“Wherever Palestinians have control is barbaric.” These were the words from New Zealand’s Chief Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow.

During a meeting with Philippa Yasbek from Jewish Voices for Peace, Dr Rainbow allegedly told her that information from the NZ Security Intelligence Services (NZSIS) threat assessment asserted that Muslims were the biggest threat to the Jewish community. More so than white supremacists.

But the NZSIS has not identified Muslims as the greatest threat to national security.

In the 2023 threat environment report, NZSIS stated that it: “Does not single out any community as a threat to our country, and to do so would be a misinterpretation of the analysis.

“White Identity-Motivated Violent Extremism (W-IMVE) continues to be the dominant IMVE ideology in New Zealand. Young people becoming involved in W-IMVE is a growing trend.”

Religiously motivated violent extremism (RMVE) did not come from the Muslim community, as Dr Rainbow has also misrepresented.

The more recent 2024 NZSIS report stated: “White identity-motivated violent extremism (W-IMVE) remains the dominant IMVE ideology in New Zealand. Terrorist attack-related material and propaganda, including the Christchurch terrorist’s manifesto and livestream footage, continue to be shared among IMVE adherents in New Zealand and abroad.”

To implicate Muslims as being the greatest threat may highlight Dr Rainbow’s own biases, racist beliefs, and political agenda. These false narratives, that have recently been strongly pushed by the US and Israel, undermine social cohesion and lead to a rise in Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism.

It is also deeply troubling that he has framed Muslim and Arab communities as potential sources of violent extremism while failing to acknowledge the very real and documented threats they have faced in Aotearoa.

The Christchurch Mosque attacks — the most horrific act of mass violence in New Zealand’s modern history — were perpetrated not by Muslims, but against them, by an individual radicalised by white supremacist ideology.

Since that tragedy, there have been multiple threats made against mosques, Arab New Zealanders, and Palestinian communities, many of which have received insufficient public attention or institutional response.

For a Human Rights Commissioner to overlook this context and effectively invert the victim-aggressor dynamic is not only factually inaccurate, but it also risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes and undermining the safety and dignity of communities who are already vulnerable.

Such narratives are inconsistent with the Human Rights Commission’s mandate to protect all people in New Zealand from discrimination and hate.

The dehumanisation of Muslims and Palestinians
As part of Israel’s propaganda, anti-Muslim and Palestinian tropes are used to justify violence against Palestinians by framing us as barbaric, aggressive, and as a threat. We are dehumanised in order to normalise the harm they inflict on our communities which includes genocide, land theft, ethnic cleansing, apartheid policies, dispossession, and occupation.

In October 2023, Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, described Palestinians as “horrible, inhuman animals” and was perplexed with the growing global concern for us.

That same month Yoav Gallant, then Israeli Defence Minister, referred to Palestinians as “human animals” when he announced Israel’s illegal and horrific siege on Gaza that included blocking water, food, medicine, and shelter to an entire population, the majority of which are children.

In making his own remarks about the Muslim community being a “threat” in New Zealand as a collective group, and labelling Palestinians being “barbaric”, Dr Stephen Rainbow has shattered the credibility of the Human Rights Commission. He has made it very clear that he is not impartial nor is he representing and protecting all communities.

Instead, Dr Rainbow is exacerbating divisions within society. This is a worrying trend that we are witnessing around the world; the de-humanising of groups to serve political agendas, retain power, or seek public support for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Dr Rainbow’s appointment also points a spotlight onto this government’s commitment to neutrality and inclusiveness in its human rights policies. Allowing a high-ranking official to make discriminatory remarks undermines New Zealand’s commitment to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A high-ranking official should not be allowed to engage in Islamic and Palestinian racist rhetoric without consequence. The public should be questioning the morals, principles, and inclusivity of those currently in power. Our trust is being eroded.

Dr Stephen Rainbow’s comments can also be seen as a breach of human rights principles, as he is supposed to uphold equality and non-discrimination. Yet his beliefs seem to be peppered with racism, often falsely based on religion, ethnicity, and race.

Foreign influence in New Zealand
This incident also shines accountability and concerns for foreign influence and propaganda seeping into New Zealand. The Israel Institute of New Zealand (IINZ) has published articles that some perceive as dehumanising toward Palestinians.

In one article written by Dr Rainbow titled “With every chant Israel’s case grows stronger”, he says:

“The Left has found a new underdog to replace the Jews — the Palestinians — in spite of the fact that the treatment of gay people, women, and political opponents wherever Palestinians have control is barbaric.”

By publicising these comments, The Israel Institute of New Zealand signalled its support of these offensive and racist serotypes. Such statements risk reinforcing a narrative that portrays Palestinians as inherently violent, uncivilised, and unworthy of basic rights and dignity.

This kind of rhetoric contributes to what many describe as anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism, and it warrants public scrutiny, especially when shared by organisations involved in shaping public discourse.

Importantly, the NZSIS 2024 threat report stated that “Inflammatory and violent language online can target anyone, although most appears directed towards those from already marginalised minority communities, or those affected by globally significant conflicts or events, such as the Israel-Gaza conflict.”

Other statements and reposts published online by the IINZ on their X account include:

“Muslims are getting killed, is Israel involved? No. How many casualties? Under 100,00, who cares? Why is this even on the news? Over 100,000. Oh, that’s too bad, what’s for dinner?” (12 February 2024)

“Fact. Gaza isn’t ‘ancestral Palestinian land’. We’ve been here long before them, and we’ll still be here long after the latest propaganda campaign.” (12 February 2024)

Palestinian society was also described as being “a violent, terror-supporting, Jew-hating society with genocidal aspirations.” (16 February 2025)

The “estimate of Hamas casualties, the civilian-to-combat death ratio could be as low as 1:1. This could be historically low for urban warfare.” (21 February 2025)

“There has never been a country called Palestine.” (25 February 2025)

Even showing a picture of Gaza before Israel’s bombing campaign with a caption saying, “Open air prison”. Next to it a picture of a completely destroyed Gaza with a caption that says “Victory.” (23 February 2025)

“Palestinian society in Gaza is in my eyes little more than a death loving cult of murderers and criminals of the lowest kind.” (28 February 2025)

Anti-Palestinian bias and racism
Portraying Muslims and Palestinians as a threat and extremist reflects both Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian bias and potential racism. These statements risk dehumanising Palestinians and are typical of the settler colonial narrative used to erase indigenous populations by denying our history, identity and legal claim.

The IINZ has published content that many see as mocking the deaths of Palestinian Muslims and Christians, which is not only ethically questionable but can be seen as a complete lack of empathy.

And posting the horrific images of a completely destroyed Gaza, appears to revel in the suffering of others and contradicts basic ethical norms, such as decency and compassion.

There also appears to be a common theme among pro-Israeli organisations, not just the IINZ, that cast negative connotations on our national symbols including our Palestinian flag and keffiyeh.

In an article on the IINZ webpage, titled “A justified war”, they write “chorus of protesters wearing keffiyehs, waving their Palestinian and terrorist flags, and shouting about Israel’s alleged war crimes.”

It seemingly places the Palestinian flag — an internationally recognised national symbol– alongside so-called “terrorist flags,” suggesting an equivalence between Palestinian identity and terrorism. Many view this language as dehumanising and inflammatory, erasing the legitimate national and cultural characteristics of Palestinians and feeding into harmful stereotypes.

The Palestinian flag represents a people, their identity, and national aspirations.

There is nothing wrong with our keffiyeh, it is part of our national dress. The negative connotations of Palestinian cultural symbols have to stop, including vilifying other MPs or supporters who wear it in solidarity.

This is happening all too often in New Zealand and must be called out and addressed. Our keffiyeh is not just a scarf — it is a symbol of our Palestinian identity, our resistance, and our rich, historic and deeply rooted cultural heritage.

Pro-Israeli groups attack it because they aim to delegitimise Palestinian identity and resistance by associating it with violence, terrorism, or extremism.

In 2024, ISESCO and UNESCO both recognised the keffiyeh as an essential part of their Intangible Cultural Heritage lists as a way of safeguarding Palestinian cultural heritage and reinforcing its historical and symbolic importance.

As a safeguarded cultural artifact, much like indigenous dress and other traditional attire, attempts to ban or demonize it are acts of cultural erasure and need to be called out as such and dealt with accordingly.

In the same IINZ article titled “A Justified War”, the authors present arguments that appear to defend Israel’s military actions in Gaza, including the targeting of civilians.

Many within the community (most of us have been affected), including survivors and those with direct ties to the region, have found the article deeply distressing and feel that it lacks compassion for the victims of the ongoing violence, and the framing and tone of the piece have raised serious ethical concerns, especially as some statements are factually incorrect.

The New Zealand Palestinian communities affected by this unimaginable genocide are suffering. Our family members are being killed and are at threat daily from Israel’s aggression and illegal war.

Unfortunately, much rhetoric from this organisation aligns with Israeli state narratives and includes statements that some view as racist or immoral, warranting further scrutiny from the government.

There is growing public concern over the association of Human Rights Commissioner Dr Stephen Rainbow with the IINZ, which promotes itself as a research and advocacy body.

A Human Rights Commissioner requires neutrality and a commitment to protecting all communities from discrimination; aligning with Israel and publishing harmful rhetoric may lead to bias in policy decisions and discrimination.

It is also important to remember that we are not a monolithic group. Christian Palestinians exist (I am one) as well as Muslim and historically Jewish Palestinians. Christian communities have lived in Palestine for two thousand years.

This is also not a religious conflict, as many pro-Israeli groups wish the world to believe, and it is not complex. It is one of colonialism, dispossession, and human rights. A history that New Zealand is all too familiar with.

The need for accountability
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s inaction and disrespectful response, claiming that a staunchly pro-Israeli supporter can be impartial and will be “very careful” from now on, hints that he may also support some forms of racism, in this case against Muslims and Palestinians.

You cannot address only some groups who are discriminated against but then ignore others, or accept excuses for racist, intolerable actions or statements. This is not justice.

This is the application of selective principles, enforced and underpinned by political agendas, foreign influence, and racism. Does Goldsmith understand that justice is as much about human rights, fairness and accountability as it is about laws?

Without accountability, there is no justice at all, or perhaps he too is confused or uncertain about his role, as much as Dr Rainbow seems oblivious to his?

There needs to be accountability for Goldsmith. Why has he not removed Dr Rainbow from office and acted appropriately? If Dr Rainbow had said that Jews were the biggest threat to Muslims or that Israelis were the biggest threat to Palestinians, would this government and Goldsmith have sat back and said, “he didn’t mean it, it was a mistake, and he has apologised”?

Questions New Zealanders should be asking are, what kind of Human Rights Commissioner speaks of entire peoples this way? What kind of minister, like Paul Goldsmith, looks at that and does very little?

What kind of Government claims to champion justice, while turning a blind eye to genocide? This is betraying the very idea of human rights itself.

Although we are a small country here in New Zealand, we have remained strong by upholding and standing by our principles. We said no to apartheid in South Africa. We said no to nuclear weapons in the Pacific. We said no to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

And we must now say no to dehumanisation — anywhere. Are we a nation that upholds justice or do we sit on the sidelines while the darkest times in modern history envelopes us all?

The attacks against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must stop. We have already faced horrific acts of violence against us here in New Zealand and currently in Palestine. We need support and humanity, not dehumanisation, demonisation and cruelty. This is not what New Zealand is about, we must do better together.

There needs to be a formal enquiry and policy review to see if structural biases exist in New Zealand’s Human Rights institutions. This should also be done across some government bodies, including the Ministry of Education and Immigration NZ, to determine if there has been discrimination or inequality in the handling of humanitarian visas and how the Education Ministry has handled the complaints of anti-Palestinian discrimination at schools.

Communities have particular concern at how the curriculum in many schools deals with the creation of the state of Israel but is silent on Palestinian history.

Public figures should be held to a higher standard, with consequences for spreading racially charged rhetoric.

The Human Rights Commission needs to rebuild trust in our multicultural New Zealand society. The only way this can be done is through fair and just measures that include enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, true inclusivity and action when there is an absence of these.

We are living in a moment where silence is complicity. Where apathy is betrayal.

This is a test of whether New Zealand, Minister Goldsmith and this government truly uphold human rights for all, or only for some.

Katrina Mitchell-Kouttab is a New Zealand Palestinian advocate and writer.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The lack of women representation in parliaments across the world remains a vexed and contentious issue.

In Fiji, this problem has again surfaced for debate in response to Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica’s call for a quota system to increase women’s representation in Parliament.

Kamikamica was speaking at the “Capacity Building Training for Prospective Women and Youth Candidates in Local Elections” workshop in Suva in November last year.

The workshop was organised by Suva-based civil society organisation, Dialogue Fiji, in collaboration with Emily’s List Australia and funded by Misereor.

Kamikamica noted that women’s representation in Fiji’s Parliament peaked at 20 percent in 2018, only to drop to 14 percent after the 2022 elections.

He highlighted what he saw as an anomaly — 238,389 women voted in the 2022 election, surpassing men’s turnout.

However, women candidates garnered only 37,252 votes, accounting for just 8 percent of the total votes cast. This saw only six out of 54 female candidates elected to Parliament.

Reducing financial barriers
He said implementing supportive policies and initiatives, such as reducing financial barriers to running for office and providing childcare support could address some of the structural challenges faced by aspiring female leaders.

While agreeing with Kamikamica’s supportive remarks, Suva-based lawyer and former journalist Sainiana Radrodro called for urgent and concrete actions to empower aspiring women candidates besides just discussions.

She identified finance, societal norms and more recently, bullying on social media, as major obstacles for women aspiring for political careers. She said measures to address these problems were either insufficient, or non-existent.

Radrodro, who participated in the 2024 Women’s “Mock Parliament”, supports a quota system, but only as a temporary special measure (TSM). TSM is designed to advance gender equality by addressing structural, social, and cultural barriers, correcting past and present discrimination, and compensating for harm and inequalities.

The lawyer said that TSM could be a useful tool if applied in a measured way, noting that countries that rushed into implementing it faced a backlash due to poor advocacy and public understanding.

She recommends TSM based on prior and proper dialogue and awareness to ensure that women elected through such measures are not marginalised or stereotyped as having “ridden on the back of government policies”.

She said with women comprising half of the national population, it was sensible to have proportional representation in Parliament.

Social media attacks
While she agreed with Kamikamica that finance remained a significant obstacle for Fijian women seeking public office, she stated that non-financial barriers, such as attacks on social media, should not be overlooked.

To level the playing field, Radrodro’s suggestions include government subsidies for women candidates, similar to the support provided to farmers and small businesses.

“This would signal a genuine commitment by the government to foster women’s participation in the legislature,” she said.

Radrodro’s views were echoed by the University of the South Pacific postgraduate student in sociology, Lovelyn Laurelle Giva-Tuke.

She advocates a holistic approach encompassing financial assistance, specific legislation to address violence against women in political contexts; capacity-building programs to equip women with leadership, campaigning, and public speaking skills; and measures to ensure fair and equitable media coverage, rather than stereotyped and discriminatory coverage.

Giva-Tuke emphasised that society as a whole stand to benefit from a gender balanced political establishment. This was also highlighted by Kamikamica in his address. He cited research showing that women leaders tended to prioritise healthcare, education, and social welfare.

While there is no disagreement about the problem, and the needs to address it, Giva-Tuke, like Radrodro, believes that discussions and ideas must translate into action.

“As a nation, we can and must do more to create an inclusive political landscape that values women’s contributions at every level,” she said.

Protection another hurdle
For Radrodro, one of the most urgent and unaddressed problems is the targeting of women with harmful social media content, which is rampant and unchecked in Fiji.

“There is a very high level of attacks against women on social media even from women against other women. These raises reservations in potential women candidates who now have another hurdle to cross.”

Radrodro said a lot of women were simply terrified of being abused online and having their lives splashed across social media, which was also harmful for their children and families.

She said it was disheartening to see the lack of consistent support from leaders when women politicians faced personal attacks.

She called for stronger policies and enforcement to curb online harassment, urging national leaders to take a stand against such behavior.

Another female rights campaigner, the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement executive director Nalini Singh, called for stronger and more effective collaboration between stakeholders — communal groups, women’s groups, local government departments, political parties and the Fijian Elections Office.

Singh highlighted the need for a major educational campaign to change the mindsets with gender sensitisation programs targeting communities. She also recommended increased civic education and awareness of government structures and electoral systems.

Temporary law changes
While she supported reserved parliamentary seats for women, Singh said temporary changes in laws or regulations to eliminate systemic barriers and promote gender equality were also needed.

Singh also highlighted the importance of bridging the generational gaps between older women who have worked in local government, and young women with an interest in joining the political space by establishment of mentoring programmes.

She said mandating specific changes or participation levels within a defined timeframe and advocacy and awareness campaigns targeted at changing societal attitudes and promoting the inclusion of underrepresented groups were other options.

“These are just some ways or strategies to help increase representation of women in leadership spaces, especially their participation in politics,” said Singh.

The views of women such as Sainiana Radrodro, Lovelyn Laurelle Giva-Tuke and Nalini Singh indicate not just what needs to be done to address this problem, but also how little has actually been done.

On his part, Kamikamica has said all the right things, demonstrating a good understanding of the weaknesses in the system. What is lacking is the application of these ideas and sentiments in a real and practical sense.

Unless this is done, the ideas will remain just that — ideas.

Monika Singh is a teaching assistant with The University of the South Pacific’s Journalism Programme and the supervising editor of the student newspaper Wansolwara. This article is first published by The Fiji Times and is republished here as part of a collaboration between USP Journalism and Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

She made it clear in her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August, again at her televised debate with Donald Trump a few weeks later, and in all her interviews since.

Vice-President Kamala Harris, if or when elected the 47th United States president, will continue the centre-right policies of her recent predecessors, especially her current boss, President Joe Biden.

This likely means that efforts to address income equality and poverty, to abandon policies that beget violence overseas, and to confront the latticework of discrimination that affects Americans of colour and Black women especially, will be limited at best.

If Harris wins today’s election, her being a Black and South Asian woman in the most powerful office in the world will not mean much to marginalised people anywhere, because she will wield that power in the same racist, sexist and Islamophobic ways as previous presidents.

“I’m not the president of Black America. I’m the president of the United States of America,” President Barack Obama had said on several occasions during his presidency when asked about doing more for Black Americans while in office. As a presidential candidate, Kamala Harris is essentially doing the same.

And as it was the case with Obama’s presidency, this is not good news for Black Americans, or any other marginalised community.

Take the issue of housing.

Blanket housing grant
Harris’s proposed $25,000 grant to help Americans buy homes for the first time is a blanket grant, one that in a housing market historically tilted towards white Americans, will invariably discriminate against Black folks and other people of colour.

Harris’s campaign promise does not even discern between “first-time buyers” whose parents and siblings already own homes, and true “first-generation” buyers who are more likely not white, and do not have any generational wealth.

It seems Harris wants to appear committed to helping “all Americans”, even if it means her policies would primarily help (mostly white) Americans already living middle-class lives. Any real chance for those among the working class and the working poor to have access to the three million homes Harris has promised is between slim and none.

Harris’s pledges about reproductive rights are equally non-specific and thus less than reassuring to those who already face discrimination and erasure.

She says, if elected president, she would “codify Roe v Wade”. Every Democratic president since Jimmy Carter has made such a promise and yet failed to keep it.

Even if Congress were to pass such a law, the far right would challenge this law in court. Even if the federal courts decided to upload such a law, the Supreme Court decisions that followed between 1973 and 2022 gave states the right to restrict abortion based on fetus viability, meaning that most restrictions already in place in many states would remain.

And with half the states in the US either banning abortion entirely or severely restricting it, codification of Roe — if it ever actually materialises — would at best reset the US to the precarity around reproductive rights that has existed since 1973.

Less acccess to resources
Even if Harris miraculously manages to keep her promise, American women of colour, and women living in poverty, will still have less access to contraceptives, to abortions, and to prenatal and neonatal care, because all Roe ever did was to make such care “legal”.

The law never made it affordable, and certainly never made it so that all women had equal access to services in every state in the union.

Given that she is poised to become America’s first woman/woman of colour/Black woman president, Harris’s vague and wide-net promises on reproductive rights, which would do little to help any women, but especially marginalised women, are damning.

Sure, it is good that Harris talks about Black girls and women like the late Amber Nicole Thurman who have been denied reproductive rights in states like Georgia, with deadly results. But her words mean nothing without a clear action plan.

Where Harris failed the most of all, however, is tackling violence — overwhelmingly targeting marginalised, sidelined, silenced and criminalised folks — in the US and overseas.

During a live and televised interview with billionaire Oprah Winfrey in September, Harris expanded on the revelation she made during her earlier debate with Trump that she is a gun owner.

“If somebody breaks into my house they’re getting shot,” Harris said with a smile. “I probably should not have said that,” she swiftly added. “My staff will deal with that later.”

Grabbing attention of gun-owners
The vice-president seemed confident that her remark would eventually be seen by pro-gun control democrats as a necessary attempt at grabbing the attention of gun-owning, centre-right voters, who could still be dissuaded from voting for Trump.

Nonetheless, her casual statement about the use of lethal force revealed much more than her desire to secure the votes of “sensible”, old-school right wingers. It illuminated the blitheness with which Harris takes the issue of the US as a violent nation and culture.

It is hard to believe Harris as president would be an advocate for “common sense” measures seeking “assault weapons bans, universal background checks, red flag laws” when she talks so casually about shooting people.

Her decision to treat gun violence as yet another issue for calculated politicking is alarming, especially when Black folk — including Black women — face death by guns at disproportionate rates, particularly at the hands of police officers and white vigilantes.

Despite Trump’s disgusting claims, Harris is a Black woman. Many Americans assume she would do more to protect them than other presidents. However, her dismissive attitude towards gun violence shows that President Harris — regardless of her racial background — would not offer any more security and safety to marginalised communities, including Black women, than her predecessors.

The assumption that as a part-Black, part-South Asian president, Harris would curtail American violence that maims and kills Black, brown and Asian bodies all over the world also appears to be baseless.

In repeatedly saying that she “will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world”, Harris has made clear that she has every intention to continue with the lethal, racist, imperialistic policies of her Democratic and Republican predecessors, without reflection, recalibration or an ounce of remorse.

Carnage in Gaza
Just look at the carnage in Gaza she has overseen as vice-president.

Despite saying multiple times that she and Biden “have been working around the clock” for a ceasefire in Gaza, the truth is that Biden and Harris have not secured a ceasefire simply because they do not want one.

Harris as president will be just as fine with Black, brown, and Asian lives not mattering in the calculations of her future administration’s foreign policy, as she has been as vice-president and US senator.

Anybody voting for Harris in this election — including yours truly — should be honest about why. Sure, there is excitement around having a woman — a biracial, Black and South Asian woman at that — as American president for the first time in history. This excitement, combined with her promise of “we’re not going back” in reference to Trump’s presidency, and many pledges to protect what’s left of US democracy,  provide many Americans with enough reason to support the Harris-Walz ticket.

Yet, some seem to be supporting Kamala Harris under the impression that as a Black and South Asian woman, she would value the lives of people who look like her, and once elected, support marginalised people much better than her predecessors.

This is a delusion.

Just like Obama once did, Harris wants to be president of the United States of America. She has no intention of being the President of “Black America” or the marginalised. She made this clear, over and again, throughout her campaign, and through her work as vice-president to Joe Biden.

There is a long list of reasons to vote for Harris in this election, but the assumption that her presidency would be supportive of the rights and struggles of the marginalised, simply because of her identity, should not be on that list.

Donald Earl Collins, professorial lecturer at the American University in Washington, DC, is the author of Fear of a “Black” America: Multiculturalism and the African American Experience (2004). This article was first published by Al Jazeera.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Pacific Election 2023 debate kicked off today with one of the most pressing issues for Pacific communties — an amnesty for overstayers.

The Dawn Raids apology was two years ago, and weeks out from the election, the Labour Party has announced it would offer a lifeline for long-term overstayers in New Zealand.

It followed anger from Pacific community leaders, disappointed it had not happened in all the years following the apology.

On the panel were Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni, National’s Fonoti Agnes Loheni, ACT’s Karen Chhour and Teanau Tuiono from the Green Party.

Labour’s Sepuloni said the amnesty announcement was not an attempt at baiting voters.

“You have to think about everything that has been expected of Immigration New Zealand in the last couple of years and the immense pressure that they have been under,” Sepuloni said.

An amnesty would be granted “in the first 100 days if we are re-elected,” she said.

Green support for amnesty
The Green Party would also suppport an amnesty for overstayers.

“Amnesty for overstayers is more than timely. It is late,” said Green Party Pacific Peoples spokesperson Teanau Tuiano, criticising Labour for taking too long.

The Pacific Issues Debate. Video: RNZ Pacific and PMN

Meanwhile, both National and ACT would not back an amnesty.

National leader Christopher Luxon had previously said it would send the wrong message and encourage “rule breakers”.

National’s Pacific spokesperson Loheni said the the Dawn Raids was no doubt “discrimination and abhorrent”.

But, she took the side of people “working hard to go through the legal steps to become residents”.

Health
Around 40 percent of New Zealanders — and half of Pasifika people — cannot afford dental care.

The Green Party plans to make dental care free for everyone — paid through a wealth tax system, which the Labour Party had already ruled out.

However, the Labour government said it would provide free dental care for everyone under 30 years old.

Dental care in New Zealand is free until a person turns 18 years old. But this excludes orthodontic care, i.e. braces because it is classed as “specialist dental care”.

National’s plan to tackle the health crisis was to attract an overseas workforce and plug the nurses and doctor shortage within New Zealand. Loheni reiterated her party leader’s stance and refused to back “race-based” policies but did acknowledge the hardships Pacific people faced.

“The numbers are grim for the Pacific. We need to get more of a workforce here,” Loheni said.

“The health system is in absolute crisis. We are 4800 nurses short. We are about 1700, GP’s short and about 1000 midwives short,” she said.

ACT Party candidate Karen Chhour said, “I’m hearing all around the country and especially up north and just the lack of GPs up north.”

Chhour said it was about helping to “ease pressure off hospital services” and “investing in the front line services”.

Two thirds of students experience poverty.

“Why would you go into university to study medicine . . . we would pay this through a wealth tax,” Greens Tuiano said.

This policy is expected to provide a guaranteed income for students or a person who has fallen out of work to help them get through university.

Labour said it would address health inequities because Pacific and Māori people were more disadvantaged.

“It has been incredibly ugly on the campaign trail . . . the level of racism that is resulted because of the rhetoric around measures like this, when they are purely equity measures and they should be embraced by everyone,” Sepuloni said.

She said seen since 2019, around 1000 health scholarships had been given to Pacific people.

Housing
One in 10 Pacific (11 percent) children live in damp and mouldy homes, where they are 80 times more likely to develop acute rheumatic fever, which can lead to heart disease and death.

Sepuloni said: “We have increased that by 13,000 homes, stopped selling them off. We have got 2700 Pacific people signed up with our programme that provides them with support to pathway into home ownership . . .

“Some of our Pacific populated areas are getting investment that they never had before. Like the NZ$1.5 billion we put into put it for housing revitalisation.”

But ACT’s Chhour hit back and said the “government should be held to the same account as landlords”.

“Kāinga Ora is one of the worst landlords in some cases where they do not meet those standards and where they have got extra time to meet those standards,” she said.

Green’s Tuiono said prices for rentals needed to be capped to protect tenants.

“There are 1.4 million renters within New Zealand and many of those people are our people.”

National’s Loheni said she “grew up in a state house with a crowd 15 people. One of my sisters has lived with asthma her whole life and it put her behind in school”.

She said under the Labour government “rents have gone up $180 per week.

“Unfortunately, we still need social housing, emergency housing. We have got 500 people living in cars at the moment. So we got a priority category to move those people who have been living in cars further up that social housing list.”

Education
Pasifika students face significant achievement gaps and underfunding, while teachers struggle with complex job demands and mental health issues.

“The government has failed our students,” Loheni said.

Loheni got emotional during the debate when sharing the declining pass rates of some Pasifika students.

“Only 14.5 percent Pasifika students reach the minimum curriculum for maths compared to the rest of the population of 41.5 percent,” she said.

“Please don’t say it’s covid because why is it Pasifika students, the lowest of all groups, and nothing has been done.”

Sepuloni defended her party, and said it had invested $5 billion into the education system – mainly “towards pay for teachers”.

Chhour said there’s a lot of pressure on teachers.

“Not only are they teachers, social workers, kids have been through a lot. They have effectively had interrupted education for the last three years.

“A lot of them are feeling anxiety about whether they agree with your exams. A lot of them are suffering from mental health issues . . . so teachers are dealing with all of this on top of actually trying to educate our kids.”

She said under the ACT party, they wanted to “bring back” charter schools and partnership schools for young people “who didn’t quite fit into the education system”.

Greens’ Tuiono said the government’s payout to support teachers was “vital”.

“I talked to some teachers where their pay rise hasn’t kept up with inflation for 10 years.”

Crime
Almost half of our Pacific children are likely to live around family violence. Pacific children are twice as likely to be hospitalised due to assault, neglect and maltreatment.

Sepuloni said it was about addressing “intergenerational impacts”.

She said sending more young people to prison was “an opportunity for gangs to actually recruit once they’re in there”.

Instead, a programme they had put in place addressed this issue and had seen more than 80 percent of young offenders not go on to reoffend.

“It actually requires full wraparound support for not just them but for their siblings and their families.”

Loheni said the National Party would address the rise of RAM raids and through “social investment,” and planned to put young people through military and cadet training, which studies had previously shown to be ineffective.

“We do have policies around military academies where they are going to have wraparound support, note that they do work.”

Tuiono disagreed. “Locking them up into boot camps that just won’t work.”

“We also have to address those underlying drivers of poverty because if you have the stable home life, there’s food on the table, you know the family can afford to keep the lights on, that helps to stabilise our families.

“That’s what we should be doing,” he said.

Climate change
National plans to “double renewable energy, help farmers clean up in the areas and invest in public transport,” Loheni said.

Sepuloni said Labour was “action oriented” and their “track record” with the Greens “goes to show that we have been able to reduce carbon emissions”.

Tuiono said “a vote for the Greens is a vote for climate action”.

“We have got some money set aside to support our towns and our councils to make their towns and councils more more climate resilient.”

ACT’s Chhour said the party would be looking at how “we’re building our infrastructure and adapting to climate change”.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Higher Education Minister Don Polye has condemned a decision by the administration of the University of Papua New Guinea to treat a PNG-born and bred grade 12 school leaver as an “international” student.

Roselyn Alog, 19, whose parents are Filipinos, was born and raised in PNG.

On Monday, she was turned away from registering at the university by the School of Natural and Physical Sciences on the grounds that she is a Filipino by nationality.

She was asked to pay K19,638 (almost NZ$9000) and not K3115 (NZ$1400) as per the acceptance letter from UPNG.

Alog completed her grade 12 last year at the Paradise Private School and was selected through the National Online System to study under the SNPS programme.

“I have considered that those students who have come through PNG’s education system, regardless of nationality over the years, have a right to be given the same treatment as everyone else for enrolment,” Polye said.

“PNG is a member of the global community and our universities are institutions of learning for all international students who live within or live outside our shores.

Diverse students
“We are happy to see students of diverse nationalities and cultures live and study together as it’s part of learning.

“If a student had been paying school fees through the echelon of our formal education structure at the established school fees structure, then the same student is entitled to pay the same fee asked of through the formal process.

“A student should not be discriminated against. No foreign student will be made to pay more if such a student had been coming up [through] the formal PNG education system.

“Any errors made must be corrected immediately.”

Francis Hualupmomi, Secretary for the Department of Higher Education Research Science and Technology (HERST) which manages the TESAS (scholarship scheme), said no university had the right to take away the TESAS privilege awarded to a student.

A call from the scholarship division of the Department of HERST to the Post-Courier asked Roselyn Alog to visit their office to establish her citizenship status.

Phoebe Gwangilo is a PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Late last year, the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) initiated a process to eliminate 170 academic jobs to cut costs. The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found AUT’s approach breached its collective employment agreement with staff and their union and ordered it to withdraw the termination notices.

Tertiary education runs on an insecure labour force in New Zealand and elsewhere. The AUT decision illustrates that even traditionally secure positions are becoming less so.

Tenure is the traditional protection for academics in the tertiary sector, but New Zealand does not have tenure at its universities.

Tenure is more than a perk

A common argument against tenure is that it leads to a complacent, under-motivated university professor. These concerns are hypothetical — evidence that tenure causes productivity differences is lacking.

In fact, one of few large studies on the subject found the opposite. Good administrators should be able to manage any actual productivity issues as they do in all other workplaces.

On the other hand, lack of tenure creates risks for free societies. Tenure is common practice in other liberal democracies. UNESCO says:

Security of employment in the profession, including tenure […] should be safeguarded as it is essential to the interests of higher education.

Tenure is important, if not indispensable, for academic freedom. Academic freedom is essential to a university’s mission, and this mission is a characteristic of a democracy. As University of Regina professor Marc Spooner put it:

A country’s institutional commitment to academic freedom is a key indicator of whether its democracy is in good health.

The Employment Relations Authority has issued a compliance order to the university, requiring it to withdraw its notices of termination. https://t.co/NUvBfqS6ad

— Stuff (@NZStuff) January 5, 2023

Scholarship is not piecework
The ERA said AUT misunderstood terminology in the collective employment agreement.
The clash term was “specific position”. AUT’s position was that specific positions are identified by professional ranks (from lecturer to professor) and the numbers of each role across four particular faculties.

The ERA did not agree and concluded an essential component for identifying specific positions is the employee, being the person who is the current position holder or appointee to a position.

AUT’s assertion would be like the air force using the rank of “captain” to adjust its number of pilots. The number of captains does not tell you what each captain does, be it to fly planes or fix them.

Without tenure, a standard less than this minimum established by the ERA can be used to eliminate academics who have legitimate priorities that do not align with the administrative staff of the day, or are the victims of any other concealed discrimination. The ERA clarification makes it more difficult to inhibit intramural criticism, the right to criticise the actions taken by managers and leaders of the university.

The authoritative review of freedom of speech and academic freedom in Australian universities singles out the importance of academic freedom for this purpose, saying:

It […] reflects the distinctive relationship of academic staff and universities, a relationship not able to be defined by reference to the ordinary law of employer and employee relationships.

The ERA clarification helps to prevent the firing of academics who are teaching, researching or questioning things administrators, funders or governments don’t want them to. But it is a finger in a leaking dyke. Tenure is a tried and tested general solution.

Health of the democracy
We only need to observe the events in the United States to recognise the importance of tenure. This benchmark country has a proud tradition of tenure. Nevertheless state governments are dismantling tenure to impose political control on curriculums. Our liberal democracy is not immune to this.

We need more than tenure-secured academic freedom to enable universities to do the sometimes dreary and at other times risky work of providing societies alternatives to populist, nationalist or autocratic movements. But as the Douglas Dillon chair in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, Darrell M. West, wrote, academic freedom is a problem for these movements.

Recognizing the moral authority of independent experts, when despots come to power, one of the first things they do is discredit authoritative institutions who hold leaders accountable and encourage an informed citizenry.

In a system with tenure, a university would have a defined stand-down period preventing reappointment to vacated positions. For example, if an academic program and associated tenured staff that teach it were eliminated at the University of Arkansas for financial reasons, the program could not be reactivated for at least five years. The stand-down inhibits whimsical or agenda-fuelled restructuring as a lazy option to manage staff.

If a similar trade-off were to be applied to how AUT defined specific positions, then no academics could be hired there for five years. It is very different to be prevented from hiring academics than it is to, say, not re-establishing a financially struggling department or program.

Herein lies the true value of tenure. It is greater than a protection of the individual. It protects society from wasteful or ideologically motivated restructuring as an alternative to poor management. Tenure is security of the public trust in our universities.

Dr Jack Heinemann is professor of molecular biology and genetics, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Authorities arrested six Indonesian soldiers last week suspected in the killing and mutilation of four Indigenous Papuans in Indonesia’s West Papua province.

The bodies of the four men were discovered on August 26 by local residents of Iwaka village, outside the town of Timika, in sacks floating down the Pigapu River.

The victims were identified as Irian Nirigi, a local village leader, Arnold Lokbere, Atis Tini, and Kelemanus Nirigi. It is not clear why the men were killed.

The authorities claimed they were insurgents and were allegedly on their way to meet someone in Timika to purchase weapons.

The men’s families deny this, saying they were carrying money from the village fund to purchase agricultural equipment. What is clear is the money the men were carrying is gone.

The killings come at a time of rising tensions between the Indigenous people of Papua and the Indonesian security forces, with incidents of violence becoming increasingly frequent and deadly.

Last month, unidentified persons shot dead nine non-Papuan civilians in Nduga, where the Indonesian government maintains a heavy military presence.

Anti-racism protests
This violence follows a series of anti-racism protests using the hashtag #PapuanLivesMatter, responding in part to President Joko Widodo’s contentious move to divide Papua and West Papua into four separate provinces.

Activists are raising concerns that the plans will lead to the further militarisation of the region, with critics describing it as a ploy to “divide and conquer” the Indigenous Papuans.

President Jokowi, once celebrated for releasing Papuan political prisoners in 2015, leads a government responsible for systemic discrimination against Papuans.

Killing of four West #Papuans ‘brutal reminder of reality’ under #Jakarta rule, says Wenda #AsiaPacificReport @westpapuamedia @westpapuanews @BennyWenda #HumanRights #HumanRightsViolations #atrocities #PapuanLivesMatter @PNGAttitude @FreeWestPapua https://t.co/LcK8pKhBzQ pic.twitter.com/ypfxF9zm2Y

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) August 31, 2022

Last week he was in Timika, in part to visit the Freeport project and surrounding areas, which is the site of the largest gold mine in the world.

It is important that the authorities fairly and appropriately prosecute the soldiers arrested and any others implicated in the killings.

But the Indonesian government needs to address the deteriorating human rights situation in Papua by conducting an independent and impartial investigation into the involvement of the security forces more generally in atrocities against Indigenous Papuans, and keeping its promise to invite United Nations human rights monitors to visit the region.

Robbie Newton is Asia coordinator of Human Rights Watch.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“Noa’ia ‘e” is a greeting people hear when you meet anyone from the island of Rotuma in Fiji or when they visit the Whānau Community Hub in Auckland’s Mount Roskill.

This doubles as the Rotuman-Fijian Community Centre.

It is run by Rachel Mario and her team for a whole host of purposes — a range of different programmes and activities.

On any day they could be delivering grocery parcels, health and wellbeing classes, or training community elders (Wednesdays), language and financial literacy classes for children (Saturdays), and leadership training,

You name it and they’re probably doing it.

Mario says the centre hasn’t only been hosting the Rotuman whānau, but it’s also a “home” for other stakeholders such as Asia Pacific Media Network, government agencies, and faith communities.

As chair of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group Inc., Mario now wants to throw in her leadership hat for the local board.

Standing for Puketāpapa
So she is standing for the Roskill Community Voice team for Puketāpapa Local Board (Mount Roskill).

She loves doing social work and hopes that she and her team will be elected in the October election — and she vows to keep working hard to be the voice of the wider, diverse community in Mount Roskill.

Apart from running the busy programmes at the centre for her Rotuman community and other whānau, Mario has been advocating about issues of social injustice that her community has been facing for years.

Some of these issues include the housing crisis and alleged discrimination on distribution over resources for the Rotuman Language Week celebrations.

“The biggest challenge, which isn’t fair, is the discrimination against us, the Rotuman community. In the Ministry of Pacific Peoples, they want to run a rival language week up against ours,” she says.

“We started in 2018. In 2019, because they didn’t want to list our language week, they didn’t want to list anything we do regarding our endangered indigenous language.

In response to a question from Tagata Pasifika about the allegations of discrimination faced by Mario’s group, the Minister of the Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio denied this, saying he was disappointed to hear about it.

Successful programme
However, in spite of the challenges, the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group successfully ran the language programme in May.

Other issues include the cultural identity of children born from intercultural marriages. However, the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group has embraced all children who have Rotuman blood.

TeRito Peyroux, a member of Rotuman Congregation at Kingsland Methodist Church, says that for those who could not speak Rotuman, “we are who we are, it’s much bigger than our language fluency.”

“It is about our sense of belonging and the people that are nurturing and supporting and being with us. For me, that means that having the privilege of celebrating language and culture in this foreign land makes me very humble,” she says.

Tupou Tee Kamoe, who is also one of the executive members of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group, cites a quote from Green MP Teanau Tuiono that he had made in his maiden speech in Parliament which she has adapted for bicultural Rotumans:

“People often ask me, ‘am I half Rotuman, half Pacific’, and I say ‘na bro, I am not half anything, I am whole, if anything I am double — if I was a beer I would be double brown, if I was a flavour at the dairy, I would be twice as nice at only half the price.”

Laurens Ikinia is a postgraduate communication studies student at Auckland University of Technology and is a frequent contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Māori councillors have detailed the torrents of abuse and racism they say they face in their role.

It is something Local Government New Zealand says it has to confront as it tries to make councils more diverse.

It comes as its new programme Te Āhuru Mōwai aims to provide a safe space and support for first time Māori councillors.

Ruapehu District councillor Vivienne Hoeta has had many instances of discrimination in her role.

She recalls one conversation with another councillor over lunch which left her speechless.

“Well your people should be alright, they’ve raised the benefit. I’m like, ‘um actually, I have a degree, my children have degrees, so does my husband and most of my family are well educated on both sides.’

“‘Aw, no no no, I don’t mean you, I mean in general’,” she said.

‘What about the drawings?’
Or the time she was at a public meeting in Taumaranui speaking alongside Māori colleague Elijah Pue when she was asked:

“What do you think about the drawings on your fellas faces, won’t that get mixed up with gangs. The room went quiet, a few kuia in the background answered him but I actually didn’t know at the time how to answer that question.

“All I did was say, ‘can you explain your relevance to the long term plan with regards to that statement’. [To] which that Pākehā gentleman said, ‘aw I’d like to hear from someone educated’,” she said.

It had also been felt by Wellington Councillor Tamatha Paul during her first campaign in 2019.

“There was definitely a really small but very hateful minority group of people who would follow candidates around and livestream them and whenever the candidates would speak Māori they would yell at them on their livestream, while they were livestreaming and tell them to speak English.”

It’s racism like this that has forced Local Government New Zealand, which represents all 78 councils to launch a new mentoring programme, Te Āhuru Mōwai, for newly elected Māori members.

Māori governance group Te Maruata chair Bonita Bigham hopes it will help.

Tackling things that get ‘tricky’
“We hope that the strength of our Te Maruata network will enable those people to feel that they’ve got others to reach out to, that they’ve got experienced members within local government who can advise them and assist them when they find things are getting a bit tricky,” said Bigham.

Viv Hoeta is optimistic it will make a difference.

“This mentoring programme is so integral for supporting new Māori that are going to come in and have to deal with that and giving them the support to deal with it in a way that is mana enhancing, but that is also professional and shows the light of who Māori are,” said Hoeta.

Thirty-two councils across the motu are bringing in Māori wards this year and that means 50 new Māori councillors.

The hope is that will help better reflect the population.

Bonita Bigham said it was essential for Māori councillors to want to stay.

“It’s really important that our people feel like they’re supported enough, that they can see that there is a role and that there voices are valued and that their contributions are critical to the ongoing decision making of the councils in a robust and diverse decision making of council,” said Bigham.

Survey showed racism
Earlier this week, a Local Government New Zealand survey showed 49.5 percent of councillors had experienced racism or gender discrimination.

Tamatha Paul warned new candidates being in council was not a comfortable place to be for Māori.

“We put ourselves in these positions and we put ourselves forward because we want to prevent harm to our people. We do it because we want to make sure that our people have a critical outcome with their non-Māori counterparts.

“And we want to show the people that Māori ways of being and doing things are good for everybody,” Paul said.

A sentiment shared by Hastings Councillor and Ngāti Kahungunu chair Bayden Barber, who agreed it wasn’t easy.

“Council can be a lonely place for a Māori councillor. So you might have one, or two. Some councils wouldn’t even have a Māori on there,” he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Samoa’s Ombudsman Luamanuvao Katalaina Sapolu says the human rights effects from the covid-19 pandemic have been catastrophic.

She has just submitted Samoa’s eighth State of Human Rights Report to Parliament.

Luamanuvao said that over the past two years families had lost loved ones, businesses suffered, unemployment rates increased, and freedom of movement was restricted.

She said there had also been a grave impact on children’s right to education, and the right to health continues to be challenged with resources stretched to the maximum.

But she said human rights principles continued to play an important role in addressing discrimination and inequality and providing inclusion of everyone in the prevention of, and recovery from covid-19.

The report provided an analysis of the impact of the pandemic and government measures on the rights and freedoms of Samoans, especially on the most vulnerable groups.

The report also included recommendations for the government to ensure its covid-19 measures were consistent with the constitution, domestic laws, and policies safeguarding human rights, as well as Samoa’s international human rights obligations.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Unionists and political activists are among seven prominent women who have brought a lawsuit against the Fiji government challenging new electoral laws requiring them to use their birth certificate names to be registered as voters.

The seven are former government minister Bernadette Rounds Ganilau, politicians Priscilla Singh and Seni Nabou, teacher and community worker Adi Davila Toganivalu, unionists Dr Elizabeth Reade Fong and Salote Qalo and Yasmin Nisha Khan.

They have filed a constitutional redress action against the Attorney-General and the Supervisor of Elections, challenging changes passed by Parliament earlier this year to the Electoral (Registration of Voters) Act and the Interpretation Act.

The seven are challenging the requirement that citizens must only use the name on their birth certificates for voting and other official purposes — including for official identification documents.

Under the new laws, people who wished to use their married or adopted names for these purposes must formally change their names on their birth certificates.

In their action, the applicants say they believe the new laws have a disproportionate, adverse impact upon married women compared with other groups. An estimated 100,000 women are believed to be affected by the law.

The matter was called in the High Court in Suva yesterday before Chief Justice Kamal Kumar.

The Chief Justice gave directions for the filing of affidavits and fixed the case for hearing on February 24.

The applicants are represented by Munro Leys partner and former Supervisor of Elections Jon Apted.

Lawyer Devanesh Sharma, of R Patel and Co, represents the Attorney-General and the SOE.

Fiji faces a general election next year.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A human rights advocate in Fiji says the country should be ashamed of the exile of the now dead celebrated academic professor Brij Lal and his family.

Professor Lal was expelled from Fiji in 2009 after speaking out against coup leader Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s FijiFirst government.

Lal died at his home in Brisbane on Christmas Day. Tributes have been pouring in since.

Rights advocate Shamima Ali, coordinator of the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre, said that while the region mourned Professor Lal’s death, people should not forget the injustice meted out to him and his wife.

Ali said the government disrespected academia and the contributions academics made to Fiji’s development.

In the case of the Lals, Ali said there had been a “miscarriage of justice and a gross violation of their basic human rights — the right to nationality and citizenship and to a fair trial”.

Ali said Lal’s “writings and utterances irked the government” so they banned him from Fiji.

‘Smacks of sexism’
“And Dr Padma Lal, along with her husband, was also banned from Fiji.

“This smacks of sexism and once again disregards Dr Lal’s illustrious career as an ecological economist and her work on the sugar industry and environment.

“I urge the Fiji Human Rights and Anti Discrimination Commission to step up and challenge this draconian decision of arbitrarily banning citizens and taking away their birthright.”

Lal’s legacy would live on as an upstanding human being and citizen of our country, Ali said.

“Shame on you, Fiji. Those who violated his and Padma’s rights will surely live in ignominy and infamy.

“There is still time for a change, to amend the wrongs, too late for Brij but not for his family.”

Sad day for Fiji, says Sodelpa
Fiji’s main opposition party said the death of Professor Lal in exile was a sad time for Fiji.

The Social Democratic Liberal Party said Lal had hoped that he would one day return to his homeland.

Fiji claimed to have democracy but it still has a very long way to go, said Sodelpa leader Viliame Gavoka.

“The news of Professor Brij Lal’s passing fills me with great pain,” he said.

“We all know about him, a favourite son of Fiji who was refused permission to return home.

“He lived and hoped that he would one day come home and many of us pleaded for his case.”

But Gavoka said now he had died in a foreign land, away from his people and loved ones.

“How can our hearts be so hardened that we denied someone the right to his homeland and all because he expressed views different from those at the helm of leadership.

“Professor Brij Lal was loved by many and his legacy will live on in Fiji.”

Fiji poorer with loss of academic, says NFP
Among historians and scholars, Professor Lal stood tall around the world, said the National Federation Party.

From a poor farming family in Tabia, Vanua Levu, NFP leader Professor Biman Prasad said Professor Lal rose to be an emeritus professor of Pacific and Asian history at the Australian National University, one of the world’s highest-ranked places of learning.

“He was an acknowledged expert on the Indian diaspora around the world.

He was recognised as the pre-eminent historian on the history of indenture and Girmitiya.”

In his obituary to Professor Lal, Dr Prasad said Fiji was poorer with the passing of the academic.

“Professor Brij Lal banished from the land of his birth by the Bainimarama government in November 2009 for championing democracy and barred from entering Fiji upon the orders of the prime minister, has died, 12 years after the draconian act of a heartless government,” Dr Prasad said.

“The sudden and shocking death of Professor Brij Lal at the age of 69 should create a moment for all Fiji citizens to pause and reflect, even while we are distracted by our many personal challenges brought on by the pandemic and our other deep national problems.”

Dr Prasad said Lal was “a giant on the international academic stage” who was banned by the Bainimarama and FijiFirst government from returning to the place of his birth.

“But the pettiness of our leaders will not take away Prof Lal’s towering achievements and scholarship, for which he will one day be fully recognised in the place he was born.

“All of us in Fiji are the poorer for his irreplaceable loss.”

Dr Prasad said the NFP had organised a condolence gathering to remember Professor Lal.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Australian government has announced an A$170 million (F$267 million) programme for the Pacific region to strengthen gender equality initiatives over the next five years.

The commitment was revealed by Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Women Marise Payne during the high-level ministerial session at the 14th Triennial Conference of Pacific Women hosted by French Polynesia this week.

Payne said the programme reflected the importance of strengthening women’s leadership and would complement the work they were already engaged in with bilateral partners on gender and development.

“We’ll work in partnership with regional organisations and Pacific women’s funds and organisations. It’s a flexible programme designed to respond directly to partners’ needs,” she said.

“We want to build on our successes and learn from our experience. We’ll also focus on women’s rights, on safety, economic empowerment, on women’s health, including sexual and reproductive health.”

The challenges ahead for the Blue Continent included tackling the current pandemic and ensuring a sustainable future for the Pacific region, according to Payne.

“Addressing global challenges such as climate change requires us to use all of our resources and potential – that’s 100 percent of our populations,” she said.

Ensuring women’s safety
“If we ensure women’s economic security, we ensure their safety. We promote their health and wellbeing that’s not only of benefit to women and girls but to their entire communities.

“That’s one of the reasons Australia pivoted our development partnerships to better respond to the unique challenges posed by covid-19 through our partnerships for recovery strategy.”

She said they were working with Pacific partners to strengthen the region’s economic recovery, its health security and stability.

Australia has also partnered with regional stakeholders to deliver safe and effective vaccines as well as vaccine delivery.

These objectives, she said, could not be accomplished without first addressing the structural and cultural barriers that exclude and discriminate against women.

Fiji’s Minister for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation Mereseini Vuniwaqa said the triennial conference and subsequent 7th Women’s Ministerial Meeting opening on Tuesday was an opportunity to be inspired, learn and recommit efforts towards accelerating and progress the goal of achieving gender equality through the endorsement of a bold, action-oriented, inclusive and transformative outcomes document.

“This is about reaffirming leadership, commitment along with concrete actions to prevent male violence against all women and girls before it starts,” she said.

Building back better
“It is acknowledging that, our work and efforts must address urgently the intersections between, women’s economic empowerment, unpaid care, safety, leadership, social protection and climate crisis preparedness and resilience.”

Vuniwaqa said recognising that building back better from covid-19 needed all women and girls at the centre, leading, making decisions that served the planet, addressed inequalities, and achieved equal power-sharing.

“It is also about recognising that data and statistics that adequately reflect the lived realities of all women and girls of the Pacific — gender statistics for short — are critical and indispensable tools for developing evidence-based policies, legislation and solutions to achieve gender equality and empowerment of all women and girls,” she said.

More than 1000 people participated in the conference, which ends tomorrow and delivered via a blended approach of in-person and virtual interaction given that travel restrictions are still being observed across the region due to the covid-19 pandemic.

The event was organised by the Pacific Community (SPC) with funding support provided by the Australian government and the Spotlight Initiative.

Josefa Babitu is a final-year student journalist at the University of the South Pacific (USP). He is also the current student editor for Wansolwara, USP Journalism’s student training newspaper and online publication. He a participant in the Reporting on Women’s Economic Empowerment workshop organised by the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme (PACMAS) in collaboration with the Pacific Community (SPC).

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal has heard the voices of Māori women have been marginalised for far too long and the impact of colonisation has caused the negation of rights over their bodies, minds, and beliefs.

The Mana Wāhine Inquiry is underway in Kerikeri – it is the first of the pre-hearings – which are exploring the tikanga of mana wāhine and the pre-colonial understanding of wāhine in te ao Māori; of which will set the context for the inquiry.

The inquiry includes a number of wāhine-related claims – but the original claim was made in 1993 by 16 leaders – Dame Areta Koopu, Dame Whina Cooper, Dame Mira Szaszy, Ripeka Evans, Dr Erihapeti Murchie, Dame Georgina Kirby, Dame June Mariu, Violet Pou, Hine Potaka, Dame Aroha Reriti-Crofts, Dr Papaarangi Reid, Donna Awatere-Huata, Lady Rose Henare, Katerina Hoterene, Te Para (Mabel) Waititi, and Kare Cooper-Tate.

Lawyer for the original claim Natalie Coates had said the wāhine had much support behind them from others at the time it was presented in person 28 years ago.

The claim was triggered by the removal of Dame Mira Szaszy from the shortlist of appointees to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission.

The inquiry will examine the inherent mana and iho of ngā wāhine Māori; the systemic discrimination, deprivation and inequities experienced by wāhine Māori; and the extent to which the Crown’s conduct in this respect had been, and is, Treaty non-compliant.

Hineahuone was truly present at Turner centre in Kerikeri as claimants, their lawyers, and whānau packed into the room to begin the first pre-hearing of the inquiry.

First to give evidence
One of the original claimants, Ripeka Evans, who also put in a claim on behalf of the hapū and iwi of Te Tai Tokerau alongside Dr Papaarangi Reid, was first to give evidence yesterday.

Fighting back tears, she urged the tribunal to complete the claim in her lifetime – something that some of the original claimants were unable to witness. She said it would be remiss of her to not acknowledge how special this moment was.

After many joined her in acknowledging the significance of the beginning of these hearings, Evans told the tribunal and a packed public gallery – it was “time for business”.

She emphasised the inherent power, authority and status of wāhine in te ao Māori and the role of her tīpuna who signed the Treaty of Waitangi, who she called the founding mothers.

She described the traditional roles of men and women as essential parts of the collective whole, both forming part of the whakapapa that linked Māori to the beginning of the world and women in particular played a key role in linking the past with the present and the future.

Evans provided the historic context of the impact of colonisation.

“The colonial frame in which the colonising culture that looked to men as leaders and chiefs – this caused the negation of wāhine Māori mana motuhake and rangatiratanga over their whenua, taonga, mātauranga, hearts, bodies, minds and beliefs.”

Power, authority and status the bottom lines
She hoped that the inquiry would look at the power, authority and status as the three bottom lines that claimants were there to address at these tūāpapa hearings, to not just talk about, but find solutions for the future.

When asked by the tribunal to go back to what triggered the original claim and the role of the Crown in removing Dame Mira from the shortlist, she talked to the wider context of the Crown’s role in being silence on these particular.

Evans said, although the Crown had provided funding for the inquiry, this was not enough to show they had learnt a lesson after 28 years.

“The fact that we are here today, I have to call it out, the Crown funding for this claim is for the Crown to bring it – not for me – not for the claimants to come and tell their stories.

“It beggars belief that the lesson of the last 28 years his that the Crown has not woken up yet about mana wāhine and about the opportunities that that presents for those big issues.”

“And we are still looking to the tribunal as our ray of hope – we don’t have deep pockets.”

The hearing is set down until Thursday and will hear from more original claimants and other notable wāhine Māori leaders.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

by Dr Bryce Edwards

The Christchurch terrorist attacks have led to an important debate over the degree to which New Zealand society is characterised by intolerance and discrimination. Severe racism, Islamophobia, and general xenophobia appear to be the driving forces that led to the killing of 50 Muslims in Christchurch three weeks ago. It’s important to examine whether there are any connections between this extreme intolerance and wider prejudice in New Zealand society.

There have been many personal testimonies of discrimination, and analysis, highlighting religious and racial intolerance in New Zealand. But a debate needs more than anecdotes and assertions. Rigorous evidence and analysis is also required. In this regard, Simon Chapple of Victoria University of Wellington has just released some useful analysis of survey evidence about New Zealand attitudes and experiences of discrimination.

Chapple is a veteran social science researcher, and now heads the Institute of Governance and Policy Studies in Wellington. In a summary titled “How discriminatory and intolerant are New Zealanders?”, (not yet online), he explores a range of survey evidence about people’s experience of discrimination and how much tolerance New Zealanders have for others. Chapple concludes that, although discrimination exists, particularly towards ethnic and migrant communities, its occurrence can be seen as relatively small.

Looking at details from the most recent Statistics New Zealand General Social Survey, Chapple finds that levels of people reporting discrimination are relatively low, and don’t differ markedly between different ethnic groups: “Of New Zealand Europeans, 85.4 percent report no discrimination. Rates for Pacific (80.1 percent), Maori (74.4 percent) and Asian New Zealanders (73.4 percent) are lower, but still very high.”

Overall, “most New Zealanders – 83.1 percent – report no discrimination”. But what about different types of migrants? Chapple says: “there is little difference in reported discrimination between New Zealand-born people (83.5 percent report no discrimination) and long-term migrants (83.7 percent). However, while a large majority of recent migrants (74.3 percent) also report no discrimination, the figure was smaller.”

Looking at how comfortable people say they are about living amongst people with religions or ethnicities that differ from their own, the survey is also instructive: “In terms of acceptance of religious and ethnic diversity, the vast majority of New Zealanders indicate they are comfortable or very comfortable with a neighbour with a different religion (87.4 percent), and a neighbour from a different ethnic group (88.7 percent).”

Furthermore, the survey evidence suggests that there “is no notable difference in the tolerance expressed towards religious and ethnic groups as neighbours by migrant status, main ethnic category, or region.” Also, looking at the results for people living near where the Christchurch terrorist attacks took place, Chapple concludes, “Canterbury on this evidence is not a local hot-bed of discrimination and intolerance.”

Chapple then draws attention to the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, which is run out of the University of Auckland, and is specifically interested in attitudes to Muslims, Asians and Arabs. In this, respondents are asked to indicate their feelings towards people from this group on a 1-to-7 scale, in which 1 means “no anger”, 4 means “neutral”, and 7 is “anger”. The mean average results, according to Chapple, are: Muslims 2.93; Arabs 2.85; and Asians 2.55.

Obviously, there will be different interpretation of all this data. But according to Chapple, it clearly backs up Jacinda Ardern’s post-Christchurch message of inclusion: “This is not us”.

One of her most famous statements was: “We were not a target because we are a safe harbour for those who hate. We were not chosen for this act of violence because we condone racism, because we are an enclave for extremism. We were chosen for the very fact that we are none of these things.”

However, some have strongly objected to Ardern’s “This is not us” formulation, and proposed the exact opposite: “This IS us”. This was best illustrated by cartoonist Toby Morris in a very powerful comic strip – see: This is us. The cartoon concludes with a reply, seemingly directed at the prime minister for underplaying racism and separating New Zealanders from the killer: “But when we don’t say anything, we let a vile seed grow. This bullshit idea of US and THEM. But that’s wrong. There’s only us. All of us. This is us.”

For an even stronger reaction to Ardern’s “This is not us” statement, see Sahar Ghumkhor’s The hypocrisy of New Zealand’s ‘this is not us’ claim, which is published on the Al Jazeera news website. She says, “As a Muslim who grew up in New Zealand, this statement didn’t sit well with me”, and the statement itself reflects a ‘narcissistic self-view’ that actually arises out of racism itself.

Ghumkhor argues that the terrorist was neither an aberration nor an exception from New Zealand life, but instead “an integral part of the collective ‘we’ in New Zealand”. To suggest otherwise “is plain denialism and a cowardly flight into the white liberal sanctuary of the ‘third way’ from the discomfort of reality.”

She says Ardern’s words “signal that the majority is refusing and rejecting shame, the experience of which is key in the pursuit of restorative justice.” Instead, the reality is that “rampant Islamophobia in the political scene has been amplified by equally racist media which have systematically portrayed Muslims as inherently violent and ‘backward’ and Islam as an ideology justifying violence and the subjugation of women.”

A more mainstream version of this was also put forward by historian Anne Salmond: “After this terrible tragedy, let’s be honest, for once. White supremacy is a part of us, a dark power in the land. In its soft version, it looks bland and reasonable. Eminent New Zealanders assure their fellows that Māori were ‘lucky’ to be colonised by Europeans, that te reo Māori is worthless, that tikanga Māori have nothing to teach us” – see: Racist underbelly seethes just beneath surface.

Salmond elaborates on the extent of the problem, as she sees it: “After Māori, the indigenous people of this country, this sense of white superiority spills out over ‘other’ groups – Pasifika, Asian people, and now Muslims in Christchurch. Many of these people have been sworn at, punched and jostled, treated as aliens who have no place among us. Contempt breeds contempt, and hatred can breed hatred. Sometimes they strike back, as you would expect — although more often than not, at those close at hand.”

The argument is made by a number of commentators that racism and Islamophobia has been “normalised” in New Zealand in recent years, and this has in some way enabled the terrorist to carry out the atrocities in Christchurch.

For example, according to former Race Relations Conciliator, Susan Devoy, even those people who disagreed with her own controversial campaign around how to celebrate Christmas are complicit: “If you were one of those commentators: do not write an op-ed today crying about how shocking yesterday’s murders were. Because you helped make it happen. You helped normalise hatred in our country. You helped those murderers feel that they were representing the thoughts of ordinary New Zealanders” – see: Hatred lives in New Zealand.

Monica Carrer has put forward her problem with Ardern’s statement: “The danger, however, is to dismiss the fact that we do have a problem with race, and it is deeply entrenched in our society. We cannot simply hope that it was just the act of a mad bunch of people, and that once they are caught it will all be OK. We need to do something about this, we need to address the uncomfortable everyday reality of racism. Not just the open racism that ends up in violence, but also all those invisible everyday acts that silently hurt every single day” – see: We need to address everyday reality of racism to shut down acts of terror.

Some of the strongest recent statements about the extent of racism, have come from Green Party MPs. Co-leader Marama Davidson spoke at a vigil in Auckland in the week following the killings, where a number of those attending walked out, complaining the event was more focused on racism than mourning – see Michael Neilson’s Christchurch vigil or political rally? Why some people walked out of Auckland Domain event.

According to this report, “official speakers strongly challenged the rallying cry that last week’s atrocity that killed 50 Muslim worshippers and injured dozens more was ‘not us’. Muslim and tāngata whenua speakers covered experiences of everyday racism and violence they face, and spoke to New Zealand’s white settler history and colonial violence.”

Critics of the event said that the anti-racism campaigning and general politicisation was “too soon”, which led Marama Davidson to argue it was actually “too late” to be having these conversations. Furthermore: “A lot of people wanted to separate what happened in Christchurch from politics, but if we have any hope of truly honouring those who passed we need to listen to our Muslim, Māori, Pacific and migrant communities, all saying this is not just about a violent shooter, but about everyday racism.”

Finally, for some other recent evidence about tolerance and racial attitudes, Lincoln Tan reported last month on a survey, the Perceptions of Asia and Asian Peoples from a Te Ao Māori Perspective – see: Māori feel positive about Asians, but not if they’re immigrating – study. Here’s the main findings: “Māori feel a strong cultural connection with Asia and eight in 10 have positive feelings about Asians, a new study has found. But just three in 10 welcomed Asian immigration – with 38 per cent viewing it as negative and 32 per cent neutral.”