012. “Whāia Te Ao Mārama: The Māori Disability Action Plan for Disability Support Services 2012 to 2017”. Wellington: Ministry of Health. P 10.

112 Ministry of Health (2008) “Pacific Peoples’ Experience of Disability: A paper for the Pacific Health and Disability Action Plan Review. February 2008. Ministry of Health: Wellington, New Zealand. P vii.

113 Ministry of Health (2008) “Pacific Peoples’ Experience of Disability: A paper for the Pacific Health and Disability Action Plan Review. February 2008. Ministry of Health: Wellington, New Zealand. P 21.

114 Ministry of Health (2008) “Pacific Peoples’ Experience of Disability: A paper for the Pacific Health and Disability Action Plan Review. February 2008. Ministry of Health: Wellington, New Zealand. P 10.

36

DRAFTThere is evidence to suggest that Pacific disabled people are not receiving the same quality of care as the total population. There are disparities between the Pacific and total population in the uptake of disability support services, equipment, technology115, residential services and supported living services.116 Research has reported barriers limiting Pacific people’s access to disability services includes cultural, linguistic, logistic and physical factors.117

The Government’s National Pasifika Disability Plan “Faiva Ora” 2014 – 2016 aims to build on previous work and focus efforts in three priority areas: ensuring Pacific people are aware of disability services, services meet the needs of Pacific people, and supporting family members and carers to provide effective care.118

Faiva Ora Pacific Disability Strategy 2010 – 2013. A Leadership team is assisting the Ministry of Health with implementing this Strategy.

It is notable here that New Zealand does not have a DPO representing Pacific disabled people.

e Quality carersProblems in finding and maintaining good quality carers (personal assistants119) is an ongoing issue often attributed to the low wages for carers.120 Inadequate care negatively impacts on the person’s health and quality of life. Disabled people have called for a full inquiry into the work and remuneration of aged-care and home-based care workers.121

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 25

43 That the Government address the systemic and serious health status of disabled people, especially people with learning disabilities / intellectual disabilities, Māori disabled people and Pacific disabled people, working with DPOs to establish clear targets and timeframes

115 Ministry of Health (2008) “Pacific Peoples’ Experience of disability: A paper for the Pacific Health and Disability Action Plan Review. February 2008. Ministry of Health: Wellington, New Zealand. P 21.

116 Ministry of Health (2014) “Faiva Ora: National Pasifika Disability Plan January 2014 – June 2016”. P 4.

117 Ministry of Health, Accident Compensation Corporation, Office for Disability Issues. (2004). “Living with Disability in New Zealand: A descriptive analysis of results from the 2001 Household Disability Survey of Residential Facilities”. Wellington: Ministry of Health.

118 Ministry of Health (2014) “Faiva Ora: National Pasifika Disability Plan January 2014 – June 2016”.119 New Zealand DPOs have not yet had an opportunity to discuss and agree on a preferred term for

carers / personal assistants.120 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2010: A

report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand” (2010), p.49, 51.121 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A

report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 13.

37

DRAFT44 That the Government establish a clear, transparent and strategic

mechanism for the Government to work with DPOs on improving access to health information and services to disabled people

45 That the Ministry of Health and the District Health Board provide annual plans and progress towards systemically increasing access to health information and services to disabled people

46 That the Government review aged-care and home-based care workers workforce issues, including remuneration, to ensure consistency with the CRPD

47 That the Government remove all cost barriers to disabled people accessing prescription medicines.122

Article 27 Work and EmploymentDisabled people are significantly under-represented in the work force. A reported 43.6 percent of disabled people participate in the workforce, compared with 70 percent of non-disabled people.123 The disability surveys indicate that the employment status of disabled people has not changed in the decade 1996 – 2006.124 There are further concerns around multiply disadvantaged disabled people, such as Māori, Pacific and women. Statistics show that Māori disabled people are significantly less likely to be in employment than non-Māori disabled people, non-disabled Māori adults and non-disabled non-Māori adults.125

Disabled people want to work but employers contribute barriers including an unwillingness to give opportunities to disabled people and incorrect assumptions about employing a disabled person.126 Employer’s assumptions and misinformation includes exaggerated health and safety concerns and being

122 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 28

123 The Equal Employment Opportunities Trust quoted in the Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 38.

124 Human Rights Commission (2012) “Making Disability Rights Real Whkatūturu ngā Tika Hauātanga: Annual Report of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012”. p 81.

125 Office for Disability Issues and Statistics New Zealand (2010). Disability and Māori in New Zealand in 2006: Results from the New Zealand Disability Survey. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand, p 34; and Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 38.

126 Human Rights Commission, (2010) “What Next? National Conversations about Work”. Human Rights Commission: Wellington, New Zealand.

38

DRAFTunaware that disability employment costs are largely met by government funding.127

There is a large resource of well-educated disabled people who are unable to access employment.128 It has been recommended that reasonable accommodation in employment is promoted and enforced for disabled people.

Statistics on disabled people in employment are lacking. There are a number of annual government surveys129 monitoring the workforce but none of these include disability. Providing disaggregated data on disabled people in the workforce must be a priority for the Government.

New Zealand’s sheltered employment system ceased in March 2007 and in its place the Minimum Wage Act (1983) provides for minimum wage exemption permits to workers who are limited by a disability in carrying out their work. This means a lower minimum wage rate may be set for a disabled person in a particular job for the period in the permit. Approximately 1,000 individual workers remain under these minimum wage exemptions.130 Disabled people have called for this minimum wage exemption to be abolished.131

Disabled Persons Assembly (NZ) together with Workbridge established the Disability Employment Forum to bring together disabled people, DPOs, service providers and employers to find solutions to getting more disabled people in satisfying employment. This work includes developing a long-term, whole of government strategy. This is an example of a good Government and DPO partnership that should be a model for other sectors, such as in education.

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 27

48 That the Government progress, in partnership with DPOs, plans and initiatives to increase the number of disabled people in employment, to ensure reasonable accommodations in employment are understood and implemented and to support career progression for disabled people. Such plans and initiatives should contain clear targets and timeframes, and the public sector should lead by example

127 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 70 & 92.

128 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2010: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2010), p 15 & 55; and Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 52.

129 For example, the Household Labour Force Survey, the Income Survey, and the State Services Commission’s Human Resources Capability Survey.

130 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), P 40.

131 Ibid. P 84.

39

DRAFT49 That the Government progress work to increase data and statistics on

disabled people in employment

50 That the Government progress work, with the DPOs, to develop better alternatives to the minimum wage exemption to ensure consistency with the CRPD.

Article 28 Adequate standard of living and social participationDisabled New Zealanders have low socio-economic status. Disabled people are more likely to live on their own and more likely to live in households with low incomes, are less likely to have educational qualifications and less likely to be in the workforce.132

A cost of disability research study in 2010 found that the additional weekly costs for a single disabled person living alone can range from just under $200 a week to over $2,500 a week, depending on the impairment type and level of need.133 Disabled people have reported a number of additional costs that are not recognised, such as in employment.134

Although the Government provides various financial supports to help with disability costs, financial support is often less than the actual costs and does not take into account intangential costs such as things taking more time and having fewer opportunities.

Disabled people have called for recognition of the disabling effect of the cost of disability.135

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 28

51 That the Government review the cost of disability for disabled people to better understand how these costs (tangential and in tangential) limit disabled people’s lives.

132 Office for Disability Issues, “Indicators from the 1996, 2001 and 2006 New Zealand Disability Surveys for monitoring progress on outcomes for disabled people”. Accessed on 1 April 2014 at http://www.odi.govt.nz/resources/research/outcomes-for-disabled-people/index.html 133 Disability Resource Centre (2010). “The Cost of Disability”. Disability Resource Centre:

Auckland, New Zealand. Accessed on 1st April 2014 at: http://www.disabilityresource.org.nz/uploads/72305/files/Cost-of-Disability-Report.pdf

134 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 53.

135 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 13

40

DRAFTArticle 29 Participation in political and public lifeThe Electoral Commission has worked with disabled people and DPOs over the last few years to improve the accessibility of enrolling to vote and voting. This has included making voting information available in a wide range of accessible formats. The Electoral Commission released its new Disability Strategy in February 2014 with a long-term plan to reduce barriers when enrolling and voting in elections. It aims to provide telephone dictation voting for the September 2014 general election and online voting for the 2020 general election.

Concerns have been expressed around limitations on the right to vote for some disabled people. Statutory provisions allow electoral staff or a nominated person to assist disabled voters to cast their vote136 and these provisions appropriately enable some disabled people to vote. For others it does not provide their right to an independent and secret vote as it requires them to disclose their vote to the nominated person.137 Electronic or internet voting is not available in New Zealand. The Electoral Commission recently committed to providing electronic voting for the 2020 elections, although it is not clear why this might not be provided for the 2017 elections.

New Zealand’s Electoral Act 1993 disqualifies certain categories of people from voting, including people who have been detained (but not necessarily convicted) for three years or more for criminal offending due to a serious mental health condition.138 It has been recommended that this disqualification be reconsidered.139

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 29

52 That the Electoral Commission work to provide online voting by 2017

53 That the Government removes limitations on voting by disabled people who have been detained.

136 Human Rights Commission (2012) “Making Disability Rights Real – Whakatūturu ngā Tika Hauātanga: Annual report of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012, p 83; and Human Rights Commission (2012) “Political Participation for Everyone: Disabled People’s Rights and the Political Process” (October 2012) p 7.

137 Human Rights Commission (2012) “Political Participation for Everyone: Disabled People’s Rights and the Political Process” (October 2012) p 7.

138 Human Rights Commission (2012) “Political Participation for Everyone: Disabled People’s Rights and the Political Process” (October 2012) p 7.

139 Ibid, p 7.

41

DRAFTArticle 30 Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sportAccess to television, DVDs and online media in New Zealand is significantly lower than other countries that New Zealand likes to compare itself with. Less than 10 percent of television in New Zealand is captioned and about one to two hours per day of television is audio described. Programmes screened with captions on television are not available with captions on demand online. The way people access broadcasting information is changing rapidly and there is a need for a comprehensive approach to improving the accessibility of broadcasting. Disabled people have called for captioning and audio-description to be mandated in statute to progressively increase the proportion of accessible broadcasts and to ensure quality standards140.

a Māori and Pacific disabled peopleMāori people have a significantly higher incidence of disability than non-Māori people.141

There are significant concerns around ensuring disabled Māori are included in te Ao Māori (the Māori world).142 Many Māori disabled people are unable to access aspects of their culture and language.143 For example, access to Marae and Pacific churches, which are significant cultural and community meeting places, is problematic for some disabled people. The rights of Deaf Māori people to access their Māori culture and language are of particular concern as there are only two qualified tri-lingual interpreters in New Zealand144 (tri-lingual interpreters are able to interpret between three language: English, Māori and New Zealand Sign Language).

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 30

54 That the Government develop plans, with DPOs and with clear targets, to increase the accessibility of broadcasting, including online media, to ensure

140 Robyn Carter and Kellye Bensley (2011) “Captioning in New Zealand: Evidence to support legislation change to make captioning in New Zealand compulsory” (September 2011), p 5 & 6; and the Association of Blind Citizens New Zealand (2008) “The Great Barrier Brief. Register of Issues – Blind People Speaking for Ourselves: Issue 7: Audio Description”. P 4.

141 Office for Disability Issues and Statistics New Zealand (2010) “Disability and Māori in New Zealand in 2006: Results from the New Zealand Disability Survey.” Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. P 10.

142 Human Rights Commission (2012) “Making Disability Rights Real – Whakatūturu ngā Tika Hauātanga: Annual report of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012, p 11.

143 Ibid. P 52.144 Ibid. P 60.

42

DRAFTthe progressive increase in the percentage of broadcasting with captions and audio description

55 That the Government progress work plans to ensure Māori and Pacific disabled people are able to access their Māori and Pacific culture and language.

Article 31 Statistics and data collectionThe lack of meaningful analytical and demographic data on disabled people is an ongoing and pressing concern. Meaningful monitoring of the CRPD depends on significant improvements in the disaggregated data on disabled people in New Zealand.

The CRPD Convention Coalition has recommended that government departments, crown entities and local bodies be required to collect and publish disaggregated data in their annual reports.145

Key performance indicators for government services need to be developed and monitored to enable ongoing assessment of the barriers that prevent disabled people from participating in society. DPOs and disabled people must be involved in these development and monitoring processes.146

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 31

56 That Statistics New Zealand develop a work programme, in partnership with DPOs, to ensure that key outcomes data for all New Zealanders are collected in a way that makes it possible to compare the outcomes for disabled and non-disabled people

57 That the Government progress plans to require government departments, crown entities and local authorities to collect and publish disaggregated data on disabled people in their annual reports.

145 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 12 & 82.

146 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2010: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand” (2010), p.66.

43

DRAFTArticle 32 International CooperationThe Pacific Disability Forum (PDF) is a partnership of Pacific organisations of and for disabled people and includes New Zealand DPOs. PDF works with disabled organisations across the Pacific to improve the lives of disabled people.

Between 2007 and 2011 the New Zealand Government provided NZ Aid funding to the PDF to provide disability development in the Pacific region.

In August 2010, the New Zealand Government, along with other Pacific leaders at the Pacific Islands Forum, affirmed its support for the Pacific Regional Strategy on Disability 2010 – 2015.

At a UN Human Rights Council session in March 2011 New Zealand put forward and supported a resolution on the important role of international cooperation for the realisation of rights for disabled people.147 This resolution calls upon Governments to ensure international cooperation measures are consistent with the CRPD and include disability specific initiatives.148 Despite New Zealand actively supporting this resolution in 2011 it discontinued its disability development funding to the Pacific in the same year.

New Zealand should reinstate such financial support for specific disability development initiatives in the Pacific and work in partnership with Australia to support implementation of such initiatives.

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 32

58 That the Government reinstate financial support for specific disability development initiatives in the Pacific and work in partnership with Australia to support implementation of such initiatives.

Article 33The New Zealand Government established an independent monitoring mechanism for the CRPD comprised of three bodies: the Convention Coalition Monitoring Group (a coalition of seven DPOs), the Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman. This independent monitoring model supports article 33’s requirement that disabled people, through their representative organisations, participate fully in the monitoring process.

147 United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council sixteenth session Agenda item 3 (21 March 2011) “Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development”. A/HRC/16/L.20.

148 United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council sixteenth session Agenda item 3 (21 March 2011) “Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development”. A/HRC/16/L.20. p 2, para 5.

44

DRAFTThe Convention Coalition Monitoring Group has been funded by the Ministry of Social Development to produce monitoring reports on the rights of disabled New Zealanders. To date the Convention Coalition have produced four reports one in 2010, an update and extension on the first report in 2012, a report on disabled people and the media in 2013 and another report on disabled youth also in 2013.

The Convention Coalition’s monitoring work has used the international monitoring instrument developed by Disability Rights Promotion International (DRPI). DRPI is a collaborative project working to establish a comprehensive and sustainable international monitoring system to address disability discrimination.

In order to capture the depth and scope of discrimination faced by disabled people the DRPI framework requires monitoring across three main areas:

1 An individual violations focus: Fact finding with respect to alleged individual violations of the human rights of disabled people

2 A systems focus, covering:

a. Monitoring legislative frameworks including by documenting the way laws violate or protect disability rights to inform legislative reform

b. Tracking case law before the courts and statutory human rights bodies to generate evidence of how courts and other decision-making bodies, such as human rights commissions, address issues related to disability rights, interpret and enforce relevant laws, and use human rights law

c. Analysing government policies and programmes. Documenting programmes, services and practices that violate human rights - either directly or indirectly

3 A media focus: Tracking media imagery and coverage of disability.

Government funding to the Convention Coalition to undertake CRPD monitoring work for the 2013 – 2016 period only covers the first of these three areas in the DRPI framework thus providing only part of the picture. Future funding and work needs to include the other two areas to ensure more comprehensive strategic independent monitoring of the CRPD by disabled people.

RECOMMENDATIONS Article 33

59 That the Ministry of Social Development provide funding for the DPOs to collectively undertake strategic monitoring in all three areas of the DRPI framework to inform the independent monitoring of the CRPD.

45

DRAFTOptional ProtocolDisabled people have called on the New Zealand Government to immediately sign and ratify the CRPD Optional Protocol.149

In its conclusions and recommendations the UN Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review called on New Zealand to ratify the Optional Protocol to the CRPD.150

During New Zealand’s second Universal Periodic Review in January 2014, the Government confirmed that accession to the Optional Protocol to the CRPD was a key consideration151. However, the DPOs are not aware of any specific plans and timeframes for achieving this.

RECOMMENDATIONS OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

60 That the Government shares a clear plan, with timeframes, for New Zealand’s ratification of the CRPD Optional Protocol.

149 Convention Coalition Monitoring Group. “Disability Rights in Aotearoa New Zealand 2012: A report on the Human Rights of Disabled People in Aotearoa New Zealand. (2012), p 13 & 82.

150 United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Eighteenth session, Geneva (27 January – 7 February 2014) “Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: New Zealand”. (29 January 2014), p 15, para 128.6 & 128.7

151 United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Eighteenth session, Geneva (27 January – 7 February 2014) “Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: New Zealand”. (29 January 2014), p 12, para 95.

46