Mugabe-style legislation?
There have been a few lively debates on frogblog in the past as to whether legislation to make the Black Caps’ tour of Zimbabwe would infringe Kiwis’ fundamental human rights.
Certainly, other political parties have couched their opposition to the Rod’s Zimbabwe Sporting Sanction Bill in terms of rights. This, despite the fact that the Bill does nothing to prevent cricketers from travelling to Zimbabwe, or indeed from playing cricket in Zimbabwe. All the law would do is make it an offence for national sporting organisations, like NZ Cricket, to organise sporting tours of Zimbabwe.
The day after the Bill was released, Helen Clark said:
Our concern would be, if we in New Zealand stooped to Mugabe-style measures then that really isn’t a very satisfactory outcome. We have a bill of rights that says that New Zealanders are free to leave the country and one is just reluctant to be imposing restrictions on the freedoms of Kiwis to travel.
At the anti-tour rally at the weekend, Foreign Affairs Minister Phil Goff said:
What you want me to say here today, but which I will not say today … is that we will legislate against New Zealanders as a team or as individuals leaving this country. We will not force legislation, without consultation, without public submissions… [If we pass such legislation] we start depriving New Zealanders of the very rights that we are demanding Mugabe stop depriving his people of. Freedom of association, freedom of travel, and freedom of independent organisations from government control are fundamental to this country.
In press releases opposing the Bill, the opposition parties also spoke of human rights being infringed. Said Peter Dunne:
Trying to defeat Robert Mugabe by using Mugabe’s methods is stupid and immoral and that is why I don’t support the Greens badly-flawed Bill.
Said Ken Shirley:
It is a fundamental right for New Zealanders to travel free of government interference and Mr Donald’s persistent call for a government imposed ban highlights the command and control thinking of the Greens. While polls clearly favour the Black Caps not touring Zimbabwe the choice must remain theirs. I am confident that a majority of New Zealanders would say no if asked the direct question ‘should the New Zealand government ban citizens from travelling abroad’.
Said Don Brash:
While we are opposed to the cricket tour, we regard legislating to curtail the freedom of New Zealanders to travel as draconian and dangerous.
Well, they’re all wrong. Rod has long argued that his Bill does nothing to infringe on the fundamental rights of New Zealanders to travel wherever they want whenever they want. However, he now has some pretty sturdy legal back-up to his claim. The Greens have sought a written legal opinion from Wellington law firm Russell McVeagh. Their opinion is unequivocal: Rod’s Zimbabwe Sporting Sanction Bill is entirely consistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The opinion’s conclusion reads:
Ultimately, in our view, the question of whether the limited prohibitions in the Bill should be enacted is a matter to be determined by the political process; it is not determined, one way or other, by the Bill of Rights Act. If Parliament enacted the Bill, it would not act inconsistently with the Bill of Rights Act.
You can read the opinion in full here.
The upshot of all of this should be clear, though. The human rights argument against legislating no longer holds any water. As Rod says:
If the Government and other opponents of my Bill are unwilling to legislate, then they’re going to have to come up with another excuse for ignoring the wishes of the majority of Kiwi voters.
UPDATE: NZPA’s story on the legal opinion is here.
July 20th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
Comments don’t seem to be working on the appropriate thread, th cartoon.
A Nation Under Siege???? disgusting! that cartoonist has Barely Acceptable Language Levels. Shame!
July 20th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
“Freedom of association, freedom of travel, and freedom of independent organisations from government control are fundamental to this country.” - Phil Goff (taken from above)
OK, fair enough, but NZC isn’t exactly an independent organisation, since it takes government funding and plays as representatives of New Zealand.
So, if the tour goes ahead in the name of New Zealanders, can I denouce my status (association) as a New Zealand Citizen and still live, work, and study here - in the country in which I was born?
Actually, can I do that anyway? I am seriously asking here. I would like to reject my status as a New Zealand Citizen and instead become an Independant Citizen of the World, unassociated with any country. It is at the very least an interesting thought.
July 20th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
Surely nothing has really changed today as to whether the Bill as proposed is consistent with the BORA. It’s nice that the Greens have received a legal opinion confirming their views (and the opinion is an interesting read), but presumably the Government or other interested parties could find/fund a lawyer to construct an opinion arguing the opposite. In the end, I imagine the only legal opinion on this question that would really matter is that of the Supreme Court.
Whether or not the Bill would be bad law in other ways (and I don’t think it would), it’s obvious to this layman that the Bill in no way infringes on individual New Zealanders’ right to travel, as guaranteed by §18 of the BORA. It’s obvious because the Bill doesn’t talk about individual NZers or travel; it concerns only National Sporting Organisations and their sports tours.
People pontificating that this Bill is about “restrictions on the freedoms of Kiwis to travel” or a “New Zealand government ban [on] citizens from travelling abroad” are just setting up a straw man instead of addressing what the Bill actually says. It’s depressing that this is the level of discourse in New Zealand. Conceivably misinformation like this is acceptable from fading minor parties like ACT, but I certainly expect better from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the PM.
If people think that NZers should be able to prevent a team representing New Zealand from touring *in their name* (and it is clear that the majority of NZers want to do that), and further think that our elected representatives in Parliament should act to express those wishes, just what mechanism do they think Parliament should use to do so? Do they have a different mechanism in mind other than a Bill similar to the one proposed?