10 December is recognised as World Human Rights Day. This message is late going up because I had to wait for the UN to post some material. Have a look at any of the stuff this link gives you access to. It will remind you of what the struggle for human rights means in a range of places around the world.
You might also want to read (or at least have a browse through) the NZ Human Rights Commission’s report on Human Rights in NZ. We have some work to do here as well.
Breaking News:
Well done to the Australian Greens for pushing this issue and to Australian Labor for agreeing to support. Shows maturity. And also to those independents.
Australian Parliament proving to be quite different this term.
Hope it lasts.
A Greens motion urging MPs to gauge community support for gay marriage has been passed by the House of Representatives.
The motion, which has ignited debate over the issue this week, was passed by 73 votes to 72 with the support of Labor and crossbench MPs Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Andrew Wilkie.
The Coalition refused to support the motion as did independent MP Bob Katter.
Earlier this week Labor agreed to back the motion, put forward by Greens MP Adam Bandt, as tensions erupted internally over the party’s refusal to allow gay marriage.
This is what the release of Aung San Suu Kyi means to people who live in Nelson. These people are all refugees who are working hard at establishing themselves in a new country with a new language and culture. They are very politically aware and are already planning the next steps for their work in exile at bringing democracy to Burma.
Kyi Win Htain with family and friends at home in Nelson
I had to flag a school gala today to go and visit Kyi Win and his family and friends – somehow that was the right place to be on this special day. Kyi Win Htain is a respected elder in the Burmese communities in Nelson (there is more than one Burmese community). He is the one on the right in the front. His son is beside him and immediately behind him are his wife and daughter. Others are close friends and political comrades. They were more than happy for me to take their photo and post it. Look at those smiles!
This is the personal, deeply felt impact of Aung San Suu Kyi’s release.
And if you want to know what the Washington Post said so eloquently today in its editorial, as they do, read this.
A few hours ago, Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest – for the third time. Grant’s blog refers but here is the BBC feed fyi. You can also read Release_of_Aung_San_Suu_Kyi_-_Street_-_14_Nov_2010[1] which I put out a few hours ago.
This is a moment for celebration, a rare moment for Burmese people as they struggle for survival under the repressive and harsh military junta. The military seized power 22 years ago and after an election in 1990, which Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) won overwhelmingly, they refused to hand over that power to her and the NLD.
Aung San Suu Kyi is an extraordinary person who took on the mantle of her assassinated father all those years ago. There is no doubt that she has become an international symbol of democracy and freedom, in the same way as Nelson Mandela was and remains. She is much loved by her people.
She is the one to lead any reconciliation and movement towards democracy in Burma. Here is a really good example of the need to have a woman at the peace negotiation table (you might recall I blogged on this the other week in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s visit). The question will be whether the junta will tolerate the increased pressure that her release is bound to elicit from the international community, or revert to its usual method of re-imprisoning her to defuse public gatherings and political association in Burma.
Today is one moment for celebration however. At least the world is now more attuned to some of what is happening in Burma. Whatever happens next, Burma’s future is inextricably linked to this remarkable woman.
Well, Hillary Rodham Clinton has gone now and we are left with the analysis and debriefing apparent in both The Nation and Q&A today on television. Those who got interviews are crowing and those who shook her hand (like me) are revelling in the moment.
John Key, I presume, is right now reading his Cabinet papers for tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting. The Cabinet will, I presume, do its own stocktake of Secretary Clinton’s visit and Murray McCully will lead the discussion on the list of initiatives to pursue, in priority order. Is John Key reading his papers? Will the Cabinet have anything to discuss except who got their photo taken with her?
I despair of John Key’s leadership skills – he seemed overawed and intimidated by Clinton; I didn’t hear him make one utterance which sounded like it was informed by a briefing paper or was based on any recognisable principle for NZ’s relationship with the US; did he even learn any lines MFAT gave him? I worry that we have just witnessed this country’s biggest lost opportunity in recent times.
Fortunately, we have capable diplomats and officials who can turn it into a success for which Key can later take the credit.
I am keen to pursue a list of projects in order of priority, on which the US and NZ can work jointly to great effect. That can be done from Opposition, believe me. Oh, and here is my own pic for the scrapbook – I think she still had a hand after I had finished squishing it!
Quiz question – In which Leonard Cohen song do the words “where’s the beef?” appear?
First correct answer gets a small but perfectly formed reward 
I got back from a trip to Washington today to hear our media outlets trying hard to say something of substance about John Key’s visit to the East Asia Summit in Ha Noi. So, I might be a bit imbued with things American after a a few days there, but I am reminded of an old American advertising slogan which Wendy’s ran in the 80s against a fictitious rival. Their (imaginary) hamburger was all fluffy bun and a tiny meat pattie, so Wendy’s slogan became “Where’s the beef?” It was taken up by Walter Mondale against Gary Hart in the Democrat Presidential primaries in 1984 when he said that every time Gary Hart said “new ideas” he was reminded of the ad which said “where’s the beef?”
And so it is with John Key and the East Asia Summit. Our PM, aka Mr Smile-and-Wave, sat next to Gen Thein Sein from Burma for dinner because Myanmar comes just before NZ in the alphabetical seating arrangements. According to one media report (NZPA), Key told him “that NZ had some concerns and wanted a proper democratic election” – as opposed to the pre-ordained elections due to occur on 7 November. Say what? The whole NZ Parliament passed a resolution unanimously a few weeks ago, calling on the Burmese junta to release all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, allowing them and her to participate in the elections, and calling for the junta to allow the 3 freedoms – association, speech and assembly. Don’t you think he could have “beefed” it up a bit?
Then according to Newstalk ZB, he said he had “a feeling” (!) that Japan was interested in joining the Trans Pacific Partnership, this really complicated trade deal amongst some Pacific-rim countries, including us and America. Where’s the beef PM? Or the seafood, or the value-added timber products, or the technology and IP? Did he talk to them about their position on agricultural subsidies?
Then, poor old Jessica Mutch was reduced to telling us how they had to go through scanners in Ha Noi, in a brave attempt to give the meeting some gravitas. That’s only because there was no substance to report. Where’s the beef PM?
What about the comment on Russia – “they’re a really interesting market”?!! Can he see it from his kitchen window too?
Then there is John Key’s exchange with Hillary Clinton. It was “relatively brief” he said because he is going to meet her this week in NZ. This is arguably our most important US exchange in his term so far. A few days ago, Jonathan Milne in the Herald was “beefing” up expectations around this. Let’s see if John Key can deliver some beef this time, not just a fluffy bun.
Well, my first private members Bill is over. The Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill was voted down 63-58 tonight. Supporting it were Labour, Progressives, Greens, Maori and United, against National and ACT. Check out the debate here if you are interested.
It was not a great surprise that National and ACT opposed the bill, but disappointing all the same. The Bill sought to have clear and consistent criteria for ethical investment in the legislation that govern our major investment funds such as the Super Fund and ACC. The criteria are based on international norms and treaties and emphasise the importance of investing in organisations that have good governance, treat their stakeholders fairly and uphold human rights and good labour standards. From an environmental standpoint the organisations that are invested in should be conscious of their ecological footprint and should not be harmful to resources such as air, water and land.
The opposition was based on the fact that some good progress has been made in ethical investment policies and that “the market” would deal with the issues. I thought this was an opportunity to move from a passive approach to ethical and sustainable investment to a positive one that could re-inforce our image as an environmentally and socially conscious country on the world stage.
Anyway it was an interesting process to go through, and I am the wiser for it. Pleased to extend the support for the Bill across the House, and have agreed with other parties to keep working on the issue.
“Punching above our weight” is one of the most over-used phrases to describe New Zealand’s international presence, but today’s entry into force of the Cluster Munitions Convention is an example of our ability to take a leadership role in global debates. Along with Austria, Ireland, Mexico, Norway and Peru we were the core group of countries that led the push for a ban.
The convention bans the use and production of cluster bombs. These are munitions that contain a number of small bomblets and are used to cover a large area and act as a deterent to advances by ground troops. The reality is that many civilians are affected by them, because just like landmines they litter the ground after conflict is over.
While China, Russia and the US are still to sign up, and the campaign will go on, the fact that more than 100 countries have signed, and now 30 have ratified is a sign that the international community are well and truly behind this convention.
New Zealand government Ministers (particularly Marian Hobbs and Phil Goff) and officials played a leading role in getting the convention finalised, including hosting a crucial negotiations here in 2008. The real drive has come from NGOs, and in particular from Mary Wareham. Mary has been a tireless campaigner on this issue, and I know just how thrilled she will be to see the convention come into force.
If you want to find out more information about cluster munitions and the campaign to ban them check out this website
Access to the internet. How important is it? This article shows the debate is widening in NZ. And elsewhere.
I think it’s important. Obviously a few others do too.
The latest stats show that 1.3 million (80%) households have access to a computer and 1.2 million (75%) households have access to the internet. Almost 1.5 million households (89%) have a mobile phone.
Am not expecting a rash of new opinions. But keep watching this issue. It’s not going away. And watch the discussion around disconnection (suspension) to the internet, a measure contained in the Copyright Bill which is currently before the Commerce Select Committee.
John Pollock’s case has put voluntary euthanasia in the spotlight again. It is an issue that is seen as one of those no-go areas for politicians. Too controversial; a moral and ethical minefield that any political party wants to avoid unless it wants to alienate a chunk of the population. It may actually be that the caution of politicians is not matched by the public. Polls in recent times indicate a sizeable chunk of New Zealanders feel that there should be a change to the law. However any party is going to wary of it being promoted in their name in our short political cycle.
In actual fact it is not a party issue, it is one for each individual politicians conscience. Personally I think the idea of a law change is worthy of debate, but I am not yet fully convinced of what, if anything, should be done. Palliative care has advanced significantly over the years, and people are able to have pain significantly reduced. I also have a nagging concern over the question of people feeling they are a burden, and how we create a process that would ensure there was no element of persuasion in a person’s decision. But anyone who has seen a relative or friend suffer through a terminal illness can not help be moved. John Pollock’s case is just the latest example of a heart-rending story. Death with dignity is something we would all want for ourselves and family.
I received an email from a retired Presbyterian Minister, a supporter of voluntary euthanasia, on Friday asking what I would do as a politician about this issue. I have come to the view that a wider public conversation is needed that will explore the issues and give a real guide to public opinion, rather than put it immediately into the hot-house of Parliament. I would favour a non-partisan commission that included medical, ethical and social experts who could guide that conversation and present some options to the public and in turn to Parliament. It is not an issue we can rush, but it will keep coming up time and again. It is something that needs to be debated and not forever put in the too hard basket because of political concerns.
The announcement today of the removal of the right of workers to have union officials on their workplace is an attack on workers and their internationally recognised rights to organise in unions, to have an independent voice and to collectively bargain. This is back to the bad old days of the Employment Contracts Act during which many workers did not know about their legal rights, including their right to join a union and to collectively bargain to improve their wages and conditions. For those who need reminding this was a time where for many workers wages and conditions of employment were reduced, and when a significant gap in wages between Australia and New Zealand was established.
This announcement is a clear move to keep onside with Key’s more extreme employer mates at the expense of workers.
The Minister of Labour’s comments on TV1 News tonight were telling. She explicitly stated that employers are in charge of their workplace and that they should have the right to restrict access of union officials to enter their workplace. She is clearly showing her attitude that the workplace is not a place where workers and employers interact to create highly productive and well rewarded outcomes or indeed where worker participation and say have value. For her the workplace is a place for management control of resources including the human resources (workers). It is worth noting that the current right of access to workplaces has to be used in a reasonable manner.
Furthermore the Minister of Labour is either naive or on another planet if she believes what she said that restrictions “wont happen often”. As a union organiser during the 1990s my own experience and the experience of most union officials I know was to be repeatedly denied access to workplaces. In non unionised workplaces or workplaces with high worker turnover the problem was particularly acute with many workers not being given a genuine opportunity to join a union and gain all of the protections and opportunities provided by union membership.
Access of union officials to workers at their workplace ensures that protections including health and safety and compliance with employment standards are more likely to be honoured. Access of union officials enables workers to choose to be represented by a knowledgeable person in grievance situations (by the way I know many employers who acknowledge that grievances are dealt with more effectively when there is a union organiser involved). Access of union officials provides support for workers to organise in their workplace including the training and support of on site worker representatives. Importantly these representatives are often able to work with employers to both identify and deal with workplace problems. They are certainly essential to facilitate a more engaged workforce where workers can contribute their ideas to improving the workplace and the products or services created/provided there. Access of union officials provides support for workers to organise collective bargaining for improved wages and conditions (collective bargaining provides for better and fairer outcomes for workers as well as providing certainty for employers). The reality is that most employers do not genuinely negotiate with most workers on an individual basis. For many workers the imbalance in bargaining power is clear which hampers genuine negotiation on an individual basis.
This short sighted attack on workers has negative consequences not only for workers but for initiatives to change our workplace into the productive, well rewarded places they need to be for real growth in our economy. Underlying the attack is an negative attitude to unions (so much for the rhetoric about the valued relationship the government has with the union movement) and a view that workers are a cost to be controlled (young and vulnerable workers will be most hurt). Once again New Zealand will join the ranks of those countries that are held up as breaching international labour standards.
Jonathan Penney, the Cyberlaw Fellow at Victoria University tonight gave a public talk about the idea of “internet as a right” and whether there is any basis for this in current New Zealand law.
I think I’ll acknowledge that I’m becoming a bit like a broken record on this issue.
But glad there’s some NZ discussion happening about it. Because access to the internet is access to the future.
Just saw this on Twitter. Have blogged about it going to happen. Now it has.
Starting today (July1), every Finnish citizen now has a guaranteed legal right to a least a 1Mbps broadband connection, putting it on the same footing as other legal rights in the country such as healthcare and education.
As we reported last year, Finland was the first nation in the world to pass this type of legislation, followed by Spain in November.
The Finish government has promised guaranteed speeds of 100Mbps by 2015 for all of its citizens, and currently about 97% of Finns already have access to broadband connections.
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman should be congratulated on successfully winning the game of name recognition.
When Dr Norman dangled the Tibetan flag in front of the visiting Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping, repeating the words “freedom for Tibet, freedom for the people of Tibet”, wide debate instantly raged within the Chinese community in New Zealand.
Chinese community leaders demanded an apology from the Greens co-leader. Jerry Yang, editor-in-chief of Auckland-based United Chinese Press (published in both Chinese and English) said Dr Norman should apologise for abusing his position as an MP and stretching the boundaries of freedom of expression.
Based on the take of the opinion leaders there are two approaches to help us understand the relevant issues – a selfish approach and conversely, an open approach.
For some, they care more about the living standard and well-being of ordinary New Zealanders than the Dalai Lama, who lives thousands of miles away on the other side of the world. In that regard, how much damage has been done to our relationship with China, our second largest trading partner, due to Dr Norman’s actions remains to be assessed.
For the others, the real essence of human rights and freedom of speech should be argued.
In that vein, when National MP and Minister for Ethnic Affairs Hon Pansy Wong expressed her view in the Chinese media that Dr Norman’s actions were disgraceful, it struck a chord among the Kiwi-Chinese community.
Last week, a full court of the High Court (this means 2 judges – commonly the way that test cases are heard and decided) significantly widened the pool of adults who can legally volunteer to adopt children in New Zealand.
The last time Parliament considered the issue was back in 1955 when it passed the current Adoption Act. Not surprisingly, given the values of the time, Parliament restricted eligibility to adopt to married couples by the use of the word “spouse” in the Act. When the civil unions and relationship property acts were passed, the definitions in the Adoption Act were left unchanged.
The test case came before Justices John Wild and Simon France, both highly regarded members of the Court. What they had to decide was whether the term ’spouse’ as used in the Adoption Act 1955 should be interpreted today as including unmarried people living together. It was argued that it should, largely because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as enacted in 1990, contains a prohibition of discrimination on the ground of martial status. The Bill requires an outcome consistent with its provisions wherever possible.
The Court found that, to give effect to the ban on marital status discrimination, it had to interpret the word “spouse” as including people in de-facto relationships. The parties to the case had agreed that the interpretation they were seeking extended only to test whether heterosexual relationships were included in the ruling, and the Court records this limitation in its reasons for judgment.
However, logically, the ruling extends eligibility to be considered for adoption to anyone in a marriage, civil union or (straight or gay) de-facto relationship. This is so for two reasons – the definition of “marital status” and the fact that “sexual orientation” is also a ground of prohibited discrimination in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The number of adoptions that actually occur each year in New Zealand is small -guardianship and other legal forms allowing for the care of children without legally extinguishing the birth relationship are more usual these days. But the decision is important. Children who are in need of adoptive parents should have the right to have those parents selected from the widest pool of appropriately-qualified people possible. Unless amended, the current Act, as now interpreted by the High Court, restricts them to people in a relationship. At some point soon Parliament should widen the pool further. Who can seriously argue today that single, or divorced, or widowed people can’t make great parents? And as you would imagine, there are other anomalies in legislation that is now 65 years old that need fixing up.
Right now, though, it’s good to read a sensible decision from our Hight Court that shows the Bill of Rights to be a valuable tool in keeping the law up to date.
Another aid boat is on its way to Gaza. No doubt this boat – the ‘Rachel Corrie’ will be stopped by the Israelis too, hopefully less violently. The ‘Rachel Corrie’ is named after a 23 year old woman who dared to stand in front of an Israeli bulldozer in 2003 which was demolishing Palestinian houses in Gaza. She was run down and killed.
It will be interesting too to see whether the aid from the boats impounded by the Israelis actually makes it into Gaza. In my time there, getting anything through the Israeli checkpoints other than the most basic humanitarian items was an enormous struggle. (See the piece I wrote for the DomPost yesterday).
The Israelis maintain that anything other than humanitarian aid is a security risk. Quite how cement, essential to rebuild the houses destroyed during Operation Cast Lead in early 2009, or most other building supplies rate as a security risk, I’m not sure. Along with a long list of other items they are either heavily restricted or banned.
What about exports? Gaza once shipped out vegetables, flowers, furniture and other manufactured items. As these exports need to go through Gaza’s borders into Israel most are turned away. The businesses closed. A security risk too? More likely collective punishment that has added to the massive unemployment – and ensures a population stays dependent on aid.
Its about punishing all Gazans because Hamas – considered a terrorist organisation by the Israelis – happens to rule Gaza. Hamas won the election in 2006.
So when critics of the Save Gaza flotilla say that the activists should have simply handed over their goods to the Israelis so the Israeli military could transport them into Gaza it demonstrates a lack of understanding about what is really happens – and what quietly the international community quietly ignores.
Perhaps we might see a change now.
In France and Greece consumers have a legal right to internet access. In Spain, Finland and Estonia it has been (or is being) enshrined as a human right. Earlier this year, the BBC commissioned a survey of more than 27,000 people in 26 countries that found that 79% of adults regard online access as a fundamental right.
This time the Sydney Morning Herald reports discussion initiated by Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre executive director David Vaile, backed by the former head of GetUp! Brett Solomon, who is now executive director of AccessNow.org in the US.
Red Alert ran a bit of a discussion on this issue last year. It is particularly relevant given the government’s intention to include a suspension of internet access clause into the new Copyright Bill about to come before the Commerce Select Committee. Labour supports the Bill (mostly) but opposes suspension.
I am interested to hear the Australian Human Rights Commission president Catherine Branson QC’s comments that:
while the Commission had not yet looked at internet access as a human right; it did recognise internet access may raise issues “relevant to the right to freedom of expression” as defined in a United Nation’s covenant on civil and political rights.
