scholarly journals Collaboration in the process of legislative lobbying: A study of a disabled peoples organisation lobbying for change in New Zealand 1989-1993

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicholas Ruane
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Disabled Persons ◽  
The Political ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act

<p>This thesis examines lobbying from the disabled people’s organisation Disabled Persons Assembly (DPA) NZ from 1989 until 1993. It explores how the organisation conducted lobbying activities with respect to two pieces of New Zealand legislation with constitutional significance: The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993.  This thesis places the plight of minority groups within the political process squarely under the research microscope and asks: what factors explain the different outcomes to the DPA’s lobbying efforts to the Bill of Rights in 1990 and the Human Rights Act in 1993?  More specifically it examines the DPA’s decision to collaborate with the New Zealand Aids Foundation (AF) during the 1993 Human Rights Act campaign. Collaboration with the AF was a controversial decision that resulted in heated discussions within DPA. Some members were concerned about the political risks of aligning with the AF. DPA leadership however saw a possibility for broad human rights legislation, and took the decision to collaborate. They were convinced that collaboration would bring benefits in the form of greater resources, access to Parliament and better relationships with the media which would all lead to an enhanced capacity to make the case to the public.  The thesis argues that by working with the AF, DPA was able to change its lobbying narrative from one solely focussed upon disability rights to one that broadened out to broader human rights protections. DPA was not positioning itself as a minority group arguing for narrow exceptions to existing legislation, a tactic it had pursued in previous campaigns. The campaign proved successful, gaining support from MP’s, as the Human Rights Act was perceived to have public support.  The thesis also shows that to understand DPA’s successful strategy it needs to be seen in the context of a failed effort from a previous campaign. DPA’s campaign to lobby for the 1993 Human Rights Act began from the point of an unsuccessful fight to have disability rights included in the 1990 Bill of Rights. DPA was, in effect, ‘locked in’ to fighting the 1993 campaign from that point.</p>

scholarly journals Collaboration in the process of legislative lobbying: A study of a disabled peoples organisation lobbying for change in New Zealand 1989-1993

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicholas Ruane
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Disabled Persons ◽  
The Political ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act

<p>This thesis examines lobbying from the disabled people’s organisation Disabled Persons Assembly (DPA) NZ from 1989 until 1993. It explores how the organisation conducted lobbying activities with respect to two pieces of New Zealand legislation with constitutional significance: The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993.  This thesis places the plight of minority groups within the political process squarely under the research microscope and asks: what factors explain the different outcomes to the DPA’s lobbying efforts to the Bill of Rights in 1990 and the Human Rights Act in 1993?  More specifically it examines the DPA’s decision to collaborate with the New Zealand Aids Foundation (AF) during the 1993 Human Rights Act campaign. Collaboration with the AF was a controversial decision that resulted in heated discussions within DPA. Some members were concerned about the political risks of aligning with the AF. DPA leadership however saw a possibility for broad human rights legislation, and took the decision to collaborate. They were convinced that collaboration would bring benefits in the form of greater resources, access to Parliament and better relationships with the media which would all lead to an enhanced capacity to make the case to the public.  The thesis argues that by working with the AF, DPA was able to change its lobbying narrative from one solely focussed upon disability rights to one that broadened out to broader human rights protections. DPA was not positioning itself as a minority group arguing for narrow exceptions to existing legislation, a tactic it had pursued in previous campaigns. The campaign proved successful, gaining support from MP’s, as the Human Rights Act was perceived to have public support.  The thesis also shows that to understand DPA’s successful strategy it needs to be seen in the context of a failed effort from a previous campaign. DPA’s campaign to lobby for the 1993 Human Rights Act began from the point of an unsuccessful fight to have disability rights included in the 1990 Bill of Rights. DPA was, in effect, ‘locked in’ to fighting the 1993 campaign from that point.</p>

scholarly journals When Human Rights are not Enough

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 236
Author(s):  
Joeni Kurniawan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Identity Politics ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
National Commission ◽  
Multicultural Society ◽  
Fellow Citizen ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
The Law

Juridically, there have been quite a lot of legal instruments existing in Indonesia to protect human rights. These legal instruments include the Indonesian Constitution, which has special articles regulating about human rights, the Human Rights Act (the Law Number 39 of 1999), the National Commission for Human Rights, etc. Thus, normatively, all those legal instruments should be adequate to protect human rights in Indonesia, including the protection of the minority groups. However, the facts don’t seem in line with such expectation. There have been a lot of cases happened in Indonesia that bring this country into a serious question in its ability to protect the minority groups. The persecutions over the Ahmadiyah and Shia sects, the rejections against non-Muslim worship place establishments, and as the most recent one, the case of Jakarta’s governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, are some of the long sad stories showing how Indonesia is really poor in its performance to protect the minority groups. Identity politics and even a sentiment of racism are re-escalating in Indonesia today, which seems affirming the research findings got by the Wahid Foundation showing that 59.9% of 1520 of respondents from 34 provinces in Indonesia said that they have hatred towards some groups of their fellow citizen, such as those who are non-Muslims, Chinese-descents, communists, etc (Hakim 2016). Among this 59,9% respondents, 92,2% of them said that they highly oppose a person coming from those groups to become a governmental leader, and 82,4% of this people even said that they don’t want to have a neighbor coming from those groups (Hakim 2016). Such re-emergence of identity politics and sentiment of racism, as well as a frightening fact of hatred among people, really give a serious question about why all the human rights instruments which already exist in Indonesia seem to fail in preventing all those things to happen. In this article, I will show my hypothesis that all that sad news that happened in Indonesia in regard to the minority group protection are due to the failure of multiculturalism approach implemented in Indonesia so far. Thus, I will also propose the interculturalism approach to be implemented in Indonesia as the critique and refinement of multiculturalism approach in dealing with the multicultural society, including in regard to the minority groups protection.

Conservative Anti-HRA Rhetoric, the Bill of Rights ‘Solution’ and the Role of the Bill of Rights Commission

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Fenwick
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Constitutional Reform ◽  
The Political ◽  
Coalition Government ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Conservative Government ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Advisory Role

This chapter considers proposals for changes that might be made by a British Bill of Rights, as compared with the Human Rights Act, under the Coalition government, or a future Conservative government. It considers views expressed by Conservative spokespersons prior to and after the 2010 general election, and answers given by members of the Bill of Rights Commission to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in 2011. This chapter also touches on the second aspect of the Commission's remit — its advisory role on reform of the European Court of Human Rights. It questions whether adopting a Bill of Rights on the lines favoured by the Conservative leadership, combined with the Strasbourg reforms recently determined on, would be likely to realise Conservative aims of creating divergence from Strasbourg and enhancing parliamentary autonomy.

scholarly journals On a Road to Nowhere: Implied Declarations of Inconsistency and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Geringer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
The Political ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Routine Basis

This article explores recent case law touching on the suggestion that the New Zealand courts have an implied power to formally declare that legislation is inconsistent with the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The article concludes from this case law that the prospects for the development of a formal declaratory jurisdiction of this kind in New Zealand are, if anything, receding. Further, although the Supreme Court's decision in R v Hansen [2007] 3 NZLR 1 affirms the power of the New Zealand courts to informally "indicate" the existence of such legislative inconsistencies, early indications suggest that it is unlikely that this power will be exercised on a routine basis. In the absence of legislative reform, any "dialogue" over human rights between the New Zealand courts and the political branches of government is likely to continue to be far more sporadic and sotto voce than in those countries that have legislated for an express declaration of inconsistency power.

scholarly journals Inaugural Lecture: Mr Bulwark and the Protection of Human Rights

2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 367
Author(s):  
Claudia Geiringer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Protection Mechanism ◽  
Personal Journey ◽  
Previous Generation ◽  
Inaugural Lecture ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

This is the text of the author's inaugural lecture as a Professor at the Faculty of Law at Victoria University of Wellington. The author discusses the nature of entrenched bills of rights as a protection mechanism for human rights, particularly focusing on New Zealand and its Bill of Rights Act and the author's personal journey as a scholar. In the first part of the lecture, the author contrasts her intellectual journeys on constitutions and bills of rights with that of the previous generation, which includes the likes of Sir Kenneth Keith and Sir Geoffrey Palmer. The author suggests that the experience of both generations have been both the same and different due to the political and constitutional climates. In the second part of the lecture, the author argues that we are now in a position to start reaching definitive conclusions about how well the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 has worked by drawing on her own research. The author concludes that it is time for reform, suggesting that judges need more power to enforce constitutional rights.

scholarly journals How useful are equality indicators? The expressive function of ‘stat imperfecta’ in disability rights advocacy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Priestley ◽  
Stefanos Grammenos
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Disabled Persons ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Expressive Function ◽  
Public Data ◽  
Social Statistics ◽  
Data Definition ◽  
Evidenced Based ◽  
Human Rights Standards

Background: The measurement of equality is often difficult for groups who are weakly defined or poorly represented in official datasets. Social statistics are an essential component in rights recognition and advocacy because they make protected groups of persons visible and reveal the extent of their inequalities in comparison with population norms.Aims and objectives: This paper examines how disabled persons have been included, or not, in EU statistics used for evidenced-based policy – for example in the European Semester process concerning Member States’ employment and social policies, or in monitoring compliance with international human rights standards under the UN CRPD.Methods: Over a period of a decade we mapped and disaggregated disability data from the main European social surveys, examining the availability and limitations of different sources to answer various policy questions.Findings: The analysis produced indicators revealing stark inequalities between disabled and non-disabled persons but raised challenging questions about data quality, reliability and comparability. This revealed tensions in engaging the trust of policymakers in less familiar, or less reliable, data concerning minority groups.Discussion and conclusions: Despite limitations of precision, imperfect statistics often retain a strong expressive function in human rights promotion. Greater investment is needed from governments and statistical authorities to strengthen disability equality data and indicators concerning marginalised rights holders.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Disability equality has not been mainstreamed very effectively in EU public statistics.</li><br /><li>A wide variety of public data indicate unequal outcomes for disabled people across the EU.</li><br /><li>Statistical weaknesses arise from data definition and from inconsistencies in data collection.</li><br /><li>Despite limitations, imperfect statistics achieved a strong expressive function in rights advocacy.</li></ul>

The Prospective (Ir)Relevance of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act: A Comparative Perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedict Coxon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract This article suggests that the power conferred on United Kingdom courts by section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (UKHRA) is legitimate as a matter of the interpretation of that provision. It sets out a contextual approach to the interpretation of section 3(1) consistent with general principles of statutory interpretation. This differs from most analyses of this provision, whether comparative or jurisdiction-specific, which tend to use constitutional theory as the framework for analysis. The article adopts a comparative perspective, applying the same approach to section 6 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). It concludes that the approach of New Zealand courts to section 6 is also correct as a matter of the interpretation of that provision. The different approaches of United Kingdom and New Zealand courts to these equivalent provisions is explained by a number of important differences between the UKHRA and NZBORA; including especially the context in which each statute falls to be interpreted. Some implications of this analysis for the development of the principle of legality in the United Kingdom in the event of repeal of section 3(1) of the UKHRA are briefly identified.

scholarly journals The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Victorian Charter) was enacted 16 years after the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA). Like the NZBORA and the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), the Victorian Charter is an ordinary act of Parliament which seeks to preserve parliamentary sovereignty by limiting the courts’ ability to strike down legislation. The Victorian Charter drew heavily upon the experience of New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The Victorian Charter expressly adopts some aspects of the NZBORA and the HRA (such as the interpretative rule), rejects other aspects (such as the ability to obtain damages for breach), but also includes some provisions that are quite different from either the NZBORA or the HRA. 

scholarly journals The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: going beyond declarations

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Hickman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Cultural Pressures

The process of capturing and entrenching fundamental rights remains very much a live one in both New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In both countries there is pressure to move on from the current bill of rights legislation: the UK Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). While the two jurisdictions are subject to quite different political and cultural pressures, there remains a great deal of scope for exchange of ideas and experiences. 

Remarks by Bert Lockwood

1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 82-86
Author(s):  
Bert Lockwood ◽  
Beatrice Brickell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Justice ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Southern Rhodesia

I would like to address myself to international outlaws and what domestic procedures are available to arrest their activities. While at first glance the nexus between domestic justice and international justice may seem tenuous, I wonder: Is it surprising that the same administration that is so insensate over the deprivation of the human rights of blacks in Southern Rhodesia is the same administration that proclaimed early in its tenure that if you have seen one slum you have pretty much seen them all, and hasn’t visited another since? Is it surprising that the same administration that evidences so little concern over the political rights of the majority in Rhodesia is the same administration that “bugs” and sabotages the political process within the United States?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document