Diplomatic Recognition &The Trans- Tasman Fudge Factory.

Fiji Academic, Sitiveni Ratuva has confirmed existence of hypocrisy in an opinion article derived from his observations of diplomatic engagements, made by Australia and New Zealand.

This is the excerpt of the article:

Aussies, Kiwis a part of international hypocrisy over coups

STEVEN RATUVA
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Despite the international community's negative view of coups and attempts to promote democratic means of regime change, coups continue to be a favourite means of usurpation and assumption of political power in many post-colonial States.

Since 2000 there have been 24 "successful" and attempted coups in the world. Apart from the Fiji coups of May 2000 and December 2006, there were coups in Ecuador (January 2000), Solomon Islands (June 2000), Venezuela (April 2002), Central Africa Republic (March 2003), Sao Tome and Principe (July 2003), Guinea-Bissau (September 2003), Haiti (February 2004), Togo (February 2004), Mauritania (August 2005) and Thailand (September 2006). There are a few more I have not listed here because of space limitations.

Some of these coups, especially in small African States like Sao Tome and Principe, Togo and Guinea-Bissau did not attract much world attention compared to the Venezuela and Thailand coups.

The patronising assumption was that these were African "failed States" which did not have much political clout in the region and one would expect them to go through political instability anyway. On the other hand, the coup in Venezuela in 2002 (although it lasted for only two days) was a very high profile one because of the United State's alleged involvement.

The Thai coup was a high profile one because of Thailand's economic significance in the Asian region, as well as internationally.

International reaction to the Fiji coup

The 2006 coup in Fiji attracted considerable attention for a number of reasons. Firstly, for Pacific States, including Australia and New Zealand, Fiji was the political centre and Suva the unofficial "capital" of the South Pacific and any political disruption here would impact on regional stability.

Secondly, the fact that four coups had taken place in Fiji did not look good for the region which has been aspiring to create a harmonious and integrated Pacific Union through the Pacific Plan.

Thirdly, especially for Australia, political instability in the Pacific reflects badly on its regional job as America's "sheriff" whose role was to maintain stability and promote democracy in this part of the world.

On the basis of these, Australia and New Zealand could not afford to see Fiji go through another coup, no matter what the justifications were. To show their disapproval the two countries poured forth their venomous scorns in the form of direct condemnation in addition to "smart" sanctions and lobbying of international agencies like the World Bank to cut links with Fiji.

The justifications for the coup provided by the military regime were ignored as denunciation by the two countries continued. The bilateral scenario became sentimentally driven and to some extent became a personalised tit- for-tat war of words between Fiji and Australia and New Zealand, who found it almost entertaining to verbally whip Fiji like a naughty, truant kid.

Apart from the usual "regional responsibility" argument, Australia was very much embarrassed and possibly hurt by some pre-coup and post-coup developments which may have made it very angry.

The first issue was the incident involving the Australian SAS troopers who were sent to Fiji in November. Despite initial denials, the Australian Government was later forced to reveal their identity after their lives were threatened after the military referred to them as "mercenaries."

Secondly, the warning by the Fiji military for Australia and New Zealand not to carry out any invasion was a big blow to the pride and ego of the two big countries. It was a "you are big and I'm small but I can fight and defeat you" challenge which no militarily and politically powerful country would want to psychologically endure, especially coming from a small nation like Fiji.

Both New Zealand and Australia realised that any possible invasion needed an internationally legitimate justification and if they invaded Fiji it was going to be utterly disastrous. The military stand-off (if one may call it that) became a "Cold War" of sorts which went beyond the serene diplomatic relations the two countries had enjoyed for a long time.

The tension was worsened when the Australian military helicopter crashed into the sea, ironically on the same night Fijian soldiers were having an anti-invasion exercise in Suva Harbour. The Fiji military would have known the location of the Australian Navy ships (South of Viti Levu) and deliberately taunted them with the exercise.

The helicopter crash incident made the Australian military a target of international ridicule and humour and this must have embarrassed Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer. This embarrassment was later transformed into vengeful anger directed at Fiji.

Thirdly, the Fiji coup was a big blow to Australia's intention of expanding and consolidating its anti-terrorism security buffer around the Pacific. Australia has always argued that instability in the Pacific will allow for easy entry of international terrorists into Australia from the Pacific Islands.

However, there is, of course, no evidence of this happening, but there are a lot of evidence that terrorist groups are actually formed, carry out training and aim to blow up targets in Australia.

The Pacific terrorist connection is a myth propagated by Australian government advisors. For security-minded Pacific Islanders, association with Australia is in fact a security threat because Australia is officially on the Al- Qaeda and other terrorist group hit list.

Fourthly, Fiji's Interim Regime stood up to the verbal and economic threats by throwing back its own counter verbal salvos and threats.

Fifthly, New Zealand may have been infuriated by the failure of the Wellington talks between Bainimarama and Qarase.

It is suspected that the Australians were secretly hoping that the talks would collapse to deny their trans-Tasman rival, New Zealand, the sought after glory as Pacific peacemaker. Downer's statement that the talks were not going to work, even before the results of the talks were announced, was self-fulfilling prophesy of sorts.



New Zealand must have been disappointed to lose an opportunity to show the world its peacemaking credentials, as it did with the Bougainville peace agreement. Consequently they would have cursed Bainimarama for denying them that honour.

Sixthly, condemnation of coups is part of the normal international culture of image construction.

To condemn coups, wars or instability in any country is to tell the world that one is a lover of peace, an advocate of human rights, a supporter of democracy and a reliable member of the international community. It is a form of political self-gratification to convince oneself that one is full of politically righteous values that the "baddie" countries must learn from.

Western countries often do this and use such an opportunity to showcase their ethical principles (such as good governance), however hypocritical they may be. These factors in combination have been the driving forces behind the Australian and New Zealand fury on Fiji.

What about the United States? Fiji does not really serve any strategic interest in as far as the US is concerned (because we don't have oil fields) but as the only global superpower with global responsibility for "democracy", the US had to make a stand on Fiji. However, Australia and New Zealand, I suspect, have been vigorously lobbying the US to impose sanctions and use its unrivaled power to squeeze Fiji into submission.

Historically the US has been very choosy about which coup to support and which coup to oppose, depending on its strategic interests and which President was in power. In some cases it would deliberately help to stage coups against regimes with left-wing tendencies and oppose coups that would overthrow right-wing regimes.

Consistency and double standards

While the stand of the three nations on the Fiji coup is understandable, the US and Australian foreign policy (which are usually derived from the same template) are often controversial.

Both are prominent members of the "Coalition of the Willing", now caught up in the Iraqi quagmire. The US, in particular, has supported a number of anti-democratic coups in most parts of the world, the most well known of which was the overthrow of Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973 and the most recent being the temporary overthrow of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2002 and the removal from power of Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti in 2004.

Moreover, it's interesting to note that although Australia diplomatically denounced the Thailand coup, it did not impose sanctions nor did it send its warships to evacuate its citizens as it did during the Fiji coup.

The question is: Why was Australia bent on punishing Fiji and not Thailand? Was it because Thailand was too big and too significant to Australia? Was it because of the embarrassment Australia went through before and after the Fiji coup?

On the other hand, the US was more consistent in imposing sanctions on both countries by withdrawing military aid from Thailand ($24 million) as well as Fiji. Of the three countries, New Zealand is probably the most consistent in its foreign policy, especially in relation to human rights, nuclear arms and democracy.

New Zealand refused to be part of the Coalition of the Willing and in the 1980s its anti-nuclear stance led to the near collapse of the ANZUS treaty, a security agreement between the US, Australia and New Zealand to keep Soviet influence out of the Pacific during the Cold War from the 1940s to the early 1990s.

Double standard in policy articulation is, of course, common in international relations. For powerful countries, often strategic and economic considerations override human principles. The call for restoration of democracy and observance of human rights can be used as cover for strategic considerations.

This is the reason why small countries are increasingly cynical about big powers telling them what to do and not to do.

Saving the situation

The current sanctions and freeze in bilateral and multi-lateral relations will no doubt impact on Fiji's ability to recover. The analogy of a drowning person in a pool being pulled down by his "friends" every time the person comes up for air is relevant here.

The aim is to deprive the drowning person of air and eventually let the poor bugger die. The analogy may be too extreme but the moral of the story is quite clear.

Is this really what Australia and New Zealand want Fiji to go through?

Do they really want to punish Fiji rather than help the country recover?

Is political pride more important than people's welfare and lives?

This analogy has deep humanitarian as well as human rights implications.

Now that the sanctions have had their desired symbolic and practical impacts, it is perhaps timely to review them in the light of the current circumstances before they cause irreparable damage.

Continued sanctions will hurt the nation and even the region and this will make recovery and re-democratisation even more difficult. This is why cool-headedness must prevail and our neighbours must deflate their vengeful ego and take their cue from the European Union which has opened up doors for talks with Fiji to deal with some issues at stake.

Really, views for or against the coup do not matter anymore because for the sake of our collective future it is now time to initiate dialogue, repair the diplomatic and bilateral damage since December 5, 2006, and move on.

New Zealand and Australia should start engaging Fiji and vice versa on the basis of goodwill for the long-term stability of the region.

For its part, Fiji's Interim Government must draw up a more specific timeline with specific dates for the return to democracy and commit itself to its fulfillment. With these we will no doubt begin to see the thawing of tension and a calmer path towards normality.

Dr Steven Ratuva is a political sociologist at the University of the South Pacific. These views are his own and do not reflect those of the institution.

Club Em Designs

Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander.

The subject of treason charges levelled at the deposed Fiji Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, was addressed by New Zealand's Prime Minister, Helen Clark. In summation, Madam Prime Minister described the whole affair as "bizarre" in an article by crime.co.nz.

It also appears that, Helen Clark has come under her own shadow of corruption, as a Youtube video (below)has pointed out and judging from experience gained, Clark's advice on how to get out of a political pickle would be invaluable to Qarase.


If anything, the tag of Bizarre only reminds readers of the N.Z group, OMC and their hit single "How Bizarre"- music video.



Club Em Designs

A Note of Progress or

Is It A Penny Wise and a Pound Foolish?

Fiji blog: Invest in Fiji comments on the unfolding scandal in Fiji National Provident Fund, the nation's only retirement fund broker.

Invest in Fiji blog also raises important questions on oversight and the absence of timely action by Reserve Bank Of Fiji, whose Governor was more proactive in launching a new $100 Bill, than placing oversight of financial institutions on the front burner.



(Above image: Fiji President [L] and RBF Governor [R] at the launch ceremony for Fiji's new monetary note).


Fijilive article quotes FNPF board member who points out huge discrepancies in loan arrangements and investment, as well as shortfalls in resort project financing after an extraordinary audit was ordered after the suspension of FNPF C.E.O and Deputy General Manager.

It appears that Fiji Labour Party had raised the issue of FNPF investments in a 2005 article. Transparency International also raises the point in a Fiji Times article that, Auditor-Generals annual reports have been ignored, creating a culture of corruption within Government and Private sectors.

U.S idea of Human Rights-Being Accountable and Infallible

US Secretary of State, Condaleeza Rice launches the Congress mandated Country reports on Human Rights in a video feed made available by the US State Department. Video below involves a Question and Answer session after the introduction by Rice.



Apparently the U.S State Department authored report have yet to factor in the Amnesty International reports on U.S violations. Filling in this credibility gap of divisive policies designed by the Bush administration, an Iraqi-American rapper- TIMZ outlines his own track record of the abuses in Iraq in an outstandingly courageous music video (below).



According to the US 2007 Budget provisions, Human Rights makes up a slim portion of the US monetary policy, as analyzed by the Budget Graph, which also designed this impressive graphical representation of US budgetary allocations.



Club Em Designs

Throwing the Anti Corruption Net- Accuracy and Timing Is Essential.

Throwing the net wide on corruption

By MAIKA BOLATIKI
Fiji Sun Political Editor

It is reassuring to see that the Government of the day is realistic in its moves to eradicate corruption We must not forget that one of the major reasons the military forcefully removed the democratically elected Laisenia Qarase-led Government was corruption.There is no doubt that corruption has been rife in Fiji's civil service and this is a great shame. Some civil servants who have engaged themselves in corrupt practices are now sitting on hot seats as the Interim Government moves in with its newly formed anti-corruption unit.But Fiji is not unique in this regard. Corruption exists in all countries.

It is both a major cause and a result of poverty around the world, at all levels of society, from government, civil society and judiciary functions to the military and other services. And the impact of corruption in developing countries, especially on the poorer members of their societies is even more tragic.

At a joint annual general meeting between the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in 1996, James Wolffensohn said: "Corruption is a problem that all countries have to confront. Solutions, however, can only be home-grown. National leaders need to take a stand."

It is a fact that previous governments worked tirelessly to eradicate corruption.Even though they had made some progress, it still existed.To wipe out corruption, the Government will require enormous political resolve.

No one supports corruption.The ousted prime minister is on record as saying that there is no room for corrupt people in the civil service.In his contribution to the 2007 Budget debate in Parliament last year, Mr Qarase said the annual reports from the Auditor-General brought shame to the entire service and to the Government. "There is shame, too, in the amount of corruption that continues to surface - not just in the civil service, but in the private sector as well," he said. "I welcome the PSC's more proactive approach to stamping this out among public servants.

This will be given more teeth by an anti-corruption law cleared by Cabinet for introduction into Parliament. Also coming through the system are a Freedom of Information Bill and one covering standards of leadership. Both of these will have an important role in turning back corruption."The Qarase Government was totally against corruption and it is sad that it was not given more time to confront and deal with it.

The Interim Government, led by Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, is against corruption and has vowed to wipe it out before returning power to a democratically elected government.They know the task at hand will not be easy. But they have been mandated by the President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo to tackle corruption at all levels of Government.

To begin the work against corruption, the Interim Government has, time and again, stressed good governance.This is something they want instilled in all Government ministries and departments and it must be upheld by all workers.

The Interim Minister of Finance, Mahendra Chaudhry, while presenting the revised 2007 Budget said:"Government is concerned with incidences of abuse and corruption, which have cost our taxpayers and the economy significantly in wasted resources,deteriorating services and lost development opportunities.One of the key agendas of this Government is to weed out corruption by minimising opportunities to engage in such behaviour."

The measures outlined by Mr Chaudhry are as follows: We are establishing the new Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption with powers to investigate corruption and report directly to His Excellency the President. Additionally, a special unit has been set up in the Ministry of Finance to carry out investigations on all allegations of abuse of public funds identified by the Independent Commission.

The special unit will be equipped with competent and experienced auditors who will be empowered to visit agencies unannounced, conduct spot checks, and prepare timely audit reports. The new unit will complement the role of the existing Internal Audit Unit under the Ministry of Finance.

While the Internal Audit Unit will focus on regulatory audits, the Special Audit Unit will focus on performance audits and identify preemptive measures to prevent abuse before it occurs and ensure that the value of public expenditure is maximized.

Large capital projects will be regularly monitored to ensure that disbursal of funds is matched with physical progress. Engineering expertise will be engaged to independently check cost estimates against engineering designs for each project and to validate project implementation against fund disbursement. This is necessary where large capital projects are concerned.

Our commitment to principles of good governance is shown in our support of those agencies which uphold these. In 2007, the Office of the Auditor General will receive $2.9 million. The office of the Ombudsman, together with the Fiji Human Rights Commission, is allocated $1.4million. Further, $12.1 million is provided to the Judiciary.The Interim Government now has the resources to carry out its work against corruption.

I know there will be more investigations carried out by appointed teams into various Government ministries and department activities.However, a concern to be raised is the credibility of those appointed.

A suggestion from some concerned people is that we need total independence and overseas experts must be used. Transparency must at all times be prioritized during selection.The Interim Government must be mindful of the fact that domestic politics contributes enormously to the success or failure of any effort to reduce or eradicate corruption.

Vested interests need to be explicitly recognized and understood The Government must involve the citizens in fighting corruption. While we support the move to eradicate corruption, people appointed to carry out this task must have a clear police record.They must not be involved in any form of corrupt practices in whatever task they have been involved with.

If an official is already corrupt, it will be difficult to conduct investigations on reported allegations and the truth will remain hidden. It is a fact that, if any of the officials had been engaged in some of form of corrupt practice, he or she can be easily tempted.We must acknowledge the fact that corrupt officers investigating a high-level corrupt case can easily be tempted by bribes.

Government must be mindful of the fact that the fight against corruption is an increasingly specialized field and that corruption cases cannot be investigated solely with conventional tools. To effectively build complex cases, prosecutors and investigators must have the expertise available to them that is required for such cases.

An effective anti-corruption unit should ideally include prosecutors and investigators working together, along with the forensic specialists, auditors, and other experts who are necessary to complete the investigative team. Corruption and mismanagement thrives when best practices that promote transparency, responsibility and accountability are not followed. But a society that upholds and practices these best practice principles reduces the opportunities for corruption and mismanagement.

I will share with you Mr Qarase's belief on the subject: "In the final analysis, professional and personal integrity comes from the spiritual and family values we absorbed from our childhood. We were all taught the difference between right and wrong; we were taught about respect for rules, and to observe fairness and decency in our relationships with others.

These codes of life should guide us at all times." Government faces an uphill battle to eradicate corruption, but with its political will and the resources it now has, it can succeed. Realistically, it needs the support from the public and the true dedication and faithfulness of the investigators.

Rebuttal from S.i.F.M

Fiji Sun's Political Editor is rather fond of venturing off on tangents, rather than exploring the mechanics of factual events regarding the unbridled culture of corruption in Fiji.

Although, Maika Bolatiki acknowledges the rife culture of corruption, he launches on a diversionary garden path tour to diminish the seriousness of the offence, only after establishing that corruption has a global omnipresence. By extension of Bolatiki's logic, the existence of corruption in Fiji is not really a big issue.

The Fiji Sun Political Editor quotes an International Monetary Fund official and former World Bank chief, James Wolfensohn who said in 1996 that, "Corruption is a problem that all countries have to confront. Solutions, however, can only be home-grown. National leaders need to take a stand". Bolatiki further adds that deposed Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase also made a similar stand in his 2006 Parliamentarian address while presenting the 2007 Budget.

In essence, according to the application of Bolatiki's rationale that, since Qarase condemned the repeated Auditor General's report as “shameful”, it exonerates culpability and responsibility from him or SDL Government from the evidence of corruption in several statuary authorities. One case involving Fiji National Provident Fund which was reported a week ago by the Fiji Sun itself.

Bolatiki claims with oblivious insight, highlighting the premise that no one supports corruption and Qarase did not have sufficient time to confront the issue of corruption, in spite of six years at the helm. Although, the SDL Government had attempted to pass a new Freedom of Information Bill and Anti-Corruption legislation, only after the passage of the controversial RTU Bill; fundamentally those attempts by SDL Government were realistically devoid of adroitness to cease conspicuous corruption incidents, let alone widespread enough to eradicate the immense and inconspicuous magnitude of the cancer.

Despite the actions of the interim government in launching in depth investigations or their initiatives to form an Anti-Corruption entity, as well pursuing embarrassing corrupt practices; the integrity of the new appointees of the Corruption Unit was questioned by Bolatiki:”I know there will be more investigations carried out by appointed teams into various Government ministries and department activities. However, a concern to be raised is the credibility of those appointed”.

Compared with the other Bills which were expeditiously passed by the Qarase Government, it was well understood that the priority of combating corruption in Fiji, occupied the bottom of the hierarchy of needs.

With such an enterprising outlook of combating corruption, it is was expected but nothing short of alarming nor apprehensive that, the misappropriation of Agricultural programs, FNPF funds and the abuse in NLTB had not registered an extraordinary offense to arrest it by the SDL Government. While Laisenia Qarase may have a unique code of life to guide him, it is safe to assume that instead of guiding Qarase to the vested interests within these statuary agencies; the code led the deposed Prime Minister everywhere, but to the bottom of corruption.

With all the speeches denouncing corruption, everything comes to naught when no comprehensive action is taken to investigate, desist or criminalize well known cases of corruption or complaints of it. Deeds matter not words.









Club Em Designs

Hard Talk on Fiji.

Radio New Zealand podcast interviews the N.Z Foreign Minister, Winston Peters regarding the highballed statistics of Human Rights abuses in Fiji. Similar accusations were also levied by Commonwealth Secretary General, Don McKinnon also covered by Radio NZ article. Ironically McKinnon had formerly occupied the office of New Zealand Foreign Minister and his comments could have well been 'ghost written' from Wellington, as far as Fiji's interim Attorney General is concerned.



New Zealand Television's video (featured above) analyzes the recent 'Vote of No Confidence'against the Labour Party. So it appears that Winston Peters' opinion of Fiji is not reflected by all New Zealanders.

Apparently, there is no shortage of people pissed off with the New Zealand Government and their policies; including the N.Z conventional media. This ticked off citizen journalist from New Zealand has unleashed his anger on a YouTube video

Warning: Language may be offensive.

Club Em Designs

Point of Correction.

(Above image: Queens Road at Nadi Airport)

This posting is a rebuttal to the skewed facts published in Fiji Sun's Political Editorial, regarding Fiji's land issue.

Time to face land issue

By MAIKA BOLATIKI
Fiji Sun Political Editor

Very little has been heard from the Interim Government on the renewal of expiring leases.‭ ‬We should applaud the determination of past governments in trying to resolve this issue.‭ ‬However,‭ ‬it is unfortunate that it has become heavily politicised and a sensible and pragmatic solution cannot be guaranteed.‭

This opening paragraph leads people to think that,‭ ‬expiring leases was heavily affected by the interim Government.‭ ‬It is correct to point out that,‭ ‬the land issue has long been heavily politicised prior to the existence of the Interim Government. However,‭ ‬little description was given by the Fiji Sun Political Editor to outline how exactly this had come about.

Well,‭ ‬nothing is impossible on this earth.‭ ‬Ousted Prime Minster Laisenia Qarase,‭ ‬during his term in office,‭ ‬tried his very best to solve this problem,‭ ‬but could not,‭ ‬even though he had the backing of the Great Council of Chiefs‭ (‬GCC‭) ‬and the Native Land Trust Board.‭ (‬NLTB‭)‬.‭

Although,‭ ‬Laisenia Qarase had attempted to solve the land problem,‭ ‬the fact of the matter is that during his‭ ‬6‭ ‬years in office,‭ ‬little to nothing had changed.‭ ‬The very fact that GCC and NLTB were given carte blanche to decide the future of native lands that they did not own‭; ‬may have contributed to the failed attempts by Laisenia Qarase to phase out ALTA.‭ ‬Apparently,‭ ‬the numerous media reports of dissatisfied landowners were conveniently glossed over.

Access to land is a major prerequisite for any development.‭ ‬We all know the current system of land tenure in Fiji has been seen to be very rigid The Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act‭ ‬1966‭ (‬ALTA‭) ‬governs the negotiation and grant of agricultural leases on native land.‭ ‬About‭ ‬50‭ ‬per cent of all leases are ALTA leases.‭ ‬Since the leases began expiring in‭ ‬1997,‭ ‬it has been increasingly difficult to renew them under the ALTA framework.

Neither the landlords nor the tenants are happy with the terms and conditions imposed under ALTA.‭ ‬The landlords are unhappy about the low rental levels,‭ ‬which do not appear to reflect the value of the land,‭ ‬and the tenants want stronger provisions providing compensation for improvements in the event that the lease is not renewed.‭

Does Maika Bolatiki's attach empirical evidence corroborating his claim that,‭ ‬landowners and tenants were unhappy with ALTA legislation‭? ‬Clearly in the absence of such evidence,‭ ‬the Fiji Sun Political Editor made an unqualified view and through his misrepresentation of facts,‭ ‬aided and abetted the politicising of the land issue,‭ ‬which Bolatiki initially bemoans.

I must admit that the major factor affecting talks on the renewal of ALTA leases is that the ALTA legislation is constitutionally entrenched and can only be amended if a two-thirds majority concurs.

‭Before the military removed the elected Laisenia Qarase-led Government,‭ ‬hopes were high that the land lease problems would be solved because there was a multi-party Cabinet.‭ ‬Soon after the swearing in of the multi-party Cabinet,‭ ‬Prime Minister Qarase said he would make a proposal to his Cabinet that they should urgently find a solution to the land problem.

Should have,‭ ‬Would Have,‭ ‬Could Have are perhaps a summation of the biggest regrets for Laisenia Qarase's Government.‭ ‬It shouldn't require a Fiji Sun Political editorial to ascertain how things would be different‭; ‬such hindsight only confirms Bolatiki's apologist role as well as being a history revisionist for the deposed SDL Government and their controversial policies.‭

“I will be proposing to my Cabinet colleagues that we should urgently make a new start on discussion and consultation,‭’’ [‬Qarase‭] ‬announced.‭ `` ‬When we addressed this problem in the last parliament,‭ ‬we narrowed down the differences to the point where an answer was within sight.‭ ‬But this did not happen.‭’’‬.

‭[‬Qarase‭] ‬said there had been suggestions that they should delay finding a solution to the land issue,‭ ‬on the grounds that they first needed to ensure that the multi-party Cabinet was functioning properly.‭ “‬With the greatest of respect to those who hold that view,‭ ‬I do not think the Government or the country can afford to further postpone consideration of this vitally important question.‭ “‬We cannot ignore the social difficulties and human suffering caused by expiring leases.‭ ‬There are people and families involved here and we have a clear duty to them.‭”

Those social difficulties exist due to the unequal wealth distribution formula,‭ ‬which gives NLTB a percentage of lease rentals.‭ ‬Social difficulties exist because landowner are prevented from negotiating with developers on their own terms and conditions‭; ‬enslaving them into a mere observer status and stonewalling their avenues of social mobility‭.

We all know that the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Government had tabled a Bill to amend the ALTA,‭ ‬but it was defeated because it did not have the two-thirds support of the Lower House.

Another fact which Bolatiki glosses over is that,‭ ‬several SDL Ministers did not vote on that crucial Parliamentarian debate on ALTA.‭ ‬It appears that the were some differences within that party and apparently Laisenia Qarase's intentions to convert ALTA legislation failed primarily in attracting support from the landowners and tenants,‭ ‬as well alienating SDL in securing a bi-partisan solution.

Now that we have an Interim Government,‭ ‬we are glad that a media statement from Interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama stated,‭ “‬We will resolve the land lease problem.‭” ‬The statement ends there.‭ ‬What we want to know is‭ ‬-‭ ‬how is the Interim Government going to solve this longstanding issue‭?

The clean up campaign orchestrated by the interim Government is directing a series of reforms into Native Lands Trust Board‭ (‬NLTB‭)‬.‭ ‬Sadly,‭ ‬the decay within that landmark institution had escaped the attention of the SDL Government and Maika Bolatiki.‭


Also escaping attention is the long disdained formula for land rentals,‭ ‬the disconnect between the NLTB and the landowners,‭ ‬the abuse of Native legislation in Fiji to line the pockets of an elite few,‭ ‬the misdirection in NLTB's strategic plans that actually over reaches from its legislated function‭; ‬failing in its fiduciary duty to represent the landowner's interests and allowing land leases without landowner's succinct‭ ‬consent.‭ Notwithstanding the scandal in paying‭ ‬$11‭ ‬million for a IT software or NLTB's plan to create a cellular phone network with the vendor for the IT software.


In some media reported complaints made by the landowners,‭ ‬was that their signatures were forged by NLTB officials,‭ ‬to facilitate a million dollar development project on their ancestral land.‭ ‬Another media reported complaint was that,‭ ‬a negotiator and NLTB board member violated conflict of interest ethical guidelines,‭ ‬by representing both the Hotel developer and the landowner in drawing up initial terms of agreement‭; ‬which the landowner themselves were not privy to.

The ousted Government had proposed the Native Land Trust Act‭ (‬NLTA‭) ‬as the solution and that is for all ALTA leases to be under NLTA.‭ ‬The proposed NLTA leases give much greater flexibility in lease conditions,‭ ‬which would allow landlords and tenants to reach agreement within the legal framework.‭ ‬Considerably long security of land use is available and potentially higher rentals must be seen in the context of the illegal upfront payments for goodwill,‭ ‬which must now be paid for the lower rental levels prescribed under ALTA.‭

NLTA is supported by the GCC and NLTB.‭ ‬For this solution to materialize,‭ ‬it must have the support of two-thirds of the members of parliament.‭ ‬The NLTA proposal is strongly rejected by the Fiji Labour Party.‭ ‬The FLP wants ALTA retained and amendments must be made within the ambit of ALTA.‭ ‬Because of the rigidity of ALTA,‭ ‬it has resulted in the development of an illegal‭ “‬black market‭” ‬in which landlords and tenants reach agreement outside the law.

This black market is evident in the growing incidence of‭ ‬vakavanua arrangements.‭ ‬These are informal agreements‭ ‬-‭ ‬with nothing in writing‭ ‬-‭ ‬between mataqali and families or individuals who wish to occupy and use some land.‭ ‬They can run for many years,‭ ‬sometimes decades.‭ ‬The main problem with vakavanua agreements is that they leave the tenant outside the formal property rights system and thus unable to take advantage of the benefits of a legal leasehold title.‭

While castigating these informal arrangements of native land,‭ ‬Maika Bolatiki ignores the practice of it by past Fiji Governments‭; ‬which continues to rear its ugly head in the Courts.‭ ‬NLTB had even attempted to lobby for legislation,‭ ‬preventing indigenous landowning units from taking legal action.‭ ‬Those efforts by NLTB were soon abandoned because it violated the‭ ‬1997constitution.‭ ‬However,‭ ‬a similar clause [Section 5(1)]had appeared in the‭ ‬2006‭ ‬proposed Qoliqoli legislation‭; ‬giving NLTB the role of resource managers to native fishing grounds,‭ ‬as opposed to empowering landowner themselves to undertake the duties.

The Government of the day must solve the land lease issue.‭ ‬It must establish a legal framework that allows the landlords and tenants to agree on a sound,‭ ‬secure,‭ ‬legal basis rather than through an ALTA-based black market.‭ ‬The Interim Government made some bold changes when it came into power.‭ ‬Can it solve the land lease problem‭? ‬Surely it can,‭ ‬but it must be mindful of the wishes of the landowners.‭ ‬With Mahendra Chaudhry playing a major role in Government,‭ ‬he can surely come up with a solution.‭ ‬In fact he already has one.‭ ‬The GCC and the NLTB should be consulted.

Once again the consent of GCC and NLTB have taken poll position in Bolatiki's perspective.‭ ‬It is safe to assume that the very landowning units are located‭ ‬way down the Totem pole and that they have been rendered insignificant.‭ ‬This widely held view was echoed by a remark televised by Fiji TV,‭ ‬made by the deposed NLTB,‭ ‬Kalivati Bakani.‭ ‬According to Bakani,‭ ‬landowners are not educated enough to manage their own land resources.‭

The indigenous Fijians have land ownership rights and these cannot be forcefully taken a way from them.‭ ‬Even the barrel of the gun cannot remove this right.‭

This attempt to equate the recent clean up campaign with native land ownership,‭ ‬reminds us of the fear propagated by NLTB in late‭ ‬1999,‭ ‬to create resistance to Mahendra Chaudary's Government and their initiative to create a Land-Use Commission.‭ ‬It‭ ‬is now widely believed that,‭ ‬this induced climate of distrust paved the way for the‭ ‬2000‭ ‬coup.

In fact,‭ ‬these issues of native land ownership is currently featured in a Suva High Court lawsuit‭; ‬where a Suvavou landowning unit have claimed monetary compensation for the loss of their land and ancestral fishing grounds.‭ ‬Ironically the land in contention is now a City making up Fiji's capital and the central business district.‭

One wonders with incredulity on the fact that,‭ ‬NLTB the supposed guardian of native lands failed embarrassingly to pursue these issues.‭ ‬GCC‭ ‬,‭ ‬the Great‭ ‬Council of Chiefs are equally guilty,‭ ‬of failing to address the concerns of Suva natives.‭ ‬After all,‭ ‬isn't the GCC is a forum where all matters pertaining to indigenous Fijians should be raised.‭

It is brow raising to see how the pertinent issue of native land on Fiji,‭ ‬could be overlooked by the GCC.‭ ‬In fact,‭ ‬the inability of these native institutions to raise grassroots issues,‭ ‬call into question the justifications for having such institutions.‭ ‬Another case that represents the in-built dichotomy‭ ‬within native affairs, was the Monasavu landowner and their lawsuit for having their ancestral land taken by the State without compensation,‭ ‬for the construction of Fiji's only Hydro dam and power station infrastructure in‭ ‬1979.

(Above image: Fiji lawyer, Isireli Fa and his clients)

The Monasavu landowner's settled their lawsuit with the High Court issuing an unprecedented award of‭ ‬$52‭ ‬million,‭ ‬inextricably paving the way for other claims.‭ ‬Inexcusably,‭ ‬the NLTB and GCC did not address those matters‭; ‬prompting landowners to pursue legal avenues.‭ ‬Other embarrassing dimensions featured in the Monasavu case,‭ ‬was that NLTB had attempted to insert themselves as the sole distributor of the court award,‭ ‬but failed‭; ‬prompting the Court to create a landowner trust fund as a financial vehicle to distribute the compensation.

The people who are affected cannot wait until‭ ‬2010‭ ‬for the elected Government to take the matter up to parliament.‭ ‬This is a very sensitive issue and a solution must be reached through negotiation with all of the parties concerned.‭ ‬Under the constitution,‭ ‬the Interim Government cannot touch the ALTA issue.

Bolatiki's opinion then scatters from the issue of native land to the issue of the road map to‭ ‬2010‭ ‬elections and back again,‭ ‬without pointing out the significance.‭ ‬Bolatiki further highlights the ALTA issue and warns the Interim Government against touching the ALTA legislation‭; ‬while earlier in the article Bolatiki had advocated SDL Government's position of reforming ALTA.‭

Any amendments to the ALTA must be tabled in parliament and passed with the support of two-thirds of the members of parliament.‭ ‬There is no other legal way out of this.‭ ‬It is very important the Interim Government prioritizes the lease problem as it can build confidence for the investors who want to invest in the country at this trying time.

It is apparent that Fiji Sun Political Editor is using sleight of hand to confuse issues.‭ ‬ALTA legislation is a convenient Red Herring,‭ ‬while Bolatiki chronically ignores the inherent flaws within Fiji's native institutions‭; ‬that have saturated these institutions with a culture of corruption.‭

The repeated and unfettered abuse in GCC,‭ ‬NLTB,‭ ‬have raised concerns on the absence of any mechanisms of checks and balances over these powerful entities.

Another way out of this is to bring forward the general election and let the elected government deal with the matter.‭ ‬This again will not be accepted by the Government of the day.‭ ‬Surely the Interim Minister for Fijian Affairs is now working on a solution.

Clearly the solution pursued by the interim Minister of Fijian Affairs,‭ ‬is a systemic overhaul and re-evaluation of the branches of native governance.‭ ‬Undoubtedly,‭ ‬the stagnation and corruption of these native institutions did not appear on the radar screens of the SDL Government,‭ ‬Maika Bolatiki,‭ ‬NLTB and GCC collectively‭; ‬simply because they were part and parcel of the tentacles of misrepresentation.

Club Em Designs

Casting the First Stone-The Fallacy of Australian Human Rights.

Fiji Times article reports that, Australia will dispatch the reports of Human rights abuses in Fiji, to the U.N Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland. Radio New New Zealand article corroborates this news segment.
Although, Australia had appointed itself as a watch dog of Fiji affairs; Australia's own track record of human rights is far from exemplary. First that, Australia's own constitution does not have a Bill of Rights.

This 2004 podcast by Free Speech Radio News outlined the international law and human rights protection which Australia impinged on. The series of violations, had cast a looming shadow on Australia's integrity and demolished any remnants of Soft Power, the nation once wielded in the Pacific and Asia regions.

According to the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties webpage, Australia itself has a large collection of skeletons in its closet. This horrific statistic did not dent the efforts of Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer from his uncanny ability to lecture a foreign nation. Albeit, leading the effort in complicit gross violations of International Law.

Downer had threatened to report Fiji to the UNHRC and ridiculed the Fiji Human Rights Commission's Director in the process, all the while Downer and his Government wilfully dismissed the (UNHRC) United Nations Human Rights Commission's concerns of Australia's own chronic abuses; listed below. Insofar, Australia has contracted the "Holier than Thou" attitude to Human Rights and International Law.

Unfortunately, issues of Human Rights are more of rubber stamp to Alexander Downer; a stamp which gives him and the Australian Government absolute authority to prejudge the violations of human rights in other nations; whilst concealing one's own flaws in endless lectures of self centred obfuscation.

These Imperialistic behaviors are a dangerous trait, indicative of the influence from the U.S Bush administration. Behaviors like changing one's own ethical pillars, according to the prevailing winds of the day. For a layperson, it would easy to think that Australia would be a nation that leads by example. Sadly those visions of egalitarian ideals are being trampled on, ripped to shreds by the very people who preach about it.

Case	Violations	Description of Violation	Australian Government Response
Toonen	17(1)	Tasmanian anti-gay laws violate right to privacy	Legislation repealed
A	9(1) & 9(4)	mandatory immigration detention is arbitrary detention	Ignored
Winata	17(1), 23 & 24(1)	Deportation of parents of Australian child is arbitrary interference with family, and fails to protect the family unit and the rights of children	Have not been deported
Rogerson	14(3)(c)	Two years for a court to bring down judgment violates right to a speedy trial	No response required
C	7, 9(1) & 9(4)	Returning a mentally-ill man to immigration detention is cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and mandatory immigration detention is arbitrary detention	Not deported
Cabal & Pasini	10(1)	Holding two men together in a very small prison cell violated their right to be treated with dignity in prison	Men left Australia voluntarily
Young	26	Federal law that discriminates against gays violates the right of everyone to equal treatment by the law	Ignored
Baban	9(1) & 9(4)	Mandatory immigration detention is arbitrary detention	Ignored
Bakhtiyari	9(1), 9(4) & 24(1)	Mandatory immigration detention is arbitrary detention and keeping children in detention for two years violates duty to protect children's rights	Deported
Madafferi	10(1), 17(1), 23 & 24(1)	Returning a mentally-ill man to immigration detention violates his right to be treated with dignity in detention, deportation of father is arbitrary interference with family, and fails to protect the family unit and the rights of children	Not deported
Faure	2(3)	Australia does not provide a general mechanism to challenge laws that violate human rights	Pending...
Brough	10(1), 10(3), 24(1)	Holding a disabled juvenile Aboriginal man in solitary confinement, exposed to artificial light for extended periods and deprived of his blanket and clothes in a NSW adult prison violates his right to humane treatment & was inappropriate for his age.	Pending...
D & E	9(1)	Mandatory immigration detention is arbitrary detention	Granted temporary humanitarian visas in March 2006
Coleman	19(2)	Queensland laws restricting people from delivering non-violent speeches in public malls are a violation of freedom of speech.	Pending...
Shafiq	9(1) & 9(4)	Mandatory indefinite immigration detention is arbitrary detention	Pending...

---

Toonen v Australia (1994)

UN Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (4 April 1994)

Mr Toonen complained that Tasmanian laws criminalising consensual sex between adult males in private: were a violation of his right to privacy; distinguished between people on the basis of sexual activity, orientation and identity; and, meant that homosexual men in Tasmania did not enjoy equality before the law.

The UNHRC found that the Tasmanian laws were not reasonable in the circumstances and amounted to an arbitrary interference with Mr Toonen’s right to privacy under article 17(1) of the ICCPR. The Committee recommended that the laws be repealed.

In response to the Tasmanian Parliament’s refusal to repeal the offending laws, the Federal government passed the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act, which prohibits the making of laws that arbitrarily interfere with the sexual conduct of adults in private. In 1997 in the case of Croome v Tasmania, the High Court of Australia struck down the Tasmanian laws on the grounds that they were inconsistent with the FederalHuman Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act.

---

A v Australia (1997)

UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 (30 April 1997)

Mr A, a Cambodian asylum seeker, arrived in Australia in 1989. He was held in mandatory immigration detention for over four years and this formed the basis of his complaint.


The UNHRC concluded that Mr A’s indefinite and prolonged detention was arbitrary: a violation of article 9(1). The Committee also determined that Australia had violated Mr A’s right to have his detention reviewed by a court: a violation of article 9(4).

In coming to its conclusions the Committee noted that detention authorised by law can still be arbitrary if it is inappropriate, unjust, unnecessary or disproportionate to the end sought – even if entry into Australia was unauthorised. Significantly, the Committee observed that review of the lawfulness of detention must include consideration of the human rights listed in the ICCPR, which is something Australian courts cannot do.

In December 1997 Australia formally rejected the Committee’s findings and refused to compensate Mr A.

---

Winata v Australia (2002)

UN Doc CCPR/C/72/D/930/2000 (16 August 2001)

Mr and Mrs Winata both overstayed their visas and were unlawful residents in Australia. In 1998 they unsuccessfully applied for refugee status and the Department of Immigration ordered their deportation.

Mr and Mrs Winata complained that deporting them was arbitrary and unreasonable because it would split up their family. Their thirteen year old son Barry, an Australian citizen, had lived his whole life in Australia, only spoke English and would not fit in well in Indonesia.

Noting that the Winatas had lived in Australia for 14 years, the Committee concluded that if Mr and Mrs Winata were deported, then Australia would be arbitrarily interfering with the family, in violation of article 17(1), breaching its obligations to protect families, in violation of article 23, and to protect children, in violation of article 24(1).

As of July 2002, Mr and Mrs Winata had not been deported. Their future remains uncertain.

Note: the official government response rejected the findings of the UNHRC.

---

Rogerson v Australia (2002)

UN Doc CCPR/C/74/D/802/1998 (15 April 2002)

Mr Rogerson is a lawyer who was tried in the Northern Territory for contempt of court. He complained that it took the court almost two years to deliver its judgment.

The UNHRC found that the delay violated Mr Rogerson’s right to be tried without undue delay (article 14(3)(c)).

---

C v Australia (2002)

UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999 (13 November 2002)

Mr C, an Iranian national, was detained as a ‘non-citizen’ in July 1992. In 1993 a psychologist recommended his release, because his mental health was deteriorating rapidly. Mr C was finally released in August 1994 with severe psychiatric problems. In 1996 he received a 3½ year prison sentence for aggravated burglary and making death threats to a relative. In 1997 the Immigration Department ordered his deportation as a criminal non-citizen. Mr C complained that his detention by Australia had triggered the mental illness which was responsible for his criminal behaviour. He also feared persecution in Iran.

The UNHRC concluded that Mr C’s mandatory immigration detention was arbitrary because it was unnecessary, there was no individual justification and there was no chance of substantive judicial review: violating articles 9(1) and 9(4).


The Committee also found Australia in violation of article 7 (‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’) because it had continued to detain Mr C even after becoming aware that his mental deterioration was the direct result of his detention. The Committee also warned Australia that, having recognised the need to protect Mr C from persecution in Iran, to deport him would be another violation of article 7.

Mr C has been released into the care of his family. A decision is expected later in 2003 on whether his refugee visa will be reinstated.

---

Cabal & Pasini v Australia (2003)

UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/1020/2001 (29 August 2003)

Mr Cabal and Mr Pasini were both arrested in Australia in 1998 at the request of Mexico. On 17 December 1999 both men were held together for an hour in a ‘cage’ described as ‘about the size of a telephone booth’ and so small that two people could not sit down at the same time.

Messrs Cabal and Pasini complained that in prison they were not segregated from, or treated differently to, the general prison population, despite the fact that they were accused of no crime in Australia. For technical reasons these complaints were dismissed.

However, the UNHRC concluded that holding two men in a small cell, even if only for an hour, violated their right to be treated with humanity and respect while incarcerated, violating article 10(1). The Committee recommended that the men be compensated for this violation.

Both men have now returned voluntarily to Mexico. Neither have been compensated.

---

Young v Australia (2003)

UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000 (12 August 2003)

In 1999 Mr Young applied for a war veteran’s dependant pension. The Federal Department of Veteran Affairs refused to consider his application because his partner of 38 years was also male. The relevant law stated that to be a ‘member of a couple’ the persons must be ‘of the opposite sex’. Mr Young complained that he was being discriminated against on the grounds of his sexual orientation.

The Committee found that Australia had denied Mr Young his right to equality before the law and equal treatment of the law, in violation of article 26 of the ICCPR. The Committee recommended that the law be changed to allow the Department to consider Mr Young’s application on its merits.

In September 2003 the Australian Senate passed a motion calling for an end to discrimination against same-sex couples in Federal law. In August 2004, the Australian Parliament passed more discriminatory laws banning same-sex marriages.

---

Baban v Australia (2003)

UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001 (12 August 2003)

In June 1999 Mr Baban, an Iraqi Kurd, and his infant son arrived in Australia without travel documents. Their application for refugee status was unsuccessful. In June 2001 Mr Baban and his son escaped from the Villawood Detention Centre in Sydney.

Mr Baban complained that he and his son were treated inhumanely in detention. He also complained that he feared torture and serious mistreatment if returned to Iran.

The UNHRC concluded that their detention was arbitrary and not open to judicial review: violations of articles 9(1) and 9(4).

In 2003, Mr Baban and his son were still on the run from immigration authorities.

---

Bakhtiyari v Australia (2003)

UN Doc CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002 (29 October 2003)

In October 1999, Mr Bakhtiyari arrived in Australia from Afghanistan on a boat as an asylum seeker. He was detained in an immigration detention centre. In May 2000 Mr Bakhtiyari was granted refugee status and relased into the community.

In January 2001 Mrs Bakhtiyari arrived in Australia by boat with their children. They were detained in an immigration detention centre. Mrs Bakhtayari was refused refugee status. Mr Bakhtayari only found out that his family was in Australia in July 2001.

In December 2002, Mr Bakhtiyari's refugee visa was cancelled on the grounds that he had lied in his application for refugee status. In January 2003, the family was reunited - in an immigration detention centre. The psychological health of the children deteriorated and they self-mutilated. UN requests to release the Bakhtiyari family from detention, while there were outstanding court cases, were rejected.

In June 2003 the Family Court of Australia ordered that the children be released from detention.

The UNHRC found that the detention of Mrs Bakhtayari and the children for over 2 years was a violation of articles 9(1) and 9(4). The violation, with respect to the children, came to an end when the Family Court ordered their release.

The UNHRC found that Australia, by keeping the children in detention for so long when it was well-documented that they were suffering in detention, failed to protect the rights of the Bakhtiyari children in violation of article 24(1).

In April 2004, the High Court overturned the decision of the Family Court to release the Bakhtiyari children. On 30 December 2004, Australia deported the Bakhtiyari family to Pakistan.

---

Madafferi v Australia (2004)

UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/1011/2001 (26 August 2004)

Mr Madafferi, an Italian tourist in Australia, overstayed his visa, which expired in April 1990. This made him an unlawful non-citizen. In August 1990, he met and married an Australian citizen. They lived together in Australia and by 1996 they had four children.

In 1996 Mr Madafferi applied for permanent residency as the spouse of an Australian citizen. In his application he disclosed that he had served time in prison in Italy. He also disclosed that he had recently been informed that he had, in his absence, been sentenced to more prison in Italy, but that the Italian government had extinguished his sentence and cancelled an outstanding arrest warrant. The Australian Immigration Minister rejected Mr Madafferi's residency application on the grounds that he was a person of "bad character".

Mr Madafferi was sent to an immigration detention centre in Melbourne, while he challenged this decision in the courts. Mr Madafferi's mental health declined in the detention centre. At the request of the UN, Mr Madafferi was transferred to home detention. When Mr Madafferi's court challenges had all failed, immigration officials took him back to the immigration detention centre. Three months later he was committed to a psychiatric hospital.

The UNHRC found that the decision to send Mr Madafferi to the detention centre the second time, when Australia knew that Mr Madafferi had mental health problems, was a violation of article 10(1).

The UNHRC noted that the Madafferis have four minor children, that Mr Madafferi has a mental illness (partially contributed to by Australia's treatment of him) and that the family would suffer hardship if they were forced to choose between following Mr Madafferi to Italy (neither Mrs Madafferi nor the children speak Italian, and they would have to look after their sick father in a foreign country) or splitting up the family by some members remaining in Australia. The UNHRC found that if Australia deported Mr Madafferi it would be arbitrarily interfering with the family, in violation of article 17(1), breaching its obligations to protect families, in violation of article 23, and to protect children, in violation of article 24(1).

As of June 2005, Mr Madafferi was still in Australia under immigration home detention.

Note: the official government response rejected the findings of the UNHRC.

---

Faure v Australia (2005)

UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/1036/2001 (31 October 2005)

Bernadette Faure, a 21 year old Australian citizen, had her employment benefits cancelled for two months because she breached her "Work for the Dole" agreement three times in the space of two years. This meant that she was receiving no unemployment benefits at all during that time.

Ms Faure claimed that the Work for the Dole scheme was a form of forced or compulsory labour and therefore a violation of her human rights. Ms Faure attempted to challenge the law that set up the Work for the Dole scheme, but she discovered that there was no way to do this in Australia.

The UNHRC found that, under Australia's legal system, Ms Faure was unable to challenge a law that she claimed violated her human rights. The UNHRC found that this is a violation of article 2(3), which requires that everyone has the right to challenge a violation of their human rights provided their claim is 'sufficiently well-founded to be arguable' under the ICCPR.

The UNHRC found that the Work for the Dole scheme is not a form of compulsory labour. Therefore, Australia was not in breach of article 8 of the ICCPR.

---

Brough v Australia (2006)

UN Doc CCPR/C/86/D/1184/2003 (27 April 2006)

In February 1999 Corey Brough, a 17 year old Aboriginal youth, was sentenced to 8 months prison for burglary and assault. In March 1999 Mr Brough was transferred to the Parklea adult prison after he participated in a riot and held a guard hostage at the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre in a protest against conditions. In Parklea, Mr Brough began to self-harm and was placed in a solitary confinement cell for 72 hours, where the artificial lights were on all the time and where he was stripped to his underwear and his blanket was taken away from him. Mr Brough suffers from a mild intellectual disability.

The UNHRC found that:

"In the circumstances, the author’s extended confinement to an isolated cell without any possibility of communication, combined with his exposure to artificial light for prolonged periods and the removal of his clothes and blanket, was not commensurate with his status as a juvenile person in a particularly vulnerable position because of his disability and his status as an Aboriginal."

The UNHRC found violations of: article 10(1), which requires that prisoners be treated humanely; article 10(3), which provides that juveniles be separated from adults in prison; and article 24(1) which requires that children be protected by society and the State without discrimination.

---

D & E v Australia (2006)

UN Doc CCPR/C/87/D/1050/2002 (11 July 2006)

A family of Iranian asylum seekers arrived in Australia by boat in November 2000. 'D' (mother) feared returning to Iran because she had worked in the illegal adult pornographic video industry in Iran (a strict Muslim country). 'D' and 'E' (father) and their two children were kept in mandatory immigration detention until 22 January 2004.

The UNHRC confirmed that Australia's mandatory immigration detention regime is a violation of article 9(1), which guarantees the fundamental human right of liberty. Australia detained the family beyond a period that can be justified for making the necessary checks (ascertaining identity etc). The UNHRC concluded that:

"[Australia] has not demonstrated that other, less intrusive, measures could not have achieved the same end of compliance with [Australia's]immigration policies by resorting to, for example, the imposition of reporting obligations, sureties or other conditions which would take into account the family’s particular circumstances. As a result, the continuation of immigration detention for the authors, including two children, for [three years and two months], without any appropriate justification, was arbitrary and contrary to[article 9(1)]of the Covenant."

---

Coleman v Australia (2006)

CCPR/C/87/D/1157/2003(17 July 2006)

On 20 December 1998, Mr Coleman stood in the Townsville (Queensland) shopping mall and delivered a speech on various topics, including bills of rights, freedom of speech and land rights. He was charged, convicted and fined for 'taking part in a public address in a pedestrian mall' without a council permit. Mr Coleman refused to pay the fine.

On 29 August 1999, Mr Coleman again stood in the Townsville shopping mall (without a council permit) and delivered a speech. When police tried to remove him he sat down and refused to move. He was charged with failing to pay a fine and for obstructing police. He was arrested and held by police for five days.

The UNHRC noted that there are legitimate ground to restrict freedom of speech. The grounds are found in article 19(3) of the ICCPR. They include protecting the rights and reputations of others, and maintaining public order. The Committee noted that Mr Coleman's speech was not violent or threatening and did not pose a danger to public order. The Committee concluded that the council laws and the actions of police were disproportionate and therefore violated Mr Coleman's freedom of speech, which is a violation of article
19(2).

Note: the official government response rejected the findings of the UNHRC.

Postscriptum: Mr Coleman was again arrested in March 2000 in the Townsville Mall for distributing a pamphlet that described a particular police officer as 'corrupt'. The UNHRC was not asked to consider this incident. But in 2004, the High Court of Australia upheld Mr Coleman's constitutional right to freedom of political expression: see Coleman v Power [2004]HCA 39.

For more information about free speech and local councils and in shopping malls, read: Katharine Gelber, 'Political speech practice in Australia: a study in local government powers' [2005] Australian Journal of Human Rights 7.

---

Shafiq v Australia (2006)

CCPR/C/88/D/1324/2004 (13 November 2006)

In September 1999, Mr Shafiq arrived in Australia by boat as an asylum seeker. He fled political persecution in Bangladesh. He is stateless because Bangladesh says he is not from Bangladesh.

Mr Shafiq was refused a visa because he cannot prove who he is. Because he is stateless there is nowhere to deport him to. So he is being detained indefinitley in immigration detention. Australia will not release him into the community because it believes he will abscond.

In July 2005, as a direct result of his lengthy detention, Mr Shafiq was committed to a mental institution. The hospital in which he is receiving treatment does not have a fence and Mr Shafiq, if he desired, could escape at anytime. He has not done so.

The UNHRC confirmed that Australia's mandatory immigration detention regime is arbitrary and a violation of article9(1), which guarantees the fundamental human right of liberty. This is the sixth time the UNHRC has made this determination. Australia
continues to ignore the Committee and to violate the rights of people detained in immigration detention for lengthy periods.

The UNHRC noted that Australian courts can only decide whether a person
is being lawfully detained in accordance with the Migration Act,
without reference to fundamental human rights standards. The Committee reiterated its view that:

...the notion of “arbitrariness” must not be equated with “against the law” but be interpreted more broadly to include such elements as inappropriateness and injustice.

The Committee found a violation of article 9(4) because Australian courts cannot review Mr Shafiq's case in light of fundamental human rights.

---

Links

The text of the determinations of the UN Human Rights Committee is available at:

• Bayefsky
  Human Rights Website


• http://documents.un.org/ (use'Advanced Search' and type in the UN Doc number)

The federal Attorney-General's Department also maintains a webpage giving
the offical government line on these human rights violations. The webpage is
called: Human
Rights Communications.

---

This page is based on an article that first appeared in the Human
Rights Defender as: Michael Walton, "Are we listening to the United Nations? Australia and the UN Human Rights Committee" (2003) 12(3) Human Rights Defender 20.

Club Em Designs

Blundering Downer- Bulldozing into the Crosshairs of Legal Action.

(Above image: Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer [L] and New Zealand Foreign Minister, Winston Peters [R] at their Press conference.)

John Howard's Government is being accused of war crimes by a team of lawyers, according to an article by WSWS.


Sydney Morning Herald's article even quotes from a Judge, who remarked that the actions committed by the Howard Government, constitute a war crime even under Australian Law.

An article published by News.com, described the opposing legal positions. Lawyers representing the Commonwealth of Australia argued that; although, the State had a moral obligation, there was no legal obligation to repatriate an Australian citizen from foreign custody.

Lawyers for Hicks countered that the Australian Government failed to call for a fair trial for one of its citizens and breached a time tested understanding, resting squarely on the fiduciary compact existing between a state and their citizens.

These legal minds, are also advocates of prosecuting the current Australian Prime Minister and other senior Ministers. It is reasonable to believe that, charges could also be directed at the Teflon coated Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer - since being a senior personality in Howard's Government and the Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs.




This legal action facing Downer, comes in the wake of his malingering efforts to lobby pressure on Fiji, an effort which was singled out by the interim Prime Minister of Fiji in an article by Sydney Mornig Herald. Fijilive article reports that, the interim Fiji P.M had issued a warning to other Pacific nations, to be wary of Australia's imperial intentions.

This is an excerpt of the Fiji Live article:

Watch Australia, Fiji PM warns neighbours
Wednesday February 28, 2007

Interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama has warned other pacific island countries to be wary of "Australia's strategy to assert power in the pacific".

In a press statement yesterday, Commodore Bainimarama said that an independent assessment by the Pacific Island Forum's Eminent Persons Group (EPG) is being used by Australia to "establish a relationship of power towards Fiji".

"One should reassess the manner in which Australia reacts and engages in Pacific issues and one could get a fair assessment of how out of context they can become," said Commodore Bainimarama.

He says Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has caught Fiji's Interim Government off guard following comments he made during a joint press conference in New Zealand with his counterpart Winston Peters on Monday.

"I am surprised in the manner in which Downer is making utterance in an effort to influence the ability of individual Pacific Island Countries to make assessments of the situation here in Fiji."

"In such a situation the aspirations of the people of Fiji are subordinate to the wishes and expectations of Australia," he said.

He said the interim government has developed a comprehensive road map to return Fiji to parliamentary democracy by 2010 and is fully committed to accomplish that road map.

The lawyers exploring the charges of war crimes have reasons to believe that, the Howard Government colluded with the U.S Bush administration, resulting in the 5 year detention of Australian citizen, David Hicks.

Robert Richter, one of the lawyers involved had written a stinging outline in Melbourne's Age Newspaper. Richter's outline highlighted the dubious, dangerous and dualistic applications of international law, committed by the Howard led, Australian Government.

This is the excerpt of the Age article:

Hypocrites breaking our law at every turn


Robert Richter

PHILIP Ruddock is a hypocrite when parading his Amnesty International membership. He pretends to give a toss for the organisation and the principles for which it stands: the rule of law, freedom from arbitrary arrest and punishment, freedom from torture, opposition to the perversion of accepted civilised notions of justice and the obligations he owes to those notionally under his protection. Instead, he has publicly and shamefully betrayed all of these precepts.

He is a liar when he pretends concern for David Hicks' fate. His protestations about Australia's efforts to secure a speedy trial for Hicks cross the line of decency when we consider that Hicks is, after five years, not charged with any offence.

Nor is he subject to the jurisdiction of any lawfully constituted court of justice. We know he has not committed any offences against Australian law. Our A-G says so. We also know that he does not stand charged with any known crime against US law. So how is it that the Attorney-General has not demanded the return of Hicks to the country that owes him protection as a matter of law?

It is because the A-G has publicly prostituted his duties to the law — and to those he owes a duty of protection — in the service of his political masters in the government he serves.

I say this without cover of privilege and challenge him to sue for defamation and take the risk of the facts emerging in any litigation. Cabinet solidarity is one thing; his mealy-mouthed public utterances on the subject are another. He should at least have the decency to stay silent rather than seek to defend and advance the indefensible.

He is, when last I looked, the Attorney-General. That means he is the first law officer of the Commonwealth. It is his primary obligation as Attorney-General — not as a politician, which he discharges in the hurly-burly of politics as an ordinary MP — to transcend the lies and evasions of politicians intent on holding on to power, and to discharge his duties to the law and the constitution: to protect and uphold the rights and liberties of, as well as enforce duties by, citizens of this country.

His utterances about David Hicks are damp-squib lies and deceptions, as are those of his political masters John Howard and of Australia's-face-to-the world, Alexander Downer.

When I became a citizen of Australia, I believed that as part of my pledging allegiance I also acquired the protection of my country at home and abroad. I can no longer believe in the latter while people like Ruddock, Howard and Downer are custodians of such protections. Nor can other Australians.

Messrs Ruddock, Howard and Downer's pronouncements about seeking to have Hicks charged early in the new year (in front of commissions that have not yet been lawfully set up!) seem to me to be a desperate cover-up of their government's, fundamental dereliction of duty. Instead of demanding Hicks' return, they have made themselves complicit in procuring an illegal process to occur as soon as possible.

Rather than facing up to their duties to protect the fundamental rights of those subject to their theoretical protection, Ruddock , Howard and Downer are deliberately compounding the illegal actions of the American Administration by counselling and procuring an illegal process. This is a crime under our law.

Instead of confessing to a wrong and doing the decent thing by trying to set it right, they are pushing ahead with "churching the whore" after the abortion. They urge the Americans to create a facade of legality for what is seen by all honest jurists as a gross violation of national and international law.

Shame on you Philip Ruddock. I say the same to your superiors and accomplices, but I pick you out because you are supposed to be the enforcing arm of law and justice in Australia, instead of the aider and abettor of the disregard of national and international law and justice.

In his latest defence of the indefensible ( 7.30 Report, February 6), Ruddock likened the serving of "draft charges" on David Hicks to being charged in Australia pending committal proceedings. He is lying. Hicks has not been charged. This can only happen with the approval of a "convening authority", which does not yet exist. Moreover, he is deliberately lying when comparing the process to what might happen in Australia because he knows that a person charged here must be brought before a court as soon as practicable — within 24 hours — or have access to habeas corpus.

As a lawyer, he knows that if the matter had been placed before an Australian court, it would be struck out as an abuse of process for a number of reasons: one of the "draft" charges is retrospective and would be struck out.

The charge of attempted murder would be thrown out because, as any university law student would know, training is not an attempt to do it. You actually have to be "on the job" in trying to kill. This is so without even addressing the issues of hearsay or the use of coerced evidence, which raise other fundamental objections to what is proposed.

I used to say Ruddock bore an uncanny resemblance and presentation to an undertaker. I no longer do so because undertakers are decent, honest people doing a decent and honest job and should not be demeaned by a comparison to the indecency perpetrated by Ruddock as the frontrunner for his masters.

Shame on you all. Bring David Hicks home NOW.

Robert Richter, QC, is a Melbourne barrister.

Club Em Designs