Situational AnalysisHuman Rights in the Pacific: A Situational Analysis captures the human rights achievements and challenges of 16 Pacific countries between 2012 and May 2016.
It identifies gaps and opportunities to advance priority human rights issues confronting the Pacific.
The publication provides legislators, policy makers, academics, government and those interested in human rights in the Pacific with a resource and evidence-base to inform ongoing work.
The publication is produced by SPC’s RRRT with support from the European Union.
The 16 Pacific countries covered in the report are: Australia, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
 
 
 
                                                                  View|Download

Professor David Robie, prominent journalist and Director of Auckland University of Technology’s Pacific Centre, shared his experiences of human rights coverage in the region and stressed the role of the news media as watchdogs at a Human Rights and Media Forum held on 13–15 April 2016 in Nadi, Fiji. Professor Robie was chief guest.

Senior journalists and government communication officers from 13 Pacific countries participated in the forum, which had the theme: Enhancing a human rights-based approach to news reporting.  

“Human rights-oriented journalism is more focused on global rather than on selective reporting, with an emphasis on the vulnerable and empowerment for the affected and marginalised people - a voice for the voiceless,” Professor Robie said.

After the forum, he said “Journalists ought to be human rights defenders and bear witness to Pacific human rights violations. This forum was remarkably successful in providing the tools for a wide range of Pacific media people to bring accountability to offenders against human rights. I congratulate the Pacific Community's Regional Rights Resource Team (RRRT) on organising this important forum.”

The forum, which was supported by the Australian Government and European Union, released an outcomes document, reaffirming the vital role the media play and recognising the importance of strengthening news reporting, using a human rights-based approach. 

The outcomes document also acknowledges the importance of building a strong relationship between government communication personnel and journalists in sharing information and the roles they play in disseminating information. This document is being formatted into a poster for newsrooms in the region.

Romulo Nayacalevu, SPC’s Human Rights Adviser, said, “The media have a powerful voice in highlighting human rights issues and concerns, and this workshop provides the opportunity for journalists to dialogue on human rights and the media. SPC is delighted to work closely with the Pacific media to support their work in human rights reporting and we are excited about the outcomes document, which provides them with tips on how to do that.”

Giving a Pacific journalist’s perspective, Stanley Simpson, Managing Director of Business Melanesia Ltd, stressed that journalists in the region are frequently victims of human rights abuses while reporting on human rights in the region.

“Pacific journalists are often young and almost always broke, some have very little life experience, they are underpaid and overworked, they get threatened and intimidated regularly, and they endure a high pressure environment.

“People like to see journalists as instruments of change, but sometimes journalists just feel that they are being used by different sides with different agendas. So often they are going through the day-to-day slog of getting a newspaper or news bulletin out – it is easy to forget that they have the potential to influence change. It is important that this is addressed and journalists understand their roles as agents of change,” he said.

Belinda Kora, News Director of Papua New Guinea FM, agreed that journalists can influence change but their reporting must be responsible.

“I keep reminding my reporters that when it comes to reporting about human rights, if your story does not impact on the lives of victims or anyone else for that matter, you are only taking up space,” Ms Kora said.

She added that, importantly, journalists need to know their rights to be able to report responsibly. “How can we journalists in the region report effectively if we don’t know our rights?” Ms Kora asked.

The three-day forum strengthened media capacity in rights-based reporting to reflect the aspirations of Pacific Island communities for equality, development and social justice, said RRRT Team Leader, Nicol Cave.

Marian Kupu of Broadcom Broadcasting Limited, Tonga, said, “I found the three-day forum very encouraging because I learnt about my country’s human rights commitments and I see my role as a journalist to report on the gaps in order to encourage decision makers to prioritise and address the issues.”

‘Giving voice to the voiceless’ and ‘championing the rights of all peoples’ were key messages highlighted at the forum.

The forum was organised by the Regional Rights Resource Team (RRRT) of the Pacific Community in partnership with the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme, the Pacific Islands News Association and the Journalism Programme of the University of the South Pacific.

Professor David Robie, prominent journalist and Director of Auckland University of Technology’s Pacific Centre, shared his experiences of human rights coverage in the region and stressed the role of the news media as watchdogs at a Human Rights and Media Forum held on 13–15 April 2016 in Nadi, Fiji. Professor Robie was chief guest.

Senior journalists and government communication officers from 13 Pacific countries participated in the forum, which had the theme: Enhancing a human rights-based approach to news reporting.  

“Human rights-oriented journalism is more focused on global rather than on selective reporting, with an emphasis on the vulnerable and empowerment for the affected and marginalised people - a voice for the voiceless,” Professor Robie said.

After the forum, he said “Journalists ought to be human rights defenders and bear witness to Pacific human rights violations. This forum was remarkably successful in providing the tools for a wide range of Pacific media people to bring accountability to offenders against human rights. I congratulate the Pacific Community's Regional Rights Resource Team (RRRT) on organising this important forum.”

The forum, which was supported by the Australian Government and European Union, released an outcomes document, reaffirming the vital role the media play and recognising the importance of strengthening news reporting, using a human rights-based approach. 

The outcomes document also acknowledges the importance of building a strong relationship between government communication personnel and journalists in sharing information and the roles they play in disseminating information. This document is being formatted into a poster for newsrooms in the region.

Romulo Nayacalevu, SPC’s Human Rights Adviser, said, “The media have a powerful voice in highlighting human rights issues and concerns, and this workshop provides the opportunity for journalists to dialogue on human rights and the media. SPC is delighted to work closely with the Pacific media to support their work in human rights reporting and we are excited about the outcomes document, which provides them with tips on how to do that.”

Giving a Pacific journalist’s perspective, Stanley Simpson, Managing Director of Business Melanesia Ltd, stressed that journalists in the region are frequently victims of human rights abuses while reporting on human rights in the region.

“Pacific journalists are often young and almost always broke, some have very little life experience, they are underpaid and overworked, they get threatened and intimidated regularly, and they endure a high pressure environment.

“People like to see journalists as instruments of change, but sometimes journalists just feel that they are being used by different sides with different agendas. So often they are going through the day-to-day slog of getting a newspaper or news bulletin out – it is easy to forget that they have the potential to influence change. It is important that this is addressed and journalists understand their roles as agents of change,” he said.

Belinda Kora, News Director of Papua New Guinea FM, agreed that journalists can influence change but their reporting must be responsible.

“I keep reminding my reporters that when it comes to reporting about human rights, if your story does not impact on the lives of victims or anyone else for that matter, you are only taking up space,” Ms Kora said.

She added that, importantly, journalists need to know their rights to be able to report responsibly. “How can we journalists in the region report effectively if we don’t know our rights?” Ms Kora asked.

The three-day forum strengthened media capacity in rights-based reporting to reflect the aspirations of Pacific Island communities for equality, development and social justice, said RRRT Team Leader, Nicol Cave.

Marian Kupu of Broadcom Broadcasting Limited, Tonga, said, “I found the three-day forum very encouraging because I learnt about my country’s human rights commitments and I see my role as a journalist to report on the gaps in order to encourage decision makers to prioritise and address the issues.”

‘Giving voice to the voiceless’ and ‘championing the rights of all peoples’ were key messages highlighted at the forum.

The forum was organised by the Regional Rights Resource Team (RRRT) of the Pacific Community in partnership with the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme, the Pacific Islands News Association and the Journalism Programme of the University of the South Pacific.

 

FSM consultations on Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities ratification

 

1 August 2016

Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia – The Government of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), through its Department of Health and Social Affairs, is conducting a consultation on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in the capital Pohnpei this week, for relevant government representatives and civil society organisations.

The three-day consultation aims to develop the skills and knowledge of relevant stakeholders on the convention and is being supported by the Pacific Community’s (SPC) Regional Rights Resource Team (RRRT) in collaboration with Australian Aid and the European Union.

“The training is a very timely event particularly as the Department of Health and Social Affairs is preparing to submit a resolution on the ratification of the CRPD to the 4th Regular Session of the 19th Congress Sitting of the FSM Government that will be held in September,” FSM National Disability Coordinator, Stuard Penias, said.

The FSM Government signed the CRPD in September, 2011 and is proceeding with plans for ratification this year. The main purpose of the CRPD is “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities.” 

A resolution for ratification was submitted to congress in 2013 which was tabled to allow consultations with the states to get their input and support. Since then, each of the four FSM States - Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei and Yap - have passed CRPD ratification resolution during various legislature sittings. 

According to Mr Penias, the FSM Government endorsed a National Policy on Disability which identifies priority areas for action to promote societal awareness, and inclusion of persons with disabilities, including identification of their needs and opportunities.

“It is very important that FSM joins the rest of world in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities and to improve the livelihoods of persons with disabilities. FSM is also fortunate to get the assistance of SPC in this worthy endeavour,” Mr Penias said.

Topics that will be covered during the consultation include Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Non Discrimination and Equality including Reasonable Accommodation, Understanding the different articles of the CRPD, CRPD in practise and Monitoring and Implementation of the CRPD. 

“While the Pacific Region is slow on human rights treaty ratification, the CRPD is one of the quickest ratified treaties in the Pacific with 10 Pacific Community members having either ratified or acceded to this Disability Convention after it was adopted in 2006 and came into force in 2008,” SPC Regional Rights Resource Team Director, Mark Atterton said.

“SPC will continue to support the FSM Government as ratification of the CRPD is significant for FSM and its population with disabilities,” Mr Atterton added.

The President of Pohnpei Consumer Organisation, Nelbert Perez, stated that the ratification of the CRPD by Pacific Island countries shows the commitment of Pacific governments towards persons with disabilities in the region.

“Persons with disabilities in the Pacific face numerous challenges which hinder their full and effective participation in their various communities. The ratification of the CRPD allows our governments to take stock of provisions to safeguard rights and identify gaps in order to allow persons with disabilities access to the same opportunities as everyone else,” Mr Perez said.

The CRPD consultation concludes on 4 August.

Media contact:

George Isom   SPC RRRT Country Focal Officer, [email protected]

Stuard Penias  Department of Health and Social Affairs Disability Coordinator, [email protected]

MEDIA RELEASE

Pacific Community partners with Tuvalu to strengthen human rights

15 July 2016

Funafuti, Tuvalu - The Pacific Community is working with the Government of Tuvalu this week to formulate the country’s first national action plan for human rights which brings together Tuvalu’s existing commitments under the Universal Periodic Review, ratified Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and provides a timeframe for action across these human rights issues.  

The consultation which was opened by Tuvalu’s Prime Minister, the Hon Enele Sopoaga, brought together government ministers, permanent secretaries, members of the judiciary, senior government officials and community representatives to discuss key human rights issues in Tuvalu and see how this can be captured in this proposed national action plan for human rights.

In his opening remarks, the Prime Minister thanked the Pacific Community (SPC) for its continued partnership and support to the government especially on human rights including the support provided for the universal periodic review process (UPR), the treaty body processes.

Earlier this week, the Pacific Community concluded a week-long scoping mission with the Asia Pacific Forum (APF) on National Human Rights Institution on the feasibility of Tuvalu establishing a national human rights institution.

The consultation heard from different stakeholders including the Governor General, the cabinet, members of the judiciary, ombudsman, church representatives, Falekaupule (traditional assembly of elders) and community representatives on their views for the establishment of this important institution.

The scoping team comprising of APF’s Rosslyn Noonan and SPC’s Regional Rights Resource Team (RRRT) Senior Human Rights Adviser, Romulo Nayacalevu, were appreciative of the government’s leadership in calling for the scoping study and the commitment made to progress this initiative which is one of the key recommendations received by Tuvalu in its UPR recommendations.

The scoping team is preparing a report on their scoping mission which will then be presented to cabinet.

“Tuvalu’s commitment and leadership on human rights is clearly visible in these bold steps taken by government to consider both the feasibility of the establishment of a human rights institution as well as to consult on the formulation of this first national action plan on human rights. If endorsed by cabinet, this will also be the first for any Pacific country,” Mr Nayacalevu said.

“These initiatives by the government reflect Tuvalu’s ongoing commitment to improve the human rights situation as accepted through its treaty and UPR obligations but also as reflected in the government’s latest strategic development plan, the Te Kaketenga III,” Mr Nayacalevu added.

In partnership with UN Women and UNICEF’s Pacific office, SPC and Tuvalu’s senior government representatives also discussed the country’s obligations under CEDAW, CRC and CRPD and identified the crucial issues that need to be reflected in the proposed national action plan.  

Tuvalu is also the first Smaller Island State to conduct such a study into the possibility of establishing a national human rights institution. Apart from Australia and New Zealand, only Samoa and Fiji currently have a national human rights institution in the Pacific.

SPC supports all 22 Pacific Island member countries and territories in building a culture of human rights, and assists nation states to commit to, and observe, international human rights standards. This work is funded by the European Union and the Government of Australia.

Media contact:

Mark Atterton SPC Regional Rights Resource Team Director, [email protected] or +679 330 5994

Suva, Fiji – Child protection and welfare legislation passed by the Nauru Parliament will provide a family and community-based safety net for vulnerable children in need of care, and put in place comprehensive measures to protect children from all forms of violence, neglect and exploitation.

The Pacific Community (SPC) has welcomed the passage of Nauru’s Child Protection and Welfare Act earlier this month and is now focused on supporting the introduction of the new law.

UNICEF Pacific research in 2014, shows that as many as 8 out of 10 children throughout the Pacific region experience violence or abuse at some point in their life, at home, school or in their community.

As in the rest of the world, children in the Pacific need protection from sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, child trafficking, child labour and sexual abuse, with the prevalence of sexual abuse in the region ranging from 11-22% for girls and 3-16.5% for boys, according to UNICEF.

Children also face new forms of violence, including cyber-bulling through internet and mobile phones. Suicides of young people, especially young men, are also on the rise.

While all Pacific Island countries have ratified the international Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Nauru becomes one of only four countries to have domesticated this convention by enacting child protection laws, along with Fiji, Kiribati and Papua New Guinea.

“More Pacific Island nations are taking urgent action to protect children and create a safe and secure environment where children can thrive, and SPC congratulates Nauru on the bold action it is taking,” RRRT Director, Mark Atterton, said.

“Legislation is a fundamental step in creating an enabling and protective environment, along with community attitudes, cultural and normative change,” he said.

In this regard, RRRT will continue to work with the Nauru Government, and with UNICEF Pacific who assisted with drafting the Act, to help ensure the new legislation is fully implemented and to shift community attitudes towards children’s rights.

On welcoming the new legislation, UNICEF Pacific Representative, Dr Karen Allen, noted that “this Act brings Nauru into alignment with many international standards, including raising the minimum age of marriage to 18 for both boys and girls.

“In particular, we welcome the mandatory reporting of any sexual abuse or exploitation of a child by persons in authority in a school, church or other religious institution, health facility, prison, detention or corrections facility, or any other place where children are supervised or cared.

This sends a strong signal that sexual abuse or exploitation will not be tolerated – and supports child victims to safely report abuse and seek help,” Dr Allen said.

RRRT has been working with the national Child Protection Unit to develop a manual and reporting procedures for police responses to child abuse cases.

RRRT Country Focal Officer in Nauru, Stella Duburiya, has also been supporting the Child Protection Unit to review job descriptions for new staff to be recruited into unit. Additionally, in March this year RRRT delivered to Nauru a draft Family Protection Bill, which SPC was request to draft, as part of the Nauru Government’s suite of child and family protection measures.

Due to go through a consultation period in the coming months, the Family Protection Bill makes domestic violence a crime and provides women with access to Emergency, Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders against perpetrators of violence.

Media contact:

Mark Atterton Regional Rights Resource Team Director, SPC [email protected] or +679 330 5582

Useful link: SPC’s Regional Rights Resource Team Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

By Ruby Awa, Senior Human Rights Adviser, The Pacific Community

The story so far

Across the Pacific region, countries are in the early stages of implementing family protection and domestic violence legislation. This paper discusses their experiences to date.

In 2008, Vanuatu’s Parliament passed the very first comprehensive domestic violence legislation in the Pacific ‒ the Family Protection Act (2008). Between 2009 and 2014, domestic violence laws were passed in Fiji, Marshall Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, Kiribati, Kosrae State (Federated States of Micronesia), Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.

Commencement

Tonga had a very clear plan for the commencement of its Family Protection Act (2013). There was commitment to training, consultation and development of their implementation plan with a set time frame of six months. After six months, the act went through the required processes for commencement. In Vanuatu and some other countries, there was immediate commencement of their domestic violence acts, but the actual application of some provisions came later, with appointments, consultation, training and pilot programmes. Solomon Islands carried out nationwide consultation and training with the police, the courts, NGOs and communities over the course of two years before commencement of their act in 2016. Certain provisions, such as the registration of counsellors, will be delayed until a register is developed and the minister appoints counsellors.

Implementations plans

Implementation plans are a new development in domestic violence legislation. The idea developed from lessons learned in countries that already had domestic violence legislation. The Pacific Community’s (SPC) Regional Rights Resource Team (RRRT) has assisted Kiribati, Tonga, Tuvalu and Solomon Islands to develop implementation plans.

The plan sets out the framework for implementing the law, including the duties, responsible institutions/authorities, costing, and a time frame for fulfilling or commencing certain activities. For example, an implementation plan may note that police safety forms must be printed and that the forms should include the date of printing the first batch.

The implementation plan for Kiribati also includes narrative on the standards and principles that stakeholders should consider. The implementation plans for Tonga and Solomon Islands are in the form of a matrix that sets out short-term and long-term goals and an integrated monitoring plan.

Some countries develop their implementation plan after the legislation is enacted, while others develop it simultaneously. The Solomon Islands Bills and Legislation Committee considered a bill with an annexed implementation plan. 

The plans are living documents that are continuously reviewed and changed.  

Regulations

Not all countries with domestic violence legislation have developed regulations. Some consider that the legislation provides clear steps and definitions that responsible institutions can apply. Papua New Guinea held a consultation in 2015 on a draft family protection regulation that provided the necessary definitions and steps to guide the courts.

Counselling and mediation

Most of the domestic violence legislation in the Pacific provides for counselling. Counselling is not mandatory, but where the victim, or the perpetrator in some countries, wants counselling, approved counsellors must be arranged. While countries are working towards national standards and accreditation, the current development includes training for counsellors who are working with domestic violence victims.

Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands provide for mediation, but it is crucial that all service providers bear in mind that domestic violence happens where there is gender inequality and that power and controls rests with the perpetrator. Under the Solomon Islands Family Protection Act (2014), the only institution that can provide information on mediation is the court. This is not part of a court order, but as information should parties wish to undertake mediation voluntarily.

Training for stakeholders

Stakeholders include institutions that have duties under the act, such as the courts, police, health care providers, government ministries with roles in training, awareness and oversight of implementation of the act, and civil society groups that carry out awareness programmes.

The legislation provides for new protection mechanisms and ways to respond to domestic violence. It has therefore been necessary to train relevant stakeholders such as police, judges and magistrates, who have an essential role in ensuring the implementation of these protection mechanisms. Training of stakeholders is also necessary when they are given additional roles. For example, the Solomon Islands FPA provides for police safety notices, which meant police required training on their role as set out in the FPA.

Vanuatu was the first country to make training on its domestic violence act compulsory. Other countries are training the police and also developing modules on domestic violence for them. Human rights and gender are crucial components of the training as they are key principles in the application of domestic violence laws. Domestic violence is a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination. Where there is gender inequality, the disadvantaged and oppressed gender, mostly females, are more vulnerable and susceptible to violence in the home.

When I was in Solomon Islands recently for a training session, a police officer commented that even though the police now have powers to issue notices to perpetrators of domestic violence, their biggest challenge is to decipher whether the violence was the result of provocation.

Obviously, it is not the role of the police to consider provocation. Their role is to provide immediate protection for victims of domestic violence. This is one of the many discussions emerging around the Pacific in relation to new domestic violence legislation.

Training for the community

Police safety notices, also called police safety orders in some Pacific countries, are like court orders. The police are to look for three things: whether domestic violence has happened or is likely to happen; whether the two people involved in the violence or threat of violence are members of the same family; and whether getting a court order is not possible.

Domestic violence has been tolerated for too long in Pacific communities and one of the biggest challenges lies in attitudes to this violence. Emerging research shows the vulnerability of women and girls, but there is also a tendency to feel that men and boys are not considered. There is a need for consultation and discussion on this key issue: that the vulnerability of women and girls to violence, and the strategies to deal with it, should include both males and females. For example, both sexes find that reporting violence in the family to the police is a difficult matter. However, it is important to further consider that women and girls find reporting a male family member very frightening, as the male may be perceived as the person with the most power in the house.

Having the right information about domestic violence laws and the places to go to for help is crucial for community members. NGOs play an important role in sharing information on domestic violence laws in communities and some have developed, or are developing, relevant training manuals.

Some countries have set up committees that are responsible for approving training manuals to ensure that communities receive clear messages.

Advisory councils

Advisory councils or committees provide oversight of the implementation of domestic violence laws. These bodies are appointed by a government minister and have met in most of the countries that have established domestic violence laws.

The main outputs of most of the committees are an annual report to parliament on the progress of implementation of the legislation and a review after three years.

Conclusion

At the time of writing, Cook Islands, Niue, Nauru and the states of Chuuk and Pohnpei (FSM) do not yet have family protection/domestic violence legislation, although in all cases processes are underway. Enactment of legislation is a significant milestone but effective implementation of the laws is the most critical step in offering protection and change to women and children across the Pacific.

Human Rights-based Approach to Journalism in the Pacific

By Justice Stephen Pallaras QC, South Australia's former director of public prosecutions and more recently justice of the High Court in the Solomon Islands

GOOD MORNING LADY, quickly bring plenty drink come house eat go little village toilet goodbye

May be useful. Don’t know.

Depends upon whether an OPPORTUNITY to use those words presents itself.

The knowledge of the words is useless without the opportunity. And having an opportunity is useless without the knowledge, without the tools.

OPPORTUNITY is what I want to talk to you about.

To be the best in the Pacific when dealing with DM

Why the best?

Because most other countries in this area are terrible at it.

New Guinea probably worst, Solomon Islands shocking. New Zealand progressive – Family Protection Court. Fiji?

During my time in court and during the 40 years of practice in the criminal law, I have heard all the excuses. Some will say its traditional, cultural, we’ve always done it this way.

Some men have told me I have the right to beat my wife, have sex with her, I have paid the BRIDE PRICE and therefore she is mine. Other men have told me that they are entitled to have sex with my daughter because I am the man.

4 stories from S.I.

#1

Father charged with raping two daughters.

Excuse – I brought them up, this is my payment.

#2

Uncle sees niece talking to a boy from another village.

Knife, cuts her hair, sexually assaults her. Excuse -Teach her a lesson.

#3

Young girl 12 raped by her father. In giving her ev I asked if she complained to anyone. Mum. Mother called. Beat her daughter. Excuse – Brought husband’s name into disrepute.

#4

Man walks past his brothers hut in a village. Knows the brother is out working and that his brother’s daughter is being looked after by the grandmother. He goes in finds the grandmother sleeping, and takes the opportunity to have  intercourse with the daughter. Two things – 1. He had aids and he knew it, and 2. The girls was 3 years old. (2 years for indecent assault and 14 years for defilement).

Whether it’s the beetle nut, the beer, the gunja, the heat, archaic, distorted sense of values that are applied, THERE’S ALWAYS AN EXCUSE.

One father told me that in his village it was totally culturally acceptable for a husband to beat his wife or have sex with his daughters. EVEN IF THAT WAS RIGHT ONCE, YEARS AGO IN ANOTHER AGE, ITS NOT NOW. NO CHIEF OR VILLAGE ELDER HAS EVER SUPPORTED THAT EXCUSE.

But even if it was right in the past, so what? There was a time when cannibalism and eating your enemy was right and culturally acceptable. Not now. Why?

Because a culture is organic, it grows, develops and changes. It changes with knowledge, it changes with education and it changes with the change in the needs and expectations of a developing society.

Its not only in this part of the world where women have been treated as second class. I come from a European background – male child always traditionally valued higher. Look at the Chinese nation.

Hundreds of cultures, peoples, languages, traditions, religions on the planet. There are people who are black white yellow olive pink red and brown.

These things and others make us all different, differentiate us from one another, give us a sense of our history where we come from and who we are.

But of all the many things that separate us, there are many which bind us.

The number one factor that we have in common that binds us together on this blue planet, is our HUMANITY.

All of us are born with inalienable rights that no-one can give to you nor can anyone take them away. They are yours by virtue of the fact that you are human, they are part of the package. The right to food and shelter, good health, safety, the right to not be shot knifed raped or bashed.

Not one set for males and one for females.

So if that’s right, why is it that in S.I. a national study found “an alarming level of sexual violence”?

Why did 55% of women interviewed aged between 15 – 49 reveal that they had experienced sexual violence from their partner – the most common form being rape?

Why did 37% of women report that they had been sexually abused when they were UNDER THE AGE OF 15? ONE CHILD IN THREE. The majority (53%) said that the abuse had occurred more than 3 times – habitual.

As I said in New Guinea it is worse, and there are problems in every other Pacific nation, including in my country.

This is a multi-faceted problem that is bewitched by the letter ‘P’. The letter P defines both the problem and the solution.

START:

PARENTS: - EXPERIENCE AT S.I. SCHOOLS attitude of both boys and girls reinforces prejudice

POLICE: - ATTITUDE TO VICTIMS, INVESTIGATIVE SKILLS, VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS, WITNESS STATEMENTS

PROSECUTION: - DIFFICULT TO PROSECUTE. TRAUMATISED VICTIMS, EMBARASSED WITNESSES. NEED SKILL AND TRAINING TO GET THE STORY OUT WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAWS PARTICULARLY LAWS OF EVID AND PROCEDURE.

PUNISHMENT – ONUS ON THE COURTS. RAPE PUNISHABLE BY LIFE!

PERPETRATORS – HAVE TO LEARN CONSEQUENCES SERIOUS

POTENTIAL PERPETRATORS – UNDERSTAND WHAT WILL HAPPEN – EXPERIENCE IN S.I. RE GETTING THE MESSAGE OUT TO VILLAGE/CHURCH/SCHOOL TALKS.

2 BIGGEST ‘P’ problems I’ve left till last.

Parliament – has to provide the courts with the ammunition and appropriate penalties in legislation.

In this regard, Fiji has developed some useful legislation including the Crimes decree and the Domestic Violence Decree both of which I’ve had the opportunity to peruse. So the tools or at least some tools are there to be used. There is in this country a clear opportunity to use them.

And that brings me to the next and final “P” which I see as the biggest problem.

The biggest ‘P’ problem is Politicians.

I said at the beginning, that I wanted to talk to you about opportunity, this is what I meant. You have the opportunity, because of your positions, because you are here, to influence to guide, to establish your country as one of the leaders not only in the Pacific, but in the world. You’re not in the positions you are in because of your looks, you’re not there to make things better for yourselves, you are there as you know to SERVE, to DO, not just to think or even just to say, but to DO. And what is obvious is that a consciousness of the problem is growing. The realisation that a great number of half of the planet’s population is mistreated, is dawning on everyone, particularly men.

The greatness of a country some believe, can be defined by its economy, or the size of its military or its inventiveness or its sporting ability. The true MEASURE of a country’s greatness is how we treat each other as human beings. A measure of a leader’s effectiveness, of a politician’s commitment and integrity, is NOT what they say. – how do you tell if a politician is lying? Its can never be what they think or say. You will leave your mark on this nation, if you leave a mark, by what you DO.

SO THE QUESTION IS - WHAT HAVE YOU DONE SO FAR?

If your answer is I’ve thought about the problem – then you’ve done very little.

If your answer is that I’ve spoken about the problem – then you’ve done very little.

And if you’ve done nothing THEN THIS MAKES YOU A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM.

If you can say to yourself that I have done these 2,3,4,or more things then you’ve got an answer.

So what do you do?

  1.      Educate yourself as to the nature of the problem. How many women in your area have been subjected to domestic violence? How many children?
  2.      What has happened to their cases?
  3. What support have they received – what medical assistance, what treatment, what domestic assistance, what counselling, what psychological or even psychiatric support has been offered to them?
  4.      What are their living conditions like now? Still with their abuser?
  5.      What has happened to the children? Are they still at home? Were they abused and hurt? Have they had treatment, counselling, protection?
  6.      What facilities are available in your area for the protection of women and children who are beaten by their husbands?
  7.      Educate yourself about how much money has been allocated to DV and how it is being used? Who controls the money and is it being used effectively? “How would I know?” ASK, DO.
  8.      After you have educated yourself, then question yourself. What is my attitude to DV? What do I think of men who bash their wives? Do I use DV in my own home? The big questions – WHAT I HAVE DONE ABOUT IT? WHAT MORE CAN I DO? ASK.
  9.      After you have educated yourself and questioned yourself about your contribution to the solution of this terrible crime, the next thing to do is question the contribution of others involved in this area. Have my colleagues done anything or done enough?

Are the police in my area doing their job? Are women victims being taken seriously, listened to, protected? Do the police know how to help? Can they take proper victim and witness statements that will help the victim if it goes to court?

Is the DPP and his prosecutors doing the right thing by victims? In other words, are cases being taken to court appropriately and are the prosecutors being given the skills necessary to prosecute these always fraught and difficult cases? Are the police prosecutors up to task of presenting cases intelligently in the lower courts?

Now I know some of you might be thinking what is he talking about, I’m far too busy to get involved in all of that. It’s inconvenient. And you know right there, is the nub of the problem. Its precisely that attitude that has enabled and even encouraged men to get away with treating women like second rate human beings for so long. If you don’t get involved, nothing will change and long after you have left office and your successors take your place, someone else will be talking to them about what they can do about DV. We (you and me) are all temporary bit players in our communities – but men and women, husbands and wives, mothers, fathers and children are forever.

Some of you men, might be thinking or, even worse, saying, it’s a woman’s problem. Please think again.

This is not a woman’s problem except in so far as they are the one’s who get the broken noses, or the broken arms, or the torn vaginas or the bruised necks.

It is just as much a child’s problem because they see the violence in the house, they hear their mother crying for hours and they hear their father screaming and bashing their mother. We know that the basis of any civilised community and in this beautiful country, is the family and a family in violent turmoil is no basis for any country to grow or build a future.

But even more than that, it is a man’s problem. Because men are the perpetrators. They are the ones, they are the cowards, they are the drunkards, the bullies, who bash the women. They are the ones who will go to jail. They are the ones who will no longer be able to fulfil their responsibilities as husbands, as fathers and as citizens of this country – a country that needs its able bodied men working and contributing to the national wealth and to the common good.

So, the individual woman, wife or mother suffers. The children suffer. The man, husband, or father suffers. The family suffers and as a result, the nation goes backwards.

Don’t tell me it’s not your problem. Don’t tell me it’s a women’s problem. It is a national problem about which the citizens are entitled to look to and expect their leaders to be working their absolute hardest to resolve and moreover it is a human problem.

Now the S.I. government made great fanfare over the fact that after a very long period of time gathering dust, Parliament finally passed the Family Protection Bill into the Family Protection Act. This set out a number of new offences and procedures in the legislation.

All very well.

But this is where the lesson is for parliamentarians present.

Without the will to allocate financial resources to set up the womens’ shelters, the safe houses for children and their mothers, the financial aid that they will need to survive, to get medical treatment, to get help from social workers, psychologists and if necessary psychiatrists to help them recuperate and recover from their, what can sometimes be years of torture and mistreatment, all of the fine sentiments in all of the legislation, don’t mean a thing.  

Without the political will to DO something we are wasting our time. DOING IS A QUANTUM LEAP FROM IMAGINING.

The scale and dimensions of this problem are not simply personal, they are financial, they are social, they are national, they are international and more, they are human. It will take people with leadership, vision and courage. Are you one of them?

Harry S Truman once said -

“Men and women make history, not the other way round. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skilful, leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”

I implore you to be those leaders, not just managers. They say that management is doing things right, but leadership is doing the right things. 

THAT’S why I spoke earlier of opportunity. That’s why it is such an opportunity for you. You are in the lucky and very privileged position of being able to influence the direction of your people and your nation. DO something, act, initiate, lead.

Your countrymen and women will thank you for it, your children and future generations will thank you for it, your country will thank you for it, and you, will sleep better at night. Vinaka.

In March 2016, the Nitijela of the Republic of the Marshall Islands approved total funding of USD 40,000 to support WUTMI’s work on combating violence against women. WUTMI – Women United Together Marshall Islands – has been the leading voice in breaking the silence on violence against women in the country.

The announcement came after the Nitijela’s induction seminar held in February in Majuro. The Pacific Community’s Regional Rights Resource Team (RRRT) country focal officer for Marshall Islands, Tarjo Arelong, shares her reflections of the induction seminar and the key results of the event below.

The seminar took place from 22 to 26 February and was the first of its kind since the inception of the country’s constitutional government. It brought in two international partners: the United Nations Development Programme and the Pacific Community to facilitate the seminar, assisted by the Nitijela Legislative Counsel.

The Hon. Alan Griffin, Labour Federal Member in the Australian Parliament, attended the seminar and shared his experiences from the bench and his point of view as a judge. As someone who has been active in human rights issues, his input was very valuable. The MPs were very grateful for his insights and advice. He touched everyone’s heart.

The first three days focused on the constitution; Nitijela rules and procedures; roles of MPs, the speaker and the clerk; law-making processes; parliament oversight, accountability, transparency and integrity; national developments; and thematic issues.

The last two days were facilitated by the Pacific Community’s Regional Rights Resource Team and focused on human rights and good governance, with Justice Stephen Pallaras QC, South Australia's former Director of Public Prosecutions and more recently Justice of the High Court in Solomon Islands, drawing on his experiences from the bench.

This induction seminar was intense and very comprehensive. It captured all the relevant issues and subject matter that a national leader should be aware of and understand. Many of the Nitijela members are new and the human rights sessions strengthened their understanding of national human rights commitments, issues, and international human rights systems.

Human rights issues of domestic violence and gender equality were discussed at length and specific questions relating to temporary special measures for women in parliament were explained and clarified.

The discussions and presentations helped the MPs to be more informed, as evidenced by their pledging to make special appropriations in their budget to give financial support to WUTMI.  Several weeks later, that pledge became a reality and a USD 40,000 special appropriation was approved to support WUTMI’s work on addressing violence against women.

Key outcomes of the discussions were framed as recommendations and these will be presented to the President of Marshall Islands for further deliberation and action. The recommendations are:

Recommendation 1: That the Government of RMI consider and take the necessary steps to develop and create a national human rights action plan for RMI.

Recommendation 2: That the Government of RMI consider and take the necessary steps to: (i) develop a UPR Implementation Plan to support and guide the implementation of accepted recommendations under the UPR Process; and (ii) draft and submit its Country’s Initial and Periodic Reports under the CEDAW, CRC and CRPD Reporting Processes.

Recommendation 3: That the Government of RMI consider and take the necessary steps to sign and ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure.

Recommendation 4: That the Government of RMI consider and take the necessary steps to: (i) formulate a costed Implementation Plan for the DVPP Act; (ii) develop a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the DVPP Act; (iii) promote awareness amongst and sensitisation of national leaders (elected / appointed / traditional) on the human rights and development context of violence against women; (iv) strengthen preventive measures when formulating legislative, policy and other associated measures dealing with violence against women; and (v) support like-minded civil society organisations, including WUTMI, in consolidating national efforts to address violence against women. 

Recommendation 5: That the Government of RMI, through a scoping study, explore the concept and rationale for National Human Rights Mechanisms, including but not limited to the approaches taken in the Pacific, with a view to establish a National Human Rights Institution for RMI.

Participants’ awareness of human rights was raised during the induction seminar. Such awareness raising should be an ongoing activity in the country, through consultations, or by providing relevant reading materials, or in open forums.



SPC’s Regional Rights Resource Team receives core funding from the Australian Government and additional project support from the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Pacific Leadership Programme (PLP), European Union (EU) and the German Development Bank (KfW).