By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

WELLINGTON, New Zealand — Actor and gay rights advocate Sir Ian McKellen says he would like to get married in New Zealand.

In a video message to a marriage equality conference in Wellington, the “Hobbit” star said he supported the Marriage Amendment Bill, which has passed its first reading in Parliament and now is being considered by a select committee.

“I hope that by the time I get back to Middle Earth, I might even be able to get married,” he said.

McKellen, who has spent a considerable amount of time in New Zealand playing the role of Gandalf in “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings, said the world has looked to the country for “social advancement” ever since it became the first country to give women the right to vote.

“It will be a popular move, I know, and I’m glad your major political parties have embraced it.,” he added.

The endorsement came after considerable debate in New Zealand over the autonomy churches would have if the law were passed.

The bill contains a provision that churches are authorized but not required to marry gay, lesbian, or transgender couples who wanted to be married.  The bill’s sponsor, Labour MP Louisa Wall, has repeatedly said she wanted churches to maintain their freedom of religion and expression.  The Human Rights Commission also has endorsed this provision.

But some opponents and legal experts said that a law change would make it unlawful for churches to turn people away.

“If this goes forward, then churches will be required to open their premises to gay marriages,” Baptist minister Scott Lelievre told The New Zealand Herald.

“I guess if we have to go to jail, then we have to [go to] jail,” he added.  “There’s a long and honorable history of Christians going to jail, so we would not be the first.”

Family First NZ and 24 members of the Victoria University law faculty also called into question the interpretation of the law by the HRC and MP Wall.  Family First NZ’s national director, Bob McCoskrie, said the HRC specifically should not be depended on for independent legal analysis because it has lobbied for this bill since the very beginning.

“Based on the interpretation of [the church exception provision] by the HRC and Louisa Wall, a marriage celebrant could lawfully decline to marry a particular couple because they are of different races or because the marriage celebrant disliked persons of a certain race,” McCoskrie said.  “Of course, that is completely unlawful and would quite rightly breach . . . the NZ Bill of Rights Act.”

Family First NZ also said it obtained legal opinions from Barrister Ian Bassett that indicated the law, if passed, would not allow churches to lawfully decline to marry gay couples because the provision itself does not authorize discrimination based on sexual orientation.

For further information, please see:

Radio New Zealand — Actor Eyes Same-Sex Marriage in Middle Earth — 1 December 2012

The New Zealand Herald — Gay Choice for Churches — 23 November 2012

Stuff.co.nz — Gay Marriage ‘Not Forced on Churches’ — 23 November 2012

Voxy.co.nz — Legal Experts Dispute Human Rights Commission on Gay Marriage — 22 November 2012

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

WELLINGTON, New Zealand — New Zealand lawmakers this week voted down a bill to add a pledge to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi when new members of parliament swear the oath of allegiance.

The bill from the Maori Party was defeated in a 69 to 52 vote Wednesday, but even before the vote, political observers expected the measure to fail.  The New Zealand First party had said the bill was unsupportable because it was a “separatist” proposal, and the National Party had called the bill “unnecessary.”

“It seems like a simple idea, but it’s much broader than that,” said National MP Louise Upston.  “It’s about the position of the treaty in our constitution.”

Some opponents worried the inclusion of the pledge would require all new members of parliament to swear to the pledge.  Others said this would be an issue to consider later down the road.

“There is an appropriate place for a conversation about national identity, and that is the constitutional review that we are holding,” Upston said.

But Maori MP Te Ururoa Flavell, who drafted the bill, said critics’ concerns were unfounded.

“There’s no compulsion [for every member of parliament to take the oath],” Flavell said.  “It’s entirely up to each individual, and it’s about giving a choice to honor the treaty.”

The Treaty of Waitangi was signed by the British government and more than 500 Maori chiefs in 1840.  It gave British monarchs the right to rule over New Zealand, but allowed Maori chiefs to keep their land and chieftainships, as well as gave Maori the same rights as British citizens.  Since then, interpretation of the Treaty has been controversial, and New Zealand established a Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 to help settle disputes.

“The principle is that the treaty is the nation’s founding document and the government is committed to fulfilling its obligations to the treaty,” Flavell said.

After the vote, the Maori Party quickly criticized Prime Minister John Key and his National Party for deteriorating Treaty relationships.

“Why are they afraid of the treaty?” Flavell asked, calling their vote against the oath “disturbing.”

“Fortunately, many more New Zealanders can see the value the Treaty can add to building unity in a diverse nation, helping us to acknowledge our shared past and move forward together, as seen in our role in government,” he added.

The bill called for adding “I will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi” to the current swearing-in oath, which reads: “I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God.”

Also opposing the bill were the ACT and United Future parties.  The Labour, Green, and Mana parties also supported the bill.

For further information, please see:

Radio New Zealand — Treaty Oath Bill Dismissal Contrary to True Partnership: Maori Party — 8 November 2012

NZCity News — Treaty Oath Bill Defeated — 7 November 2012

The New Zealand Herald — Labour Considering Support for Swearing Oath to Treaty — 6 November 2012

TangataWhenua.com — National Retreating on Treaty Relationships — 6 November 2012

New Zealand Tourism — Treaty of Waitangi

 

 

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

CANBERRA, Australia — Nearly half of the asylum-seekers being held in an Australian detention center on the Pacific island of Nauru began a hunger strike on Thursday, protesting the conditions at the facility.

Of the nearly 400 people held at the center, the Australian Department of Immigration said at least 170 have stopped eating their meals and refused their water.

“This is a clear message that we are not happy here,” the protesters wrote in a statement addressed to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the Nauru government, human rights commissions, and the international community.

“We want to go back from this hell to Australia, and we request to the Australian government to start our processing,” the statement continued.

Australian immigration authorities embraced tough new offshore processing policies earlier this year, including the reopening of the Nauru detention center.  The policies have sparked criticism and concern from Australian and international human rights organizations about the treatment of people seeking asylum.

Earlier this week, the Australian government approved increasing the capacity at the Nauru facility to 1,500 people.  Current detainees are kept in tents, and advocates have reported conditions there as hot and unbearable.

Asylum-seekers claimed their Internet access was cut off on Thursday as a way of censoring their access to human rights supporters and the media.  But authorities said that was untrue.

“It is well known that on Nauru, there are Internet service problems,” an Immigration Department spokesperson told the Sydney Morning Herald.

But the Australian Human Rights Commission said there was reason for the public to be concerned about the detainees’ health and well-being.

“Asylum-seekers have been left with no idea when their claims will be processed and what will be their ultimate fate,” said Ian Rintoul, a refugee advocate.  “They have no choice but to protest.”

Yet while the uncertainty caused some asylum-seekers to begin a hunger strike, it prompted others to, at least temporarily, give up on their immigration hopes.  Six detainees chose to leave the Nauru detention center and return to their home country this week.  They marked the first Iraqi and Iranian nationals to voluntarily give up their asylum claims.  More than 80 people have chosen to return to their home country since the new Australian immigration policies took effect in August.

But that has not caused Australia to reverse course regarding new immigrants.

“People arrive by boat will be sent to Nauru and Papua-New Guinea,” an immigration spokesperson said.

For further information, please see:

ABC Radio Australia — Australian Human Rights Commission Concern for Nauru Hunger Strikers — 2 November 2012

The Sydney Morning Herald — Asylum Seekers on Hunger Strike — 2 November 2012

The Sydney Morning Herald — ‘Unhappy’ Asylum Seekers on Hunger Strike — 2 November 2012

Fraser Coast Chronicle — Asylum Seekers Voluntarily Leave Nauru to Go Home — 1 November 2012

Green Left — Refugees Tell Gillard Nauru Is ‘The Worst Condition of Our Lives’ — 1 November 2012

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

CANBERRA, Australia — With the first boatload of refugees expected to arrive as early as the end of next week, local resentment toward the Australian processing center on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island is growing.

 

On Wednesday, the governor of Manus Island criticized the Australian government for not consulting with locals about re-opening the asylum-seeker processing center, which was abandoned in 2004.

“[W]e are still in the dark about Australia assisting us,” Governor Charlie Benjamin said in an interview with the Australian Associated Press regarding a government aid package.  “That is arrogance.”

Benjamin said the same situation happened in 2001, when contracts were signed without any input from Manus Island officials.  This time around appeared to be different, however.  Two Manus representatives went to Brisbane last week for negotiation with Australian leaders, according to Benjamin.  But when they arrived, the Manus representatives were told the contracts for Australia’s aid plan were already handed out.

“We have no problem with Australian companies being considered because you want a job you would be satisfied with,” Benjamin told the AAP, “but we have tried our best to be involved in this, but they have not even consulted us.”

Local property owners are so fed up, they are prepared to take matters into their own hands.

On Thursday, landowners said they would sabotage the Australian processing center if their concerns were not heard, according to Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat.

“They’re prepared to start considering things like cutting the services that flow through their land to the processing center, things like road access, electricity access,” reported correspondent Liam Fox.

Residents complained of having very little information from the national and provincial governments, much the same frustrations expressed by Benjamin regarding the Australian government.  But Fox reported that the lack of information only compounds the speed with which the center nears opening.

“In just over a month, the Australian Defence Force engineers have transformed the place,” Fox said.  “It was overgrown with weeds and bushes and very dilapidated, and now it’s ready to take around 150 asylum-seekers.”

Even the head of Australia’s Human Rights Commission has expressed concerns.

Gillian Triggs said on ABC Radio Australia this week that she would like to inspect Australia’s offshore processing centers, including the one Manus Island.  She would like to see how things would work at the centers.

“I’m hoping that the government will work hard to ensure that there is a proper and speedy process,” Triggs said, referring to the reported risk of asylum-seekers being held in these types of centers for half a decade or more.  “[T]hat is our most particular concern, along with the mental illness that seems to go very directly with the concept of unlimited detention in confined contexts.”

But the Australian government indicated on Wednesday that not everything is as set in stone as it appears to be.

“The Australian government is yet to be advised of the preferred location of the site for the permanent facility on Manus,” read a statement issued by the Australian High Commission.  It implied that there is plenty of work and collaboration yet to finish and that it all is subject to change.

“Once the site is agreed, an experienced contractor will be appointed to build the facility consistent with the consultative terms of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by both governments on the establishment of the Regional Processing Centre.”

For further information, please see:

Australia News Network — Manus Landowners Prepared to Sabotage Asylum Seeker Centre — 18 October 2012

ABC Radio Australia — Australian Human Rights Commission President Plans Nauru, Manus Inspections — 17 October 2012

The Australian — Manus Refugee Facility Opening Is Clouded — 17 October 2012

Sky News Australia — Manus Governor Says Australia Arrogant — 17 October 2012

Special Broadcasting Service Online — Manus Refugee Facility Opening is Clouded — 17 October 2012