Metodología

The 6^th point of the re-evaluation team‘s recommendations was about greater cross-agency training on human rights issues: ‗Departments to ensure their staff, especially policy advisors, receive appropriate training in relation to human rights‘. Other voices have added to this since then, including the Commonwealth Secretariat, the HRC in New Zealand, and the OHCHR. The Commonwealth Secretariat in its report on NHRI best practice emphasised the role of NHRIs in this type of training:

Specific training [about applicable norms and human rights standards] should be designed for members of the police, military forces, judiciary, legal profession and other members of society that have powers or responsibility relevant to human rights … NHRIs can change the culture of government and its employees, the judiciary and the legal profession, the security forces and those in positions of power through training (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2001: 22, 23).

The OHCHR has linked strengthening the accountability of public officials as a key to upholding the rule of law, one test of robust human rights governance. They believed officials need to be trained in order to understand the rights they are upholding (OHCHR, 2007: 6). In May 2009 the Committee Against Torture gave its Concluding Observations on New Zealand‘s fifth periodic CAT report and mentioned the need for more human rights training. While they were pleased that training on human rights obligations is given to ‗police recruits, prison personnel and armed forces‘, they were nevertheless concerned about the lack of training for immigration staff (UN, 2009: 2,

3). A snapshot picture of the current training available in the New Zealand state sector (and through the HRC) is given below.

5.4.1 HRC, Justice and MFAT

The HRC, as the NHRI, is statutorily tasked with the function of general human rights education, but does not specifically offer training to government agencies at the moment because of lack of resources. However, the HRC is working with the Ministry of Justice on an ongoing basis to formulate human rights-related workshops for departments (HRC, 2008d: 2-3). Also through its Infoline the HRC does provide information on issues such as anti-discrimination and Treaty issues if requested by departments. The HRC‘s submission on the UPR report emphasised this area:

… the Commission recommends explicit government commitment to the full and effective incorporation of ratified international human rights standards in domestic legislation, in policy development and in public sector professional development and training (HRC, 2008b: 5).

The government department that takes the greatest cross-agency lead in human rights training is the Ministry of Justice, whose focus has been on ensuring NZBORA compliance in the state sector. To this end three documents have been produced to help policy advisors working with the Human Rights Act and NZBORA: The Human Rights Act 1993: Guidelines for Government Policy Advisers (Ministry of Justice, 2000b); The Non-Discrimination Standards for Government (Ministry of Justice, 2002); and Guidelines on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: A Guide to the Rights and Freedoms in the Bill of Rights Act for the Public Sector (Ministry of Justice, 2004). It is this last document which points out to policy advisors that policy making occurs within the context of New Zealand‘s international human rights obligations. The Ministry also assists the Institute of Judicial Studies in education for judges about international obligations, runs a justice forum for officials from the state sector to discuss topical issues, and provides all internal staff with privacy training.

MFAT holds an internal course on ‗Introduction to Multilateral Diplomacy‘, which includes a human rights element. In the past the HRC has organised courses for New Zealand's International Aid and Development Agency (NZAID) on human rights and development. MFAT are currently in the process of reviewing human rights training (Loose, 2009b: Personal communication).

5.4.2 Enforcement agencies

Four enforcement agencies – NZDF, the Department of Corrections, the NZ Police and the Immigration Service of the Department of Labour – also have human rights training available to their staff. For instance in the NZDF all military personnel, as part of their basic training, have comprehensive training on the law of armed conflict, the four Geneva Conventions, the Anti-Personnel Lands Mine Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and general human rights education. Further models are delivered two levels above basic training for commanders. They also provide ‗Equity Training‘ which covers the 13 grounds of discrimination, exemptions and some of the background to the Human Rights Act. This is given to all personnel during basic training, and in all military promotion courses and in Unit briefs. NZDF Anti-harassment Advisers also get comprehensive training on the Human Rights Act (Johnson, 2010: Personal communication).

The Department of Corrections currently trains new recruits in all policies and treaties during the initial training course for new Corrections Officers. This involves quite a lengthy session and covers all relevant information on the rights of prisoners within their care. They go over this area several times during refresher training and the department is in the process of writing new material with the ‗duty to protect life‘

initiative that is currently being expanded (Amesbury, 2009: Personal communication).

Over 2004 and 2005 the NZ Police worked with the HRC to tailor their introductory package ‗Making Human Rights Work‘ to operational policing needs. The resulting training was delivered nationally to police staff over 2006 and 2007. The purpose of that training was to enable staff to fulfil their responsibilities in helping the NZ Police comply with and apply the wider intent of the Human Rights Act and human rights principles. It built on other training initiatives on topics such as NZBORA, ethics and inclusiveness. The goals of the training were for participants to: be aware of the context for human rights; understand the basic elements of the Human Rights Act and the links to NZBORA; recognise International Human Rights Standards (IHRS) as they apply to policing; apply the Human Rights Act and principles internally, to police staff, and externally to their work with the public; and identify what they need to do to ensure that the organisation complies with and meets the wider intent of the Act. Since 2007 newly appointed staff (including probationary constables) have attended sessions as scheduled

by their district, and ongoing refresher sessions are also provided. In the recruit training programme there are a number of areas where the treatment of individuals/rights of individuals is discussed.¹⁰⁴ Training is also provided in relation to the Privacy Act 1993.

The Police Privacy Officer currently trains all staff who are qualifying as Sergeants, Senior Sergeants and Inspectors at the Royal New Zealand Police College. The Privacy Officer also provides training around the country and at National Headquarters as and when it is deemed necessary (Wilson, 2009: Personal communication).

The Immigration Service of the Department of Labour stated that how much training an officer receives on conventions, treaties and relevant legislation depends on what the officer does. The ‗average‘ immigration officer gets training on conventions such as the Hague Convention and sometimes UNCROC. The Hague Convention is looked at as part of their Adoptions Issues training and UNCROC is part of Student Policy training.

Privacy Act 1993 and Official Information Act 1982 training is also available for all officers. Compliance Officers are responsible for humanitarian interviews prior to removal or deportation orders being made. They receive training on the ICCPR, conventions and protocols relating to the status of refugees, UNCROC and CAT. As Border Officers are responsible for turning people around at the border they receive the same training. Refugee Status Officers are also now well versed about relevant international instruments. They Immigration Service noted that with the Immigration Act commencing in 2010 they have made a commitment to staff and external stakeholders to cover more about human rights as part of the training for the new Act (Cheung, 2009: Personal communication).

The agencies just listed have very good internal training and the Ministry of Justice has produced useful cross-agency publications. There has been a real attempt to train policy advisors about the cornerstone pieces of human rights legislation – NZBORA and the Human Rights Act. The international reporting obligations are therefore a real driver for public sector work. However, a further level of generic cross-agency training on specific treaty obligations has not yet occurred, and the suggestion given in Section

104 This has included but is not limited to: Victims‘ Rights Act 2002; Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the related Practice Note on Police Questioning (Evidence Act 2006); Criminal Disclosures Act 1995; Domestic Violence Act 1995; Crimes Act 1961/Misuse of Drugs Act 1975/Arms Act 1983 – detention powers/processes; Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment Act) 1992 – detention powers/processes/treatment of patients; Responsiveness to Māori; Sudden death – cultural factors and awareness;

Children, Young Persons & Their Families Act 1989; and Ethics (Wilson, 2009: Personal communication).

5.3.3 about covenant obligation seminars (or a similar initiative) could help this. A database of what human rights training is actually being offered by each agency would perhaps also be helpful, and that this could potentially be updated by a Human Rights Working Group.

Cross-agency training would also offer a useful connect between the macro-meso-micro levels outlined in Chapter 2. Officials could be given information on: (a) the broad principles underlying the human rights system; (b) the law and regulation level; (c) how this affects specific cases. Currently, it might be possible for an official doing ‗small p‘

policy work to have very little interface with the ‗big P‘ macro human rights system, but if the law+litigation/policy complementarity is strengthened it would advance human rights implementation much more effectively. At the moment there is not quite the inter-meshing where changes come through at that macro level, feed through laws and regulations at the meso level, and then down into specific cases involving an individual at the micro level. As this cascade is not entirely integrated, there is still more work to do in this area.