By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

CANBERRA, Australia — Aboriginal leaders called on the United Nations this week to deny Australia a seat on the Security Council because of the country’s record of treating indigenous Australians.

Michael Anderson, the last surviving founder of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra 40 years ago, wrote a letter to UN ambassadors, urging them to reject Australia’s bid for council membership.

The move came on the heels of a new report on aboriginal relations that human rights lawyers called “concerning.”

In an interview with the New Lawyer, Stephen Keim, president of the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, said the government should “work with Aboriginal peoples in the (Northern Territories) to promote and build representative institutions that will allow self-determination through self-government.”

Keim said Australia needs to more closely follow the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  According to Keim, UNDRIP gives native peoples the right of self-determination and the autonomy to achieve that through regulating their internal and local affairs.

But the report highlighted the diminished self-governance Aboriginals have, including the downfall of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the concentration of local government, and the proliferation of indigenous advisory committees that have ineffective decision-making authority.

The report also identified key areas of concern, including transparency, development in the Northern Territories, lack of long-term planning in Aboriginal towns, and marginalization of Aboriginals’ decision-making.

According to the New Lawyer, Keim said the report called attention to “the importance of culture as a social determinant of health, which, as outlined in the UNDRIP, protects the maintenance and practice of indigenous cultures.”

This all comes in the wake of Australia deciding last month to shelve the Act of Recognition, which, if passed next year, would have acknowledged the role of indigenous Australians in the country’s history.  Now, the referendum will not be considered for at least three years.

A sunset clause on the act prevents the parliament from entirely neglecting the issue, however, said Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin.

But recent numbers indicated not many Australians knew about the proposed act.  Macklin said a poll by Reconciliation Australia found fewer than 40 percent of the non-indigenous population knew or heard about the referendum.

“The Australian government agrees with the findings of the expert panel that it is important a referendum is held at a time when it has the most chance of success,” Macklin said.

But Press TV reported that the treatment of Aboriginals may be improving, albeit slightly.

In the Northern Territories, greater involvement to protect the indigenous population from discrimination, human rights violations, and other abuse has been a central theme.  Since elections in August, government organizations have begun to cut down on racial stereotypes of Aboriginal Australians.

For further information, please see:

The National Indigenous Times — Australia Doesn’t Deserve a Seat on United Nations — 11 October 2012

Press TV — Indigenous Australians Demand Better Recognition — 11 October 2012

The New Lawyer — Report Spotlights Indigenous Rights — 8 October 2012

The Australian — Julia Gillard Switch on First People Referendum — 20 September 2012

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

WELLINGTON, New Zealand — A new poll this week showed increasing support for legalizing euthanasia after the country’s High Court dismissed charges against a man accused of helping his wife commit suicide.

The poll, released on Friday, showed 63 percent of respondents supported a change in the law, compared to 12 percent who were opposed.  The poll’s margin of error was roughly two percent.

“Why should the law prevent you from [assisting in a loved one’s suicide], or prevent someone who loves you to assist you from doing that,” said Member of Parliament Maryan Street, who has introduced a bill that would legalize euthanasia.

Street’s “Right to Life” bill would allow people 18-years-old or older to be assisted in their own death if certain conditions were met.   At least two doctors, in consultation with the person’s family, would have to determine that the person is mentally competent.  The person then would have to wait a one-week “stand down” period before they would be allowed to proceed.  The bill has yet to be taken up for consideration.

The renewed interest in changing New Zealand’s euthanasia laws came after the High Court dismissed the case of Evans Mott.  The Auckland man was charged with helping his wife, Rosie, commit suicide late last year after her four-year battle with an aggressive form of multiple sclerosis.  Mott, 61, had pleaded guilty earlier this year.

“It’s a miracle [and] it’s so good that New Zealand had the vision to tell right from wrong,” Mott told TVNZ after the justices discharged him without conviction.  “If you know someone who’s got a hideous disease that’s degenerative, you’re hardly going to say wait until you’re a basket case.”

In discharging Mott’s case, High Court Justice Patricia Courtney said his was vastly different from other cases and the consequences of conviction would outweigh the gravity of what he had done.

“You acted out of love, and your motivation was to support your wife in the decision she made,” Justice Courtney said in court, adding that she wished Mott luck.  She also pointed to increasing public support for a change in the law.

The court’s decision marked a distinct change in precedent.  Just last November, an Auckland man was sentenced to five months of home detention for assisting the suicide of his terminally ill mother.

Opponents were quick to call the Mott outcome “a dangerous precedent” for future cases.

“[This] has opened the door for others to assist in suicide and not suffer any consequences,” said Colleen Bayer of the Family Life New Zealand lobby group.  “This decision also flies in the face of New Zealanders’ concern over the high suicide rate in our country.”

For further information, please see:

The New Zealand Herald — Courts Mirror Mood on Euthanasia MP — 15 September 2012

Radio New Zealand News — Court Decision Fuels Euthanasia Debate — 15 September 2012

The New Zealand Herald — Euthanasia Debate: Wife’s Death Video — 14 September 2012

Stuff — Support Grows for Euthanasia — 14 September 2012

TVNZ — Man Discharged over Wife’s Suicide Can Now Move On — 13 September 2012

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

WELLINGTON, New Zealand — New Zealand lawmakers overwhelming supported a gay marriage legalization bill this week that the bill’s sponsor said was inspired, in part, by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Parliament voted 80 to 40 after the bill’s first reading, well more than the simple majority needed to ensure a second vote.  Three votes are needed before the bill becomes law.

“I think the catalyst was around Obama’s announcement,” the bill’s sponsor, Labour MP Louisa Wall, told the Associated Press, referencing Obama’s declaration in May supporting gay marriage in the United States.  “Then obviously our prime minister came out very early in support, as did the leader of my party, David Shearer.  The timing was right.”

If the law ultimately passes, then New Zealand would become the 12th country to recognize same-sex marriage since 2001.  Recent polls show roughly two-thirds of New Zealanders support gay marriage.

But some political leaders cautioned observers that the vote was not an accurate reflection of the population.

Colin Craig of the Conservative Party indicated some MPs might not have done enough to get the views of their constituents.

“My biggest concern is the MPs who are just not consulting with their electorates at all,” Craig told Newstalk ZB.  “They’re being swayed by those who lobby with them directly, and we see that as a key point in terms of going forward on this one.”

Indeed, New Zealand media reported switches of support before the vote.  The New Zealand Herald reported that some of the significant turnarounds were National MP Paul Hutchison, who the day before the vote told the Herald he would oppose the measure; Labour MP David Clark, a former Presbyterian minister who was unsupportive of marriage equality a year ago; and, ACT MP John Banks, who was quoted as describing the gay marriage bill “evil” and its potential passing as a “sad and sickening day.”

Labour MP Phil Twyford explained to the Western Leader that it took him a month of talking with voters before he could reach a decision on how to vote.  Ultimately, he said the choice came down to doing “the right thing.”

“While there were differing views on the bill and some people have strong feelings, I believe the community on balance is ready to support the measure,” he said.  “I have been heartened to hear so many people express the view that all New Zealanders should have every chance in life regardless of color, sex, where they grew up, what school they went to, or who they choose to love.”

Still, opponents hope to stop the bill from becoming law.  Family First, a conservative lobby group, helped organize a petition drive that received signatures from 50,000 people against the measure.  The group’s founder, Bob McCoskrie, said government should not redefine marriage when civil unions suffice.

“Equality doesn’t mean sameness,” he told the Associated Press.  “Marriage has always been about the relationship of a man and a woman because of their natural potential to have children.”

For further information, please see:

The Western Leader — MPs Back Gay Marriage — 31 August 2012

The New Zealand Herald — NZ ‘Gayest Place on Earth’? — 30 August 2012

The Huffington Post — New Zealand Gay Marriage: 1st Stage of New Law Passed — 29 August 2012

Newstalk ZB — Day Has Arrived for Govt Vote on Gay Marriage — 29 August 2012

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

CANBERRA, Australia — Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said on Sunday that the decision to send asylum-seekers to detention centers on Pacific Islands rather than letting them on Australian soil could result in saved lives.

Australian leaders announced last week that they plan to reopen the camps on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island, a move critics called regressive.  The asylum-seekers would remain in the detention centers while their immigration cases are processed.

“Yes, this is a tough policy,” Gillard told Sky News.  “I understand for many people that it’s hard for them, that it’s emotionally hard for them.”

Gillard said the move could result in preventing lives from being lost at sea.  According to a report released last week by a former Australian Defense Force chief, nearly 1,000 asylum-seekers have drowned in the waters between Indonesia and Australia in the last decade.  More than 60 percent of them have drowned in the last three years.  These numbers helped prompt the policy change.

“We stood on a policy of not having offshore processing, but we’re seeing large numbers of people losing their lives at sea because they are enticed by people smugglers,” Gillard told Sky News, admitting that she compromised her position “in the nation’s interest.”

“We’ve got to be very clear with asylum-seekers that they will get no advantage by having paid a people smuggler,” she added.  Gillard said people could wait in the island camps for “an extended period of time,” but she would not say how long that might be.

But many have expressed concerns about the change, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Navi Pillay said there is no evidence the effort would dissuade asylum seekers and could even lead to human rights violations.

“[Australian leaders must] break an ingrained political habit of demonizing migrants and asylum-seekers,” he said.

In fact, people smugglers have already adopted a new effort to counter Australia’s changed policy.  The West Australian reported that smugglers are telling asylum-seekers that Nauru is “just another Christmas Island,” in reference to Nauru being just a different stop on the path to be resettled in Australia.

The West Australian said Nauru and Manus Island processed 1,637 people between 2001 and 2008, the vast majority of whom were resettled in Australia or New Zealand.

Since Parliament approved the policy change last week, 10 boats of asylum-seekers have arrived.  These are just the latest in what has been a record year of immigrants attempting to reach Australia, mostly from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Iran, and Iraq.  The centers at Manus and Nauru can hold up to 600 and 1,500 people, respectively.

For its part, Nauru has indicated it wants to exert some level of control over the process.  According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the island country’s foreign minister, Kieren Keke, told the Sunday Age that “his country would have ‘no problem’ with giving journalists access to report the stories and conditions of asylum seekers in its care who wanted to speak publicly.”

For further information, please see:

News.com.au — Australia out of Reach for Resettled Refugees — 21 August 2012

The West Australian — People Smugglers Using New Sales Pitch — 21 August 2012

Bloomberg Businessweek — Gillard Says Australia Asylum Policy Change in National Interest — 19 August 2012

The Daily News — Australia Defends ‘Tough’ Asylum-Seeker Policy — 19 August 2012

The Sydney Morning Herald — Nauru Demands Rights, Freedom for Asylum Seekers — 19 August 2012

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

CANBERRA, Australia — For the twenty-fifth time in the last month, another boatload of asylum seekers arrived on Australian soil Saturday hoping to find refuge.

A total of 32 Sri Lankans, including one girl, were intercepted on their small fishing vessel and taken to Christmas Island.  According to The Australian newspaper, the island has roughly 1,400 asylum seekers in detention facilities.  But the recent surge has the government scrambling to transfer many of them to detention centers on the mainland.

It is also calling into question Australia’s policies on refugees.

“The turn-back-the-boats option is what wee need if we are going to discourage reckless behaviour by people-smugglers and their clients,” said Opposition Leader Tony Abbott in The Australian, affirming his commitment to force asylum-seekers back to Indonesia despite warnings that the policy is dangerous and potentially illegal.

Many in the opposition party blamed Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who they said refused to restore border protection policies.

“Two years ago [Friday], Julia Gillard promised she would break the people smugglers’ business model by building an offshore processing centre on East Timor,” said Scott Morrison, an opposition immigration spokesperson, in a statement.

“Since that time, she has overseen the largest number of illegal boat arrivals under any prime minister, with 206 boats and over 13,600 people arriving on her watch.”

Saturday’s arrival capped a week that saw more than 200 refugees make it to Australia.  On Thursday, the Navy picked up 162 Middle Easterners after they sent a distress signal 50 nautical miles offshore.  On Friday, 38 Iraqis and four Indonesians were transferred to Christmas Island after their asylum boat was intercepted a week earlier.

“[The perception is that] everyday we’re being flooded by boat people who are cheating the system,” said Kon Karapanagiotidis, head of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre in Australia.

“Everyday the news is reporting another boat has arrived and another boat has arrived,” he added.  “It’s feeding this idea that we’re being flooded.”

Karapanagiotidis said that makes it easy to turn asylum seekers into “scapegoats” and a “political football” without any compassion or understanding for why they are refugees in the first place.

A recent report by the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees identified “a time of rising anti-refugee sentiment in many industrialized” countries.  According to the report, European countries on the Mediterranean Sea saw an 87 percent increase in asylum requests in 2011 compared to the previous year, due in large part to the Arab uprisings at that time.  Australia and New Zealand actually saw a nine percent decrease in 2011.

But as more asylum seekers flock to Australia now, some say the only way to stop the rush of refugees is to be more willing to help.

On Friday, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young warned that more people might be forced to risk their lives on boat trips to Christmas Island unless Australia agrees to share more of the regional asylum burden with Indonesia.

“There is a very real concern from those working on the ground,” she told The Saturday Age, “that unless there is a lot of work put into the relationship, Indonesia is going to get tougher on the asylum seekers and refuges who are here and make life even more unbearable for them, which is going to force people onto boats.”

“Unless we deal with that, there’s no way of stopping people from taking that dangerous journey,” she added.

Her comments came after two days of meetings with asylum seekers, non-government bodies, and Indonesian officials, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.  Unlike the government and opposition, the Greens’ prefer a regional approach that would see Australia take more refugees from countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia.

“The ALP and the Coalition accuse the Greens of not understanding this issue and being naive,” she said, “but the real naivety is thinking that pushing people anywhere else but Australia will stop them from coming [here].”

For further information, please see:

The Australian — In One Month, 25 Boats Arrive in Australia — 7 July 2012

The Australian — I Will Still Turn Boats Around, Tony Abbott Says — 7 July 2012

The Sydney Morning Herald — Share Refugee Burden, Green Senator Urges — 7 July 2012

CNN — Which Countries Take in Most Refugees?  Not the West — 5 July 2012