This is standard ‘finger in the air, eyes down, look to Washington for a lead’ foreign policy of this Nation’s Government. The claim to bipartisanship is a throw-back to FPP days (conscious or subliminal?) where Labour and National share most foreign-policy DNA.  But we live in an MMP Parliament now, for 15 years in fact, and the Green global affairs policy is different from the sclerotic thought processes of these two aging parties.

The emerging doctrine of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) is the symbol of the transition from the ‘international relations’ approach to the ‘global affairs’ approach to world events.  The latter requires the UN Charter, and the thinking of nation-states, to get up to speed with the 21^st century, ensuring that the aspirations of the peoples of the world are taken into account in diplomatic statecraft at the UN.

The R2P doctrine emerged in response to the frustrations over the twin crises of the mid-90s – in Rwanda where UN inaction (‘very numerous killings…’) resulted in genocide being committed; and in Kosovo where the West intervened militarily on controversial grounds.

With Kosovo, the West essentially over-interpreted a humanitarian resolution of the UN Security Council, and bombed the hell out of Serbia.  Russia and China claimed this was illegal, but their draft resolution was defeated by a majority in the Council.  An independent commission of inquiry subsequently concluded that the military operation was ‘legitimate if illegal’ – a phrase to set the hares running if ever there was one. Serbia then took NATO states to the World Court, but the Court found that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.  Brilliant!

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan then challenged the international community on how to respond to these nightmares.  An(other) independent commission produced the R2P doctrine.  It says that, while the responsibility to protect civilians lies with a national government in the first instance, if that government is unable or unwilling to meet its responsibility, then it falls to the international community as a secondary responsibility, including the right to intervene, if necessary, with force.

The illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 complicated matters when a majority in the Security Council opposed the military operation yet the US, UK and Australia proceeded.  The fallout prompted (yet another) independent commission which made it clear that ‘responsibility to protect’ was legal and legitimate only if it had an explicit Security Council authorisation. I was involved as a consultant to that commission and followed matters closely in the UN that year.

Reflecting the commission’s work, the UN General Assembly effectively adopted the doctrine in 2005 when it declared that member states were prepared to “take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis.” The UN would co-operate with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are “manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

This is the clearest sign, among many, of movement in sovereignty from the national to the global level for the protection of civilians.  But its effectiveness is stymied by the veto in the Security Council.

So long as the veto remains, effective UN reaction will be thwarted, whether it is Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, or Syria. Anywhere – not least Israel-Palestine.

The problems of the Security Council come from opposite ends:

-        Rwanda (’94) where the Security Council shied away from acknowledging genocide lest it trigger a binding obligation to act under the Genocide Convention – ‘sheer cowardice’;

-        Kosovo (’99) where the West over-interpreted a Security Council resolution (for delivery of humanitarian supplies) and bombed Serbia to the negotiating table – ‘legitimate if illegal’;

-        Iraq (’03) where the Council opposed (by majority, not through a veto) military intervention, but the Anglo-Americans invaded anyway, for regime change purposes, through a selective interpretation of previous (12-year-old) resolutions – ‘illegal and illegitimate’;

-        Libya (‘10) where the Council authorised military intervention to protect civilians, and the West interpreted this to justify regime change – ‘studied hypocrisy’.

So what to do with Syria, which is eerily close to the Libyan situation?

Russia and China vetoed the Syrian resolution (for a second time) because they oppose the Western knee-jerk over-interpretation of Council resolutions, plus covert arms supplies.  It is no use lambasting them alone for pursuing their national interests – every one of the permanent five does just that, despite their special obligations.  At least Russia is striving to facilitate a solution behind the scenes – offering Moscow as a venue for dialogue.  But that is dead in the water, so long as it does it alone without US engagement.

The top UN officials have, uncharacteristically, taken sides.  The Secretary-General expressed ‘great disappointment’ over the veto on behalf of all supporters of democracy: “It undermines the role of the UN and the international community in this period when the Syrian authorities must hear a unified voice calling for an immediate end to its violence against the Syrian people”.  The Human Rights Commissioner said that “the failure of the Security Council to agree on firm collective action appears to have fuelled the Syrian Government’s readiness to massacre its own people in an effort to crush dissent”.  The ICC may well be waiting, she added.  Remarkably strong language against what remains the government of a member state.

So the options, over the next month or so, are military, economic or diplomatic:

1. Military intervention in Syria (Libyan-style) with a Council resolution. Legal (today, unlike only 20 years ago) but politically inadvisable since many civilian deaths will result.
2. Military intervention in Syria by the West (Libyan-style) without a Council resolution. Illegal and politically inadvisable.
3. Bilateral military intervention by Turkey for ‘regional stability’ akin to the Tanzanian intervention of Uganda in 1979, justified on an updated version of R2P. Unacceptably dangerous for everybody since it invites escalation.
4. UN-authorised economic sanctions on Syria, akin to those applied to South Africa over apartheid. Blunt and effective only over the long-term, if at all.
5. Continued diplomatic negotiations with Syria for internal dialogue and political settlement, bilaterally (Russia, Iran, Turkey) or regionally (Arab League) or multilaterally (UN Secretary-General plus envoy).  Soft, but often the most effective (as in Yemen, where the UNSG and the sub-regional organization (GCC) brokered a transfer of power endorsed by the UN Security Council).

Until the UN can decide and act on the basis of a constitutional majority, with no veto or a circumstantial veto, the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine will remain controversial and undeveloped.

Until that time, it is better to remain confined to the route of peacemaking through UN diplomacy.  Diplomacy through the good offices of the UNSG, supported by the regional organization, will always be more effective and enduring than that advanced by any major power.

Just yesterday, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon “told journalists that the UN and the League of Arab States are considering sending a joint observer mission to Syria.”

New Zealand should call upon the UN Secretary-General to appoint an envoy, to work with the Arab League, host a venue (Aqaba? Doha?), form a high-level ‘friends of Syria’ advisory panel, and be prepared to personally engage – in Hammarskjöld-style.

Minister Brownlee’s irritation and impatience with the Christchurch Council creates the impression (deliberate or otherwise) that the Council is not competent, and that further Government intervention may be required.

While the City Council has come in for some deserved criticism its achievements post ‘quake are significant. It has delivered a forward looking plan for the central city in record time and it continues to competently provide a wide range of services  that people expect from their councils from libraries to wastewater (albeit at a scale reduced by the quakes).

The pressure being applied to Christchurch City Council relates to the Government’s concerns over how the council will meet the $1 billion share for the cost of rebuilding imposed on it by the Government.

One way of raising this revenue – and a way no doubt favoured by many in the current Government – is for the council to sell off assets.

Brownlee has openly stated that the Council must have a better plan than “putting up rates or borrowing a lot more money.”

While the Government denies it is pressuring the council to sell assets – “discussions” between Treasury and CERA officials and senior Council management suggest otherwise.  Then there’s the fear that Government could “do an ECan” and replace elected City councillors with Government appointed commissioners free to begin a process of asset sales.

Red Bus Ltd, Lyttelton Port Company, Orion and Christchurch airport are all assets owned by Canterbury citizens through their council. In the interests of Christchurch’s long term recovery, these strategic and revenue generating assets must not be sold.

The best prospect for Christchurch’s recovery must be to allow council to continue to prepare and consult the public on its draft annual plan and budget.  The Government should be looking at other ways of raising revenue.

An earthquake levy, of the type proposed by the Green Party, would raise $1 billion each year to contribute significantly to the earthquake bill.  An earthquake levy would assist central Government with the task of funding earthquake recovery.

Instead of looking at ways that all New Zealanders can help with the Christchurch rebuild the Government is pushing Christchurch residents – many who have just lost their homes – into a further financial crisis.

The armed forces continue to attack Homs in the name of suppressing the Free Syria Army but, in reality, killing citizens through widespread collateral, if not targeted, damage.  The UN Security Council is rendered ineffectual, again, through use of the veto.  The Arab League’s plan for a controlled and peaceful transition to democracy is stalled.

Crises have a habit of being resolved through diplomatic creativity (rare), blowing up into full-scale violence (occasional) or dragging on to some unsatisfactory semi-conclusion (usual). Which way Syria goes will depend on the political consistency and diplomatic skill of the major powers – not the greatest reassurance available to a concerned global public.

Yesterday, in the first Question Time of the new Parliament, I asked the Foreign Minister about the Government’s response.  New Zealand, he said, had condemned the bombardment and planned to draw this to the attention of the Syrian chargé in Canberra.  And it was deeply disappointed over the veto.

Would it endorse the precise plan produced by the Arab League?  The Minister did not think it was helpful ‘to get into the detail’. But it was imperative for the Security Council to ‘show some leadership’ and resolve the differences between Russia and China, on the one hand, and the others.

Did the Minister see any parallel between the Russian-Chinese veto in the Syrian case and the persistent US vetoes on the Israeli-Palestine issue?  The Minister thought “that range is rather wider than I would care to go”.  He reiterated the need for leadership in the Council.

As a courtesy, we chose not to raise the matter of leadership in NZ foreign policy.  The range might be a touch too wide and the detail too excruciating.

But on the substance, one thing is clear. For the UN Security Council to show leadership, it needs two fundamental reforms.  The permanent membership needs to include regional leaders such as India and Brazil, and whomever Africa decides.  And the veto needs to be dropped or, at the least, circumscribed.

It is a question of national sovereignty in the global age.  The major powers insist their vital national interests require the veto and that this was recognised back in 1945 as the quid pro quo to creating the UN.

But it is exactly two-thirds of a century since then, and national sovereignty is increasingly shared in the common interest.  And even under the Charter, the five permanent members are required to act in the Security Council in the interests of the entire membership, not their own.  This is more than a fiduciary or contractual obligation, it is constitutional.

But the veto provides undue temptation to pursue the national interest.  And the major powers succumb.  During the Cold War, the USSR had the record.  In the post-Cold War world, it is the US.  Where Russia and China exercise the veto over Syria, the US does it over Israel-Palestine – 13 times in the past 16 years.

It is unlikely the major powers will accept a constitutional change to surrender the veto, since formal change to the Charter is politically elusive.  But it is entirely feasible to develop a convention, without charter change, for the veto to be circumscribed – through, among options, a double veto or a 48-hour second resolution rule.

In the post-Cold War world, two serious attempts have been made to reform the UN – in the early 1990s and in 2004-5 following the tensions of the Iraq invasion.  Neither succeeded.  But it is time for a third exploration.

It was pleasing that the Minister, in answer to my final question, agreed that New Zealand needed to ‘take a role’ in the emerging debate on Security Council reform.  He expects the Government to become ‘more active’ in the issue, and the question of the veto was an inherent part of that.

I shall be pursuing this with the Minister in this 50^th Parliament, and in the Foreign Affairs select committee.  There is no more important issue.

Tēnā koutou katoa, Toi te kupu. Toi te mana. Toi te whēnua. Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Ati Awa, Ngāti Raukawa, mē –tē hapū o Ngāti Haū-mia. Kiā ora koūtoū.

 E ngā iwi,- e ngā mana, – e ngā whānau o Kāpiti.  He mihi nui tēnei ki a koutou katoa. Tīhei Maūriora!

I would like first to acknowledge Ngāti Toa, Te Ati Awa, Ngāti Raukawa and our local hapū Ngāti Haumia. It is stunning today to look out at Kāpiti Island where the Treaty was signed by Te Ati Awa – ki Whakarongotai, Ngāti Toa Rangatira and Ngāti Raukawa I thank you for signing te Tiriti o  Waitangi and granting me a place to stand in this country. I also acknowledge that your reciprocal rights and autonomy as secured by the Te Tiriti have not been adequately protected and at times actively undermined.

I would also like to give my thanks to Kapiti –District Council and in particular Mayor Jenny Rowan, today’s programme looks like a result of a wonderful partnership and deep knowledge of our communities. Finally I would like to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Kris Fafoi, it is nice to share the stage with him without it being about votes.

Waitangi Day has always been a bitter sweet holiday to my mind. On one hand it’s a day to remember all that has been lost and all the threats that still continue. This week in the media we have heard the National government is looking to undermine Treaty relationships by selling off State Assets without adequate consultation and in the process remove the requirement to honour the treaty when considering our resources. And more recently we’ve heard the budget and staffing levels for Te Puni Kokiri will be dramatically slashed. Te Puni Kokiri is the primary voice for Māori into the work of Government. It is the essential working house for the government Treaty partnership.

We also see it here in this precious place of exceptional beauty the current threat of an expressway carving through the whenua and taking more precious, protected and fought for land.

Yet this day Waitangi day also reminds me of the potential for reconciliation shared understanding and partnership that is inherent in te Tiriti. 

It is our founding document, which set the framework for Māori and pākehā to live together peaceably in the same country, Aotearoa/ New Zealand. It is unique in the world, the only bi-lingual British treaty and the only treaty iwi signed with a foreign nation.

The Green Party is committed to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the living constitutional document of Aotearoa. We believe changes to our constitution should only happen with agreement of both treaty partners and we support restitution for historical and contemporary breaches.

Waitangi has become a symbol of nationhood. Over the last 171 years New Zealand different parts of New Zealand have committed to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and I would like to acknowledge all the councils and community groups and individuals as well as iwi, hapū and whānau who have embarked seriously on a path of considering what the treaty offers them and what the implications are for our lives and who have committed to working towards that goal.

Having travelled quite a lot the benefits of using the treaty as a guide are evident to me – it protects us from the possibility of seeing Māori talked about in the past tense in museums, it gives Maori a place to stand,  it guarantees the world distinct iwi cultures and all the stories and knowledge and culture held by each, it guarantees the uniqueness all the regions of this country, and gives tau iwi or tangata tiriti a valid claim to be here with integrity, it can also teach us the skills of partnership and communication.

My wish for today is that everyone leaves with a kernel of hope, trust, or inspiration for making te Tiriti a truly living document that could bring justice and honour to all our lives.

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa

Before final sign off and maybe as a way to keep the pressure on, John announced that Catherine Isaac (number 3 on the ACT list and rumoured to be a possible new leader of the Party) had been appointed as Chair of the Charter Schools pilot. This announcement was premature but still looks likely as John Key also seems to think Ms Isaac is qualified for the task.

From their point of view, what could be more appropriate for the job than a free market business person with no qualifications except being on a Board of Trustees? What do Charter Schools have to do with knowledge of education if they are in fact a business opportunity? No one knows for sure which model of Charter School is being implemented but we do know that the ACT Party education agenda is simple – privatisation, preferably with a voucher system.

The overseas experience of Charter Schools is very conflicted. Where these schools have cherry-picked children from low socioeconomic areas and poured resources into their education, those schools get good or comparable results with public schools. However, this does little to lift the educational opportunities for the majority of children in the state system where the issues of inequality and poverty are endemic. The Green Party thinks all children deserve the best via a state system that is innovative, consistent and equitable and that special character schools are also provided for already.

The other ghastly news on education this week includes the Minister of Education Hekia Parata’s announcement that league tables of National Standards results will be compiled by the Ministry of Education.

This is even worse than National’s former Education Minister Anne Tolley saying that league tables of Nationals Standards cannot be kept from the media.  Minister Parata seems to think that publicising results which schools say are neither national nor standard will benefit parents in their choices of schools. She is proposing the Australian model which compares schools within the same decile.  There is real concern from educationalists about this because the diversity within deciles is still very wide. Crude comparisons don’t help anyone.

On top of all this, Treasury is recommending in a briefing paper that class sizes could be increased to cut costs. The argument from some is that class size doesn’t matter. I can only speak as a person who has taught in Polytechnics and communities and in my experience the difference between a class of 35 and 20 is astronomical if you are teaching with real student participation.

Everyone agrees the teacher/ student relationship is critical but Treasury say that teachers can manage more relationships if they’re good enough. I say get real. It works in lecture rooms but what about schools?

Lastly there are threats of more small school closures even as they pilot charter schools. What will happen next week to education? Anything is possible.

The Council has the opportunity, along with the obligation, to lead in the international community’s call for respect for human rights and political freedoms in this latest country to enjoy the warmth of the Arab Spring.

Manoeuvring delicately within the grey area of state sovereignty, popular will and universal rights is one tough challenge. Especially in the Arab world where the political culture is significantly different from the prevailing Western norms that inform Security Council strategy.

Western support for popular uprisings in that region faces the inevitable road-block. The West finds it easier to be clear-eyed over Tunisia and Egypt, Yemen and Libya, and even Syria, than it does over Palestine.

Deriving from the Libyan experience, the rhetoric surrounding Syria is embedded with the principle of non-intervention. The League of Arab States has made it clear its draft resolution would avoid foreign military intervention.

Echoing the aspirations of the League, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for the Syrian President to ‘heed the people’s call’, and urged the Council to ‘start a credible political solution’. This would be an internally-driven peaceful political transition, compelled by international consensus in the form of economic pressure “so that the Syrian regime might realise that it is imperative to meet the demands of its people”, as the Chair of the Arab Ministerial Committee on Syria explained to the Security Council.

The power of the UN lies in its ability to act collectively. A UN mandate, albeit often complicated and politically subjective, holds global legitimacy because it derives from a collective decision-making and consensus-building process. Nothing else, including US engagement in the Palestine issue and Russian engagement in Syria, does.

In approaching the Security Council, the League strengthens the power of this collective legitimacy, as opposed to the singular power of a large nation such as the US.  Hence, the UN Security Council has the opportunity to take the global lead on Syria.

Amnesty International calls on Russia not to veto the draft resolution. Neither should it.  But the Security Council will never attain the objectivity required for full global legitimacy until it applies an even-handed approach to the comparable forms of repression in the region. Syria and Palestine stand as a twin litmus-test of transparency and objectivity.  Ramming through a resolution on Syria and continuing with US vetoes on Palestine will not do, from now on.

Tech Liberty co-founder David Zanetti has blogged that the first few notices issued in New Zealand under the new law do not appear to comply with the legislation and regulations.

Zanetti noted a number of problems with the notices posted to the 3strikes forum such as the description of the type of work alleged to have been infringed, date and time alleged offence occurred and the type of file sharing application used.

It’s concerning that the notices also make the threat of internet suspension despite a select committee ‘compromise’ leaving this up to the Minister of Commerce to decide to enact (he hasn’t yet) oh, and in face of the United Nations asserting that suspension is a breach of human rights.

Orcon spokesperson Quentin Reade told Fairfax NZ News it was “seeking legal clarification on the matter”, and would look at changing the infringement notices they send out if necessary.

This complex and confusing law has so many unanswered questions like these that won’t be resolved till they hit the Copyright Tribunal and possibly even higher courts leaving everyone in limbo.

This law is an absolute mess and won’t even solve the problem. As research from Germany shows, increasing availability of digital content demonstrates one can combat internet piracy without huge costs, a new bureaucracy, and infringing basic rights.

Most of my life has lots of women in it. I think I might just be a woman’s woman. I have many good women friends, many of my campaign team were women and most of the places I’ve worked have had lots of women. It’s something I don’t usually even think about except for those rare occasions when someone voices a distrust or dislike of working with women and it seems so strange to me.

So I’m probably particularly sensitised to gender because I have walked into a world which is so different from what I’m used to. I feel like I’ve entered a boys club.

People have already been writing about the drop in the number of women in parliament. We are now less than 33%. Thirty three percent is a magic figure. It’s the figure of normalisation if not equality. When women are below this proportion there is a subconscious message of not fitting, of not being the norm and a pressure to take on the behaviours of the dominant group. The National Party has only 25% women with only three in their top twenty and the Labour front bench has only two women. The speaker, deputy speaker and assistants are men. Most of the party whips/musterers are men. Yesterday in the House there were sexist comments, endless personal barracking, rugby analogies and only one speech from a woman (Metiria) in four hours of speeches.

The House looks and sounds like a boys club to me.

And it’s not just parliament.

My first visit to the koru club for an early morning flight was like walking into a room of suited men. There were other women there but the majority were men. Then the flight felt like some kind of boring geometrical wrapping paper of black, blue and white suits.

For our retreat we stayed at a hotel in central Auckland and there was one stage where we were having coffee at the end of the day and I looked up to find us surrounded by older white men in suits.

Maybe it’s not so strange that I’m sensitised to gender after all

What it must feel like to Māori or Pacifica women or trans people I can’t even imagine. I do know that I am exceptionally grateful to enter Parliament as part of a Green caucus that has a strong contingent of women (8) and an understanding of gender role stereotyping and the danger of binaries. At least this part of my world feels familiar and positive. I hope our numbers and culture will enable us to infuse some colour and create a voice and space for difference within this weird club.

A transcript is here for those who cannot access the video.

The Oath (Affirmation) I took was to the Head of State of my country.  I solemnly, sincerely and truly declared to be:

“…faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors according to law.”

Thirteen years ago, on becoming Director of a UNU agency, I took the UN Oath of Loyalty:

“I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interests of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the Organization.”

As a result, from 1999 to 2004 I was working as a New Zealander for the global interest as expressed, imperfectly but legitimately, through the decisions of the United Nations, and sworn not to accept instructions from the NZ Government.  As a NZ citizen (stationed in the Middle East, Europe or New York), I could vote for a political party which might form a NZ government, but not to accord it ‘loyalty’.

Today as a member of the NZ Parliament, where is my loyalty to lie?  What is the relationship between the two oaths?  Are they intrinsically compatible or incompatible?  As a student in Boston in the ‘70s, I did my master’s thesis on this question (Values in Paradox: Loyalty and the International Civil Service; Fletcher School of law & Diplomacy, 1974).

As a result of the parliamentary oath my loyalty is to the state of New Zealand, as represented by its Head of State. Is it to the NZ Government, as led by the Prime Minister? I am free to oppose his Government’s policies in parliamentary debate as a member of the loyal opposition. But am I bound to accept instructions from his Government?

The answer is in the phrase ‘according to law’.  In the 21^st century, law is composed of domestic and international law.

In domestic law, I am bound by the laws adopted by the Parliament of which I am a member, even though I may have voted against them.

But then there is international law, which is binding on New Zealand. The UN Charter forbids aggression by a Member State. Non-aggression is regarded as ius cogens – an obligation so fundamental to humanity as to be non-derogable and binding towards all (erga omnes).

Throughout my adult life I have perceived the global interest as being paramount and the national interest as being legitimate provided it is compatible with the global interest – see my 1999 book The Planetary Interest (UCL Press, London; ed.).

In this paradigm, there is no conflict between the NZ parliamentary oath and the UN oath.

But if a NZ government were, say, to break the UN Charter and commit aggression, then it follows that my loyalty to the global interest would over-ride my loyalty to New Zealand in the specific case of a particular decision by the Government.

In the event that the UN itself failed to make a ‘decision’ on such a matter (such as a veto in the Security Council) I would consult international legal authorities and follow my conscience.

Either way, the (legitimate) national interest would remain compatible with the global interest. I would be remaining true to New Zealand by attributing a higher loyalty to the United Nations Charter than to a NZ government decision, which I would regard as null and void, and not binding upon me.

As spokesperson for Human Rights and Co-spokesperson for Rainbow Issues I am very pleased to see this report.

In 2000 I was on the New Zealand delegation to Beijing +5 following up from the 4^th World Conference on Women. I joined the crossed nation lobby of individuals and NGOs working to protect the gains around sexual rights. In this group were lesbians from a range of countries. Many of them were still living undercover and many of them had survived quite extreme violence and were living in fear of discovery and attack. I felt slightly awestruck by their courage and also outraged by the injustice and I did wonder what further amazing things they could have achieved if they hadn’t had to live in such conditions.

At that time we were playing catch up against a very conservative Christian lobby that had managed to influence the pre meeting negotiations. We managed to hold the line and progress the rights for women but there was certainly no space to have lesbian written anywhere in the text. While at the previous U.N meeting on Women in Beijing in 1995 Hilary Clinton made a stir by declaring women’s rights to be human rights I am very pleased to finally see the United Nations in 2011 formally recognise LGBTI rights as Human Rights.

My hope is that this document will make a difference for those women I worked with and the millions of LGBTI people like them all around the world.

More specifically and close to home this can be a spur for action on implementing the recommendations of ‘How do we make it better? Mapping the Steps towards a More Supportive Coming Out Environment for Queer Youth in Aotearoa New Zealand” which provided a NZ response to the fact our Queer youth are three times more likely than their heterosexual peers to experience bullying and five times more likely to attempt suicide.

These documents usually only make a difference if we use them – and I hope this government will work with me (and Kevin) to make the changes necessary to ensure all members of the LGBTI communities, here and overseas, can realise our rights.

In response, we have agreed to retain disarmament as a separate portfolio.

The intention was not to downplay disarmament as a political priority.  The aim was to develop some clarity between the full number of component issues within the total policy.

These are, among others: climate change, ozone depletion, biodiversity, population, sustainability, trade and investment, debt relief, collective security, control of weaponry, cultural dialogue, strengthening global governance, and strengthening international law.

Of these, climate change and trade had been separated, while disarmament (actually the broader concept of control of weaponry) had been folded in, because of its strong causal connection to collective security.

Strictly, each of these twelve, above, can be seen as component policy issues within global affairs, interacting causally.  But there is a political logic in highlighting disarmament, not least since the 1987 nuclear-free legislation created a ministerial portfolio of disarmament.

There is a touch of irony in all this.  As a NZ diplomat in the ‘80s, I did my PhD on nuclear weapon-free zones, deputised to Chris Beeby on the NZ delegation negotiating the South Pacific zone, was sent to our UN mission in Geneva to defend our policy against all-comers in the Conference on Disarmament. Later I was commissioned by UNIDIR to author the first book in a series on security and disarmament – Security Concepts of States: New Zealand (Taylor & Francis, New York, 1989).

On substance, the Green policy, as outlined on the website, outstrips both National and Labour in promoting disarmament, and particularly nuclear disarmament.  But that can be explored, in terms of healthy democratic debate, in Parliament and outside, in the coming months and years.

As I have indicated in e-mail correspondence, I am happy, actually keen, to meet with groups around the country, and discuss our disarmament – and general global affairs – policy with everyone, with a view to exploring how we can translate a vision of a more stable and safer world, into reality.

Ka kite te anō.

This is a new development that builds upon, and refines, the previous foreign affairs portfolio.  It focuses on the same reality, but from a different, updated, worldview.

From the mid-17^th to mid-20^th centuries, the nation-state emerged, waxed, and waned as the principal political unit in what theorists call the Westphalian age.

With the United Nations, however, the sovereign state has been joined by the individual as an entity under international law – initially through the universalisation of human rights, more recently through international criminal law. From Göring and Hess to Milosevic and Karadzic.

Also since the mid-20^th century, we have been confronting problems that are truly global in character and impact – weapons of mass destruction, ozone depletion and climate change.

And since the late 20^th century, we have acquired a global consciousness, through deep-space exploration and moon-shots of Earth, along with a planetary interconnectedness through the ITC revolution.

We are today in the post-Westphalian age – a fast and dynamic transformation towards a global society of some form.  Ours is a transitional age, in which the international community of states is now joined by a global community of peoples. The global civil society ranges alongside the global corporate sector, acting as the not-so-still voice of conscience in our changing world.

In this unfolding scenario, nations have become integrated in myriad ways into the global scene.  A country’s attitude towards the world and its actions are now less a matter of foreign policy – ‘us’ v. ‘them’; more a matter of ‘us’ as part of the broader ‘us’.

We are now an integral part of the global community.  What we do and say – our policies towards, not ‘the world’, but ‘the rest of the world of which we are a part’, is the subject of global affairs.

Within this new paradigm we do not seek to maximise a competitive national advantage to excess, indifferent to the consequences elsewhere.  We collaborate in identifying the global challenges before humanity. We agree on the global solutions, and then we agree on our legitimate national interests, and then we carry them out.

It is a matter of global responsibility. This is not moral handwringing – it is an imperative of collective survival. Our global responsibilities and our national interests become one and the same.

Thus, a country’s portfolio for dealing with the rest of the world is most appropriately described now, not as foreign policy, but as ‘global affairs’.

The Green Party will henceforth pursue this approach in the Parliament, in the country, and around the world.

I think the most interesting part that Paul Matthews hits on is that by signing the TPPA, New Zealand law could be overridden.

New Zealand recently completed a review of the outdated Patents Act and, among other things, the new bill, supported by both sides of the House, contains the following exclusions in Clause 15:

(2) An invention of a method of treatment of human beings by surgery or therapy is not a patentable invention.

(3) An invention of a method of diagnosis practised on human beings is not a patentable invention.

(3A) A computer program is not a patentable invention.

All three of these exclusions would be specifically disallowed in this draft of the TPPA, regardless of the fact that New Zealand’s commerce committee, made up of all parties in Parliament, unanimously supported them.

You read that right: the proposed Article 15 of the TPPA would specifically prevent New Zealand enacting law that was unanimously agreed to by all parties in Parliament.

This position — that is to say the position of the United States — is driven by commercial interests and corporate lobbyists. It’s not good policy development; it could hardly be called negotiation.

As we’ve seen earlier in the year with the release of Wikileaks cables, the US is all too keen to let our Government give away our rights, a little bit of our soverignity, and an awesome opportunity to shift our economy in the right direction.

If National were dedicated to building a clean, green, smart economy that works for everyone, they would be trying to create an environment where NZ IT companies can thrive. Not one where they can be held ransom by big multinational corporations. As Matthews points out:

“Companies in software, information technology (IT) services and high-tech manufacturing are now generating as much export revenue as meat (also around $5 billion) and not as far as you think behind the dairy industry traditionally thought of as our mainstay (around $11 billion).”

The number employed in the tech sector and high tech manufacturing has grown from 24,000 in 2010 to 30,000 this year.

The Government needs to be open and transparent about the TPPA and it needs to think about where they want to take our economy. Do they want one that continues to be based on primary production or do we want to make the switch to a smart green economy with IT at its core.

The good news: the Greens achieved a record result, including our bonus 14th MP Mojo Mathers.

The bad news: official voter turnout was only 74.21%, the lowest in over 100 years.

This record low voter turnout strengthens my call for the Justice and Electoral Select Committee to focus its regular post-election inquiry into addressing declining voter turnout.

I think that one option to help increase citizen participation and voter turnout is to introduce online enrolling and voting. We need to modernise our enrolment processes and exploring online options to help encourage New Zealanders, particularly young New Zealanders, to participate in the civic process.

Last week, as a way to start exploring these ideas, we set up an informal online survey that asked people six simple questions about enrolment, voting, and civics education.

The response was overwhelming, with over 1,000 people taking part. The results gave us some interesting indications of the factors influencing voter turnout and showed strong support for exploring online options for enrolment and voting.

74% of respondents said they would have been more likely to enrol to vote if they could have done so online. Significantly, just looking at those who had not enrolled to vote, two thirds indicated they would have been more likely to enrol if there was an online option.

Figure 1 – Online Enrolment

Of those who hadn’t voted, 58% said they would have been more likely to if secure online voting was available.

As well as this support for online options, nearly 80% of respondents believed that civics education at secondary school would make it more likely for young New Zealanders to vote.

Figure 2 – Civics Education

I think that these results indicate that there are options to turn around this trend of declining voter turnout in New Zealand and that they need to be explored for the health of our democracy.

What do you think?

At this point I’m broadly in favour of most of the suggestions the Law Commission put forward.

One aspect that I found particularly interesting was the proposal of a new authority that would regulate all forms of traditional media, tying up the Press Council and the Broadcasting Authority, and be opt-in for amateur providers of news like bloggers. Law Commissioner John Borrows explains it this way:

“The regulator we are proposing would have no impact on citizens exercising their free speech rights on the internet. It would only apply to those who wished to be classified as ‘news media’ for the purposes of the law”

While this will probably be contentious in media circles, I think if it is done properly and resourced adequately it will mean all purveyors of news will be held to account on a single agreed standard — which importantly will be set by a body independent from the media and from government. It will give proper backing to ensure media products that New Zealanders consume are ‘fair and accurate’.

An aspect I think has been missed in the report is explicit protection for parody and satire. Luckily I have my Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill which could easily be included into any future bill the government puts forward.

New Zealanders need to have faith that the law is made by people who know what they’re talking about — it became obvious that a lot of legislators didn’t know what file sharing was, let alone why it was a “bad” thing, during the debates on the Skynet law.

With the Law Commission’s process you get a chance to feed into their report. Once the final report is handed to Parliament next year, you’ll (hopefully) be able to have your say again in the Select Committee process.

Essentially this is regulation catching up to where the media is now and looking forward to the future. It’s no use having a law which only deals with old formats.

I’ll be putting forward a submission and encourage you to read through the report and do the same.

The appalling and heart-wrenching situation for the woman in Invercargill whose rapist moved in next door highlights several areas for legislative review and policy & funding change.

This woman has an indefinite protection order in place but this does nothing to prevent her abuser moving in next door. The police have been for a ‘chat’ and suggested he move but cannot do anything else unless he breaches the order and crosses that line. His friends have been threatening and harassing her but this does not constitute a breach.

NZ has high incidences of sexual abuse, as well as low reporting and conviction rates. Making a complaint and taking a case through court is something the majority of people are too intimidated to do. I believe that bravery deserves acknowledgment and I believe we owe it to victims to make sure they are looked after. This means, in part, finding a legal process that will not finish at conviction or acquittal as if that’s all there is to it.

Work by NZ  legal academics Tinsley and McDonald recently highlighted some of the limitations of our justice system in relation to sexual offending and suggested we need to reinvestigate protection orders and how they work. Sexual offending is a notoriously difficult area of law. Despite reforms over many decades, the evidence continues to show stubbornly unchanged prosecution rates for sexual offences and victim dissatisfaction with the system.

This election the national party pledged to double the penalties for breaches of protection orders. This was window dressing for domestic violence designed to appeal to the get tough on crime lobby. It doesn’t address any of the concerns raised by the research, this woman or others in similar situations.

Further I know a significant number of women are struggling to get police to enforce breaches of protection orders when the victim and abuser share responsibility for children. Doubling the penalties will make some police even more reluctant to enforce the orders and then if they do the fines may just mean the abuser cannot pay maintenance and so the children will end up paying or the woman will not call the police in the first place.

And protection orders are just one piece of the puzzle. Kim McGregor from the Rape Prevention Network has noted that there have been numerous instances of abusers moving in close to their victims. She also noted it is likely these offenders have not completed a treatment programme. Attending a treatment programme for 1-2 years reduces the risk of re-offending to 5%. Yet there is a waiting list to get into the programmes within prisons and perpetrators need to fund themselves to do programmes after release or if they haven’t been to court. We must invest in support for victims and one of the ways to do this is to invest in treatment for perpetrators.

Ultimately we need to get serious about making the cultural, legislative and funding changes required to make a real difference and stop hiding behind populist proposals that end up just perpetuating the problems.

Prophetic words from the 19^th century – Gustave Moynier advancing the idea of an international criminal jurisdiction

Some 132 years later, in July 2002, the International Criminal Court was created under the Rome Statute. Genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are offences for which political leaders are now personally liable.  Probably in 2017, the crime of aggression will be added.  Civilising the human ape remains a work-in-progress.

It may be that work will near completion around the time Gaia wrecks her own vengeance.

Vanuatu has just become the latest state to accede to the Statute, coming under ICC jurisdiction on 1 February 2012. It joins other Pacific nations including NZ, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Samoa and Timor-Leste.

Of 139 signatories of the Rome Statute, 120 have now acceded or ratified. Vanuatu joins a long list of countries wishing to see an end to impunity for war criminals. Where a nation refuses to prosecute, the ICC will.

Vice-President of the ICC, Judge Kaul, asks “Is it a natural right, the inherent right of states to make war? Is war-making a national right?”  The short answer is that ‘war’ was abolished under the UN Charter in 1945.  Only the ‘legitimate use of force’, in self-defence or authorised by the Security Council, is left.

In the real world of the late-20^th century, the distinction has been vanishingly small.

In the aspirational world of the 21^st, the distinction may take root. The introduction of aggression as a leadership crime will be humanity’s next great step forward in enforcing peace – and answering Judge Kaul’s practical question.

There is a campaign around the world for ratification of the aggression protocol to the Rome Statute. Leaders will come to understand, on pain of acute embarrassment through incarceration, that the ‘right to war’ is not a natural one, but an historical relic.  And in particular, the major powers will no longer pursue wars of choice in the national interest.

In his 10^th anniversary speech of the Rome Statute, out-going Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said: ‘[We] are moving from an era of ad hoc international tribunals to a global criminal justice system.  A novel system, not of state, but so different, that we have to rethink how the law works’.

It remains, of course, for New Zealand to ratify the aggression protocol adopted in Kampala in 2010.  Time to shame the nice Mr Key into doing something for the global common weal.

Bensouda, a former attorney at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and head of the Prosecutions Division of the Office of the ICC Prosecutor, will be elected on 12 December 2011, at the UN, and assume the post on 16 June 2012. She is the single candidate.

It is no small triumph for the Court and for international law, that she is a woman and an African (Gambian).

Her raison d’etre: the victims of Africa. She states clearly that those who are trying to bring unspeakable atrocities, suffering to civilians anywhere in the world will be held accountable.

This is no small task. Since its inception, the court still has not delivered a conviction. Cases are accumulating  in South Sudan, Kenya, DR Congo, CAR, Uganda, and now Libya.

But the movement to end impunity for the four core crimes of the ICC is strengthening. The reach of the Court is growing. The Security Council used its right of referral this year with the situation in Libya, and so the general population begins to better understand the relevance of the court in international security and law.

In her 9-year term, Mrs Bensouda is likely to have a fourth core crime, the crime of aggression, within the Court’s jurisdiction.

It will be a political maturation for the global community for an African woman to lead the world’s criminal investigation of political leaders including, potentially, Western leaders.

The ICC needs to use her historic election to alert the world to the future role of international criminal justice. ‘Never again’ will have come of age. Universal jurisdiction can be a call to put down arms.

The three remaining permanent Council members must be seriously questioned about why they remain at arms-length to the Court. The allocation of resources and funding, so that it can effectively investigate and try suspects, should be reviewed (and the idea of an Office of the Defence, should be considered.)

Kevin Hague: Does the Minister agree with the resource consent commissioners when they said “it is abundantly clear that large scale mining is poised to invade the entire Denniston Plateau coal reserves which if unchecked, will totally destroy the ecosystems which are present.”, and does she not believe it is essential that the access agreement that is being applied for is publicly notified?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: In relation to the public notification, I can advise that if the department intends to grant the Denniston concession application, then public submissions will be invited, and the public can be heard again should it reach that stage. (my emphasis)

But yesterday, Kate Wilkinson told Forest & Bird the Government will break its promise to give New Zealanders a say, and that a decision on an open-cast coal mine on Denniston Conservation land can go ahead without public consultation.

There’s a chocolate fish for anyone who can authenticate any other instance of the lead Party in a potential Government breaking a pre-election promise before the new Government is even formed.