Real Issues No. 341 - Human rights, Gangs, Health targets

Maxim Institute - Real Issues - No. 341 14 May 2009 www.maxim.org.nz

The human rights waltz Patches aren't the point Leave it to the Health Department?

IN THE NEWS Religion in New Zealand schools NCEA school statistics revamped

THE HUMAN RIGHTS WALTZ A week ago New Zealand submitted its 'Universal Periodic Review' to the United Nation's Human Rights Council. The idea is that UN countries submit a report to the Council, showing their progress in human rights and setting out the problems the country is facing. It is a kind of international peer review, with delegations from various countries then being able to ask questions and make suggestions. There is potentially some merit to a process such as this, however without a clear agreement on what constitutes human dignity and freedom, the Review has become driven by confused ideologies.

The Review is a fascinating insight into how others see us--and into the differing values that make up the United Nations. Generally our human rights record is good--we are in compliance with all the major instruments which protect human rights and we are committed to addressing remaining issues such as child abuse, family violence and continuing Maori and Pacific underachievement. And it is true that, with regard to an international process of review, it is legitimate for other countries to be able to tell us what they think we should work on--particularly when legitimate human rights are undervalued, or there are social issues which they might be able to look at with fresh eyes, such as the United States suggesting we re-examine our definition of human trafficking.

But blended with much that is useful is also much which is politicised. 'Iran noted that New Zealand's human rights protection is fragile in the absence of a comprehensive constitutional document...' One might be forgiven for taking these comments with a grain of salt, given their track record. 'Norway recommended that New Zealand start discussions on introducing gender quotas on the board of public limited companies.' Gender quotas, far from being an outcome based on genuine human rights and respect for human dignity, are in fact deeply controversial and are not self-evidently beneficial. The Netherlands welcomed New Zealand's Prostitution Law Reform Act. The Netherlands may welcome it, but that does not mean it is a good thing.

The wider issue is this: is the upholding of human rights--genuine human rights like freedom of expression, freedom from torture and exploitation and so on--to be a credible process grounded in a clear ethic of human dignity and liberty, or is it to be taken over by politically motivated barrow-pushing? New Zealand has a strong tradition of respect for human rights--when we have fallen down, we've generally recognised the fact. And we know that there are issues we need to work on. But a politicised process is in danger of losing its credibility as a protection mechanism for genuine human rights. We need open discussion about human rights and the best way of protecting them. We don't need to be at the mercy of ideological capture.

Read the 'Draft report on the Universal Periodic Review: New Zealand' http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session5/NZ/A_HRC_WG6_5_L7_NZ_E.pdf

PATCHES AREN'T THE POINT

After years of attempting to see gangs ousted from Wanganui, many are celebrating the passing of a law banning gang members from wearing their patches in parts of the city. While banning gang patches and insignia is an understandable attempt to deal with the destruction and crime brought about by gangs, it does not get to the heart of the issue. It is not the clothes that gang members wear but the criminal activity they engage in, that is the real issue.

By making it difficult for gangs to display their insignia publicly, proponents hope the levels of participation in gangs will decrease, and along with this, their criminal activity. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. As National MP Jonathon Young put it when the Bill was under discussion in Parliament, 'This bill brings into scrutiny the balance between the freedom of expression of gang members to wear insignia and the freedom of citizens from intimidation and violence...' There are times when it is appropriate to limit someone's freedom for the sake of the community's freedom. If the law actually enabled citizens of Wanganui to be free from intimidation and violence, perhaps such legislation would be justifiable. The problem is that banning gang insignia is unlikely to achieve such a high goal.

Legislating against something people might do, based on their clothing, as opposed to something they have done, like actual criminal activity, is a murky road to head down. How can we tell when a piece of clothing is threatening? How is such a law enforceable? And the gang patch law simply does not tackle the burning issue of why people join gangs in the first place. People who feel they belong, who live in cohesive and caring communities, are not likely to join anti-social criminal groups.

The starting point must be working towards a healthier society which more people feel that they belong to and are responsible for preserving, alongside greater enforcement and policing of the current law. We need to tackle anti-social crime and intimidation, but we should also ask why so many of our citizens are so isolated, so disconnected, and so desperate for belonging, that they find their identity and connection in a gang.

Read the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act 2009 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/local/2009/0001/latest/whole.html#DLM1152860

LEAVE IT TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT?

The Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, has recently announced a 'simplifying' of the requirements on District Health Boards, axing four of the ten Health Targets introduced in 2007. The reasons for the cut back are to combat inefficiency and to 'enable DHBs to focus more tightly on frontline services.' At least one of these changes, the removal of 'Improving nutrition, increasing physical activity and reducing obesity' from the list, recognises that responsibility for health outcomes doesn't lie with DHBs alone.

Concerns have been raised as to whether the 'removal of goals' will encourage inequality and sweep serious national problems under the rug. The Nurses' Association condemned the changes as 'short-sighted' and 'jeopardising to future long-term health gains.' While the targets that have been removed are legitimate areas of concern for the health of New Zealanders, the question that needs to be asked is not whether these health outcomes are priorities, but rather, what is the best way to see problems such as obesity curbed and what can we realistically expect of our DHBs?

Mr Ryall argued that a ludicrous number of bureaucratic objectives, targets and indicators have found their way into the health system. It is easy for government departments to become overwhelmed with goals and strategies and new rhetoric for age-old problems. Some of these goals may be appropriate for government to monitor, but when it comes to an objective like nutrition, as Mr Ryall rightly asks, 'How can you hold a DHB accountable for that?' It is crucial that we do not think government can solve all our social ills, handing our problems over to stagnate in the long reels of red tape and lofty ambitions.

Monitoring someone's daily intake of fruit and vegetables is a job for individuals, parents, families, neighbours and communities first. Just because these issues are no longer named as well-being targets does not mean that they will disappear as priorities. It acknowledges that responsibility needs to lie with the people in the best position to make a change.

Read about the new Health Targets http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/healthtargets-200910

IN THE NEWS

HANDLING RELIGION IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS

A draft set of guidelines for state primary schools which carry out religious education is currently being looked at by the Human Rights Commission and comments from the public are being sought. The document has the potential to shape the decisions of local Boards of Trustees when it comes to designing school policies. The draft provides some recommendations and warnings. For example, it tells us that prayer in school 'can amount to coercion,' even if students are allowed to opt out. While the aim to ensure 'security and dignity' for all students is commendable, serious consideration needs to be given to how we achieve this. It currently remains unclear what constitutes coercion or indoctrination and how Boards are to balance supposedly 'competing' rights. The deadline for comments is June 30.

Read and comment on 'Religion in New Zealand Schools - Questions and Concerns' http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/humanrightsenvironment/religioninnewzealandschools.php

NCEA SCHOOL STATISTICS REVAMPED

The New Zealand Qualifications Authoritys (NZQA) has finished upgrading the presentation of secondary schools' NCEA results on its website, so that parents and educators can have better data about schools' performances in the NCEA. The major change is that schools' pass rates are now recorded according to the proportion of pupils who actually participated in the NCEA rather than the proportion on the school roll. This is fairer, as not every pupil at a school will complete the NCEA, so it is inaccurate to calculate pass rates as a proportion of the roll.

The variety of reports now available makes it possible for anyone to compare the performance of one school or a group of schools against another school or group of schools. It is also possible to compare the relative performances of different groups of pupils, and there is the capacity to compare data across years. This is good news for schools and for parents who have long been unhappy with the confusing reporting of NCEA results.

Read the NCEA 'Secondary School Statistics' website http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications/ssq/statistics/statsreports.do

Read a QA News item about the redesign of secondary school statistics http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/publications/newsletters/qanews/issue63/statistics.html

TALKING POINT

'We have inherited a system over-burdened with 13 health priorities, 61 objectives, with an additional subset of 13 health objectives; a set of 10 health targets measured through 18 indicators; 25 other indicators of DHB performance; not to mention 4 hospital benchmark indicators assessed through 15 measures; and an outcomes framework with 9 outcomes, measured against 39 headline indicators.'

Tony Ryall, Minister for Health

A registered charitable trust, funded by donations, Maxim Institute values your interest and support.

ENDS

© Scoop Media