Internet Mana Human Rights Policy clarification please

Thanks for this - I have updated the Ask Away comment based on your knowledge of MANA policy - thanks!

Thanks Laila

The lobby group End Seclusion Now will be at the Ask the Candidates meeting aimed at answering questions specific to disabilities, Thursday, 2pm 11th September, at ASB Sports Centre, Wellington. It would be good if the Internet Mana candidate is well informed on the issue prior to the meeting. Here are my contact details to support the candidate if need be:
021 888 996
jakwild@paradise.net.nz

We should address this as a general Human Rights issue , rather than one specific to healthcare . There is protection from arbitrary detention in section 22 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act , so that is where we should begin . The NZBOR Act should be supreme law , rather than one frequently overidden by Parliament on a case by case basis. Judges have been unwilling to tell Parliament it is wrong to do so , until a decision just this month in the High Court where the Crown tried to stop well known inmate & jailhouse lawyer , Arthur Taylor from seeking a Judicial Declaration that the law banning prisoner voting is inconsistent with the NZBOR Act . The Crown said a Court did not have the power to issue a "Declaration of Inconsistency" . However , the Court ruled that it did have such power and without prejudicing Mr Taylor's case , the Judge said it was "conceivable" that a Court could tell parliament it was wrong if it passed a law which was inconsistent with the NZBOR Act .
http://my.lawsociety.org.nz/in-practice/the-changing-law/case-commentary/taylor-v-the-attorney-general-of-new-zealand/Taylor-v-Attorney-General-2014-NZHC-1630.pdf

The Courts are of course influenced partly by international trends in human rights . NZ has been trying to have its cake and eat it . It has ratified international human rights treaties and taken the liberty of preaching to other countries on human rights while hypocritically retaining "exceptions" in its domestic law . Conditions of detention in hospitals and prisons and refugee centers are examples of where such exceptions are made - where liberty is often denied without regard to human rights .
It would be entirely appropriate for the Internet Party to take the lead by having a policy that the NZBOR Act shall be supreme legislation and other Acts which are inconsistent shall be amended .
New Zealand ratified the CRPD in 2008 and Minister Tariana Turia reported for the first time to the UN on its performance in 2011.
http://www.odi.govt.nz/documents/convention/first-report-on-implementation/article-14.html
Article 14 of the CRPD ( Liberty and Security of the Person ) covers both compulsory detention for healthcare and for correction , without making any distinction in principle .
A supreme NZBOR Act would , of course , be binding on the non-complying DHB's referred to above .

Are you saying that theoretcially someone in a seclusion room (as many always are) could seek a judicial review, along the same lines as Arthur Taylor did from his prison cell? Could a mental health consumer challenge the mental health law that provides for seclusion, on the basis that it is inconsistent with the NZ Bill of Rights Act? And if so is it possible they could be successful? I know of many consumers who would relish the chance to overturn the law allowing for seclusion during periods when they are arbritarily detained in mental health services.

No . I’m not saying that at all . Although I can’t help but point out that Arthur Taylor spends 19 hours + per day alone in a 10’ x 5.5’ “box” . He spent 8 months in the “punishment cell” at Auckland Prison in 2011 . As soon as he was released from the cell , he successfully challenged the prison smoking ban . The Ombudsman issued a report in January saying his confinement & denial of 1 hours exercise per day could be considered “torture” under the UN protocol. There are many mentally ill inmates who are held segregation in prison , instead of being treated .

Few detainees have the “x” factor Arthur Taylor has to master his circumstances and rise above them – and they don’t need to , if politicians make the law right .

I quoted Arthur Taylor’s case to show the judiciary is beginning to recognise the NZBOR Act should be paramount . Parliament should join them . As the years go by , those who sue the Crown for breaches of the NZBOR will get higher and higher payouts ( not the piddling $3,000 I got from the Police when I sued them for arbitrary arrest in 2009 ).

All that is needed is for other Acts of Parliament to harmonise with the NZ Bill of Rights Act . Then those who deny liberty arbitrarily or torture others can be held accountable .

So what is the best way to challenge the law that provides for solitary confinement in New Zealand hospitals based on the sole judgement of any nurse who gains support from their colleagues for such punitive approaches? When you say Acts of Parliament need to harmonise with the NZBOR do you mean through a political process of enlightenment of power brokers, or via a process of a legal precedent brought about by mental health consumers and/or their supporters?

I thought we were discussing what the Party’s policy should be .. Acts of Parliament will harmonise with the NZBOR Act when a majority in Parliament vote to change laws in accordance with that policy.

While waiting for the above , I suggest you complain to the Health & Disability Commissioner or the Ombudsman . Study the letter of the law and regulations by which the person is being held. I assume this Act is relevant – especially parts 5,6, & 7.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/0046/latest/whole.html#DLM264205

If you are prepared to go to the High Court , study the NZ Bill of Rights Act . I’m not as familiar with mental health detainees as with prisoners ( who are held under the Corrections Act & Regulations ).

One tack one can take is to see whether the detainee’s rights under the Privacy Act or the Human Rights Act are being breached ( which they often are in an abusive relationship ) . In this case you can start to undermine the people who are detaining them with complaints to The Privacy Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission at no expense.

True we are discussing what the parties policy are. Getting a majority in parliament to vote on any given policy also requires the party to support a strategy to engage those who are most affected by this human rights violation. Party policy, engaging the public, and promotion of support for this all go hand in hand don't they?

I agree that we should approach this as a human rights issue. People with mental issues (who decides what a mental issue is?) are human as well. Confinement should only be used as a last resort for dangerous individuals. You can't just keep people in confinement for convenience reasons.