The Justice Minister last week tried to tell the United Nations what a 'fair go' means in this country. He failed miserably
I wonder what TV presenter Kevin Milne would have made of Simon Power's words to the United Nations last week.
Our Justice Minister appeared before the UN's Human RIghts Council late last week offering a report on New Zealand's human rights record to the council's first annual review of member states. It was a down-page story at best in this country, but it's worth some attention.
The report comes as the government is reviewing the Seabed and Foreshore Act, which this council criticised, and considering whether to accede to the Maori Party's wishes and ratify the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; something the previous government refused to do. It would be quite some concession. Just consider article four, which guarantees:
the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Yet the latest murmurings from the Beehive's inner circle suggest that signing up is a real possibility. It seems unlikely given Foreign Minister Murray McCully's disdain for the UN in general and this council in particular, but the National-Maori Party relationship is full of oddities, so who knows?
While we're on the subject of McCully, this council is the very one that Labour had positioned us to join, before the new Foreign Minister pulled out of the vote, leaving the way clear for the US to seek a seat on the council. Our position was that the US, as a big fish, could push the oft-criticised council in the direction we both wanted more effectively than a small country than New Zealand.
It was an easy argument to make, but was dubious at best. Three seats were up for grabs, with Norway and Belgium the other contenders. McCully argued that we needed to withdraw to get the US on, but the word from the UN was that if all four countries had stood the US and New Zealand would have topped the polls, with Belgium missing out.
McCully, however, saw a way out of an election he didn't want to win and a chance to curry favour with the US at the same time. Labour MPs are furious, arguing it has cost us a seat at a very powerful table and that we, as a small independent country with no death penalty and no nuclear arms, would have had a different take from the Americans on many issues.
Yet there was Simon Power last week, standing before a council that we don't want to join and that this government doesn't respect.
What leaped out for me in Power's presentation was that he tried to explain what a fair go means in this country. According to press reports here, he said:
"A 'fair go' means that any person's future should be determined by their motivation, hard work and capabilities."
It's an interesting definition, but one that I think most New Zealanders would only vaguely recognise. It implies that people's lives are not determined by class or caste, ethnicity or gender. It suggests a meritocracy.
But neither does it recognise the very real impact such accidents of birth have on a person's life. It assumes that hard work and talent can overcome anything and everything, even bad luck. There is a judgement in Power's words, an abandonment of those who don't show the characteristics that Power values, a section of society who are excluded from his idea of fairness.
I find that disturbing. A 'fair go' is as close to a national creed as we have in this country, so I'd hoped a senior minister – the Minister of Justice no less – would have a better grasp of what it means to New Zealanders.
For me, the New Zealand concept of a fair go is much more inclusive. At least, it was when I was growing up and I hope it still is. It includes a recognition that we can't all make it on our own; that now and again we need a helping hand from each other. Some more than others. It also speaks of opportunity for all, even those who struggle with motivation; of giving everyone a crack, even if they have limited capabilities; of respect for every citizen, even if they can't find work.
If I think about a politician expressing what a"fair go" means in this country, I think back to the comments of Peter Fraser and Clarence Beeby as they set about reforming our education system in the 1930s:
“The government's objective, broadly expressed, is that all persons, whatever their level of ability, whether they live in town or country, have a right as citizens to a free education of the kind for which they are best fitted and to the fullest extent of their powers.”
That's a sentiment that offers a fair go to all, not just to some.
Comments (2)
the government is ... considering whether to accede to the Maori Party's wishes and ratify the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; something the previous government refused to do.
And something that is not possibly for either to do. One can ratify a treaty or a convention, however the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People is just a UN General Assembly resolution; one can have voted for it or against it, but once it's passed it just is.
There's nothing for anyone else to sign or ratify - as Kevin Rudd found out recently. When Australia changed their position on the declaration , all Kevin Rudd could do was publicly state Australia's endorsement.
Paradoxically, if this was a binding convention or treaty, it would be much easier for New Zealand to sign up. Upon signing up we could enter reservations (or declarations, or understandings) to the particular articles with which our Government is concerned - those aspects of the convention then wouldn't apply to us under international law. As a non-binding declaration, it's not possible to do that (because it's not necessary) - we can say those things if we announce our endorsement, but they won't have the same effect.
I would note, however, that article 4 was not among the articles about which the New Zealand Government had expressed concern. They were:
Article 26
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.
3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.
Article 28
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.
2. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.
Article 19
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
Article 32
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.
So, according to Simon Power, a 'fair go' is dependent on your capabilities. This is scary stuff for disabled people as it harks back to an era where people were institutionalised because they had physical or intellectual impairments.
Post new comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.