Ani O'Brien: The BSA’s parting gift - Showing why NZ needs the Definitions Bill

Reflecting on how entirely mad the situation is

Animals often become most erratic in their final moments. Wounded, they lash out indiscriminately. Having lost the battle for survival, creatures frequently become more aggressive, more irrational, and more dangerous as the end draws near.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority appears to be experiencing a similar phenomenon. Although they are certainly less rabid dog and more deceptively friendly-looking otter.

John McLean: A different kind of rights

No pot of human rights gold at the end of this Rainbow

About three weeks ago, New Zealand’s Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Stephen Rainbow, talked to Michael Laws on webcasting media channel, The Platform. You can listen to most of the interview here (in order to listen to the full interview, become a Platform Plus subscriber):

Chief Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow On Polarisation

Ani O'Brien: Institutional Insanity - The Law Commission jumps the shark in new report

'Ia Tangata' has been published and it is as bad as I predicted

When I first warned about the Law Commission’s Ia Tangata review, I said it would be used to smuggle an activist ideology into the Human Rights Act. I said it would not simply “clarify protections” but would tilt the entire playing field, shifting the balance of rights, placing new burdens on ordinary New Zealanders, and hard-coding gender ideology into law.

The report is now out, and unfortunately, I was right.

Ani O'Brien: Trouble incoming - Law Commission Ia Tangata review

A review of the protections in the Human Rights Act 1993 for people who are transgender, people who are non-binary and people with innate variations of sex characteristics

When is a review not a review?

When the outcome has been baked into the process from the start, dressed up in bureaucratic neutrality, and served with a side of activist jargon. The Law Commission’s Ia Tangata Issues Paper (NZLC IP53) is a transparent case of a predetermined outcome.

Matua Kahurangi: More race-based bullsh*t in our universities

ACT MP calls out University of Auckland’s Māori-only job programme

Once again, race-based policies are rearing their divisive head in New Zealand’s public institutions, this time at the University of Auckland. ACT MP Dr Parmjeet Parmar has called out the university over a job listing that appears to blatantly breach the Human Rights Act 1993 by explicitly requiring applicants to be of Māori descent.

Peter Williams: Is this really our country?

The line on the official Parliament website is stark.

“Te ao Maori competencies and approaches are key considerations in our recruitment practices.”

This is not a stock exchange listed or privately held company, or a small or medium sized enterprise. It is the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. They are the organisations which administer our Parliament to ensure its smooth operation in the interests of every citizen and resident of this nation.

Yet here, buried deep in an extraordinary document called “He Ao Takitaki: The stars that guide us” is a staff hiring policy which says that unless you have competencies in te ao Maori and an approach to life through te ao Maori you’re unlikely to get a job at Parliament.

Bryce Edwards: Why Labour capitulated on hate speech laws

The Labour Government is currently fighting on multiple fronts that threaten its popularity in the run-up to next year’s election. Therefore, when a call had to be made about whether to push through divisive and poorly-designed hate speech laws, there really was no decision for Justice Minister Kiri Allan to make – the reforms had to be severely watered down.

On Saturday Allan announced that the Government had decided to ditch the majority of its hate speech reforms. Of six proposed changes to the law, only one will proceed – adding the category of “religion” to groups currently protected under the Human Rights Act.

Karl du Fresne: Bitten in the bum by the Human Rights Act

Surveys consistently show that New Zealand is one of the easiest countries in the world in which to do business. But I wonder if the researchers take into account the difficulties of sacking unsatisfactory employees, and the way the dice appear loaded against companies accused of wrongful dismissal.

Published reports suggest that any employer taken to the Employment Relations Authority by a disaffected ex-employee is on a hiding to nothing. No matter how outrageously the sacked worker has behaved, he or she is usually held to have been wronged because of some perceived procedural failure – often minor – by the employer.