For More Information Contact:

Universal Income Trust, Patrick Danahey, ceres7@netaccess.co.nz;

Sarah Ayre: 1 Erin Street, Nelson, NZ

  DEMOCRACY = DEMOS KRATIA > . . . DEMOS = PEOPLE . . . KRATIA = RULERS

 E-Mail: uui/ubi@xtra.co.nz

 Introduction Table of Contents

1. This submission is from UUI Action NZ, C/-Volunteer Centre 50 Halifax Street, Nelson Email: uui/ubi@xtra.co.nz
2. We do wish to appear before the committee to speak to our submission.
3. UUI Action NZ is a group of concerned people whose primary aim is to support the establishment of an unconditional living wage for all Aotearoan (NZ) citizens and permanent residents in compliance with and in conjunction to the full adoption into law of the International Bill of Human Rights.
4. Primary people consulted in the preparation of this submission were Sarah Ayre, Joanna Danahey, and Patrick Danahey.

General Summary  Table of Contents

1. We oppose the intent and refute the assertions implicated by this Bill on the following grounds:

1. It is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; Contract Law (Duress); the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions No.29 and No.105 on the Abolition of Forced and Compulsory Labour; the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993.
2. The assertions on the function and efficacy of the proposed sanctions do not comply with any known or academically accepted models of human growth and development.
3. The concept of the "work for the dole scheme" has been in place since 1991 for unemployed beneficiaries under the auspices of the Community Task Force schemes and has not provided a means to full employment as attested by the High Commissioner of New Zealand in 1996.

1. Explanatory Note

1. Context - The implication is that the government needs to compel beneficiaries into the "work for the dole" schemes to "take up opportunities to move into paid work". If the jobs actually exist, why not provide people with the paid positions? New Zealand's "work for the dole" schemes are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 8.3a which states that "No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour," and the ILO Convention 29, Article 2.1. In a news industrial press release, Dunedin, February 18, 1997, "Josh Stevenson, of the Centre for Psycho-Sociological Development, said the ILO committee of experts viewed working for the unemployment benefit as forced labour, as it meant losing the benefit if the work was turned down."

UDHR Article 12 "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his/[her] privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his/[her] honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." The government has at no point in this Bill, or policies, indicated that it has not provided enough adequately paid jobs sufficient for an individual to raise a family. Instead it has run a misinformation campaign that has promoted the concept that the unemployment problem in NZ has been exclusively caused by lazy, unskilled, beneficiaries, and this Bill is a reflection of that discrimination.

2. Principle objectives - The implication is that the government is promoting a labour market focus to compel both applicant and spouse to take up full time employment. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25 everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of their family. This Bill is no longer recognising the value of a parent's right to raise his/her children by forcing both parents into an already overcrowded workforce. This also violates the rights of the child. According to the Convention of the Rights of the Child, in the preamble, it states "...for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality..." the child "...should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding." In articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 16, all recognise that the family is the fundamental group of society responsible for the growth and well being of the child. How can a child be adequately raised if the government is creating laws separating the primary caregivers to those to whom they are responsible: their children? The Bill also implies that an acceptable minimum wage for single waged earners will be less than what is required to provide for their families.
3. Summary of Key Measures - Community Wage (Clause 53) - The implication is to move sickness and 55+ beneficiaries into an overcrowded labour market. This will drive the wages down and reduce job security for those who already have them. The government should be providing jobs for those who really want and need employment.
4. Page ii- Explanatory Note continued - The message is "if you don't work, you don't get paid" to create an environment which is as much like work as possible. It has been custom in NZ, prior to the government imposed Employment Contracts Act on a unanimously dissenting public (rendering it as an "unjust Law"), that if a person loses a job they will receive an unemployment benefit in compliance with UDHR Article 25 (everyone has " the right to security in the event of unemployment...") and Article 3 ("everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."), all of which the government is violating with this philosophy. Furthermore, a valid work environment has compensatory positive "reinforcers". These include the usual fringe benefits of superannuation, pay raises, paid holidays, transfers, as well as receiving enough income to raise one's family, pursue hobbies, interests, travel, and so forth. We have not been able to identify any of these or equivalent "reinforcers" throughout this Bill or in this government's philosophy.
5. Page ii -"Work First " Message - Sanctions for Leaving a Job - The implication is that people must stay in a job regardless of how repressive the position may be to that person's well being, and if they leave it, they will suffer severe sanctions. People have the right to leave a position voluntarily. According to the International Labour Organisation's Convention No. 105: Convention Concerning The Abolition of Forced Labour, "... the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949, provides that wages shall be paid regularly and prohibits methods of payment which deprive the worker of a genuine possibility of terminating his employment."
6. Sanctions - The Bill revolves around the use of sanctions as a means for procuring employment. These sanctions threaten the basic human "right to life" which is an inherited inalienable right recognised universally throughout history in all civilised societies (International Bill of Human Rights Article 3). Any sanction that reduces a person's means to a basic standard of living is promoting crime (people must survive somehow), increased health risks and mortality rates for children, and ultimately death to the person receiving the sanction. For example, the UN sanctions against Iraq, that the NZ government supported, killed over one-half million children. In a prison situation, society would be outraged if we were to take away people's food for an extended period of time where it threatens their lives or puts them outside and exposes them to the elements without adequate protection. This would be viewed as cruel and inhumane punishment. If a person died from such treatment, it would be viewed as an act of murder. These are the effects of the sanctions that are being imposed on beneficiaries who through circumstance happen to be unemployed, sick, disabled, over 55, widowed, or a solo parent. They are in effect crimes against humanity (see also ILO Convention No. 29: Convention Concerning Forced Labour).

1. Part I

1. Work Test - Section 101 - One of the purposes for this Bill is to move people from subsidised employment into unsubsidised employment. In 1996, the New Zealand High Commissioner to Canada who also served as employment minister during the time of the introduction of workfare admitted that the scheme failed. In a Thursday, April 11 article, by Eric Beauchesne, Southam Newspapers, Canada, the New Zealand Commissioner, Maurice McTigue is quoted as saying, "Quite frankly, with the workfare thing, we didn't succeed." He further stated that the programme was costly and it was difficult finding meaningful jobs for participants. Further, he emphasised a broader issue that "It wasn't the cost either," but one of " ...how far a government could go in transgressing on people's rights by telling them to go and do this." Hence, the New Zealand Commissioner to Canada in 1996 questioned the validity of forced labour programmes.

From another perspective, all government employees are in "subsidised" employment paid by the taxpayers. These taxpayers include beneficiaries who are being attacked by this Bill via their governmental employees.

Further, the concept of work testing sickness and invalid beneficiaries implies that the government does not trust medical professionals in New Zealand. All of these beneficiaries are under medical attention with written medical reasons for their disabilities.

2. Organised Activities (Part I continued) - Section 109- This Bill implies that it is the Chief Executive's responsibility to consider what activity would or might assist the work-tested beneficiary to improve his/her employment prospect. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23, "everyone has the right ... to free choice of employment."
3. Sanctions Regime - Section 117- People may lose up to 40% of their benefit for showing up late to their community wage scheme. The penalty for being late therefore, is a 40%loss of the minimum requirement of food, losing one's home, with the option of forced criminality, or ultimately death for individuals and/or there families. In page ii of the explanatory note, it says, "the sanctions are also designed to be broadly consistent with the severity of the offence." What kind of measurement scales is the government using for these sanctions?

Conclusion Table of Contents

4. NZ Statute Laws do not supersede basic universally recognised rights even in emergency situations. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Report, Fact Sheet No. 2, (Rev.1), the International Bill of Human Rights, pages 6-7, "Certain rights, therefore, may never be suspended or limited, even in emergency situations. These [include] the rights to life ...[and] freedom from enslavement or servitude...." The Auckland District Law Society's report Human Rights Law from Domestic and International Sources, Section 5.37, states that under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of Treaties, "...the national law of the State may not be relied on as a justification for failure to perform its obligations under an international treaty."

Under the Bangalore Principles, principles no. 7-9, "It is within the proper nature of the judicial process and well-established judicial functions for national courts to have regard to international obligations which a country undertakes whether or not they have been incorporated into domestic law... However, where national law is clear and inconsistent with the international obligations of the Sate concerned, in 'common law' countries the national court is obliged to give effect to national law. In such cases the court should draw such inconsistency to the attention of the appropriate authorities since the supremacy of national law in no way mitigates a breach of an international legal obligation which is undertaken by a country. ...It is essential to redress a situation where, by reason of traditional dimension, judges and practising lawyers are often unaware of the remarkable and comprehensive developments of statements of international human rights norms." The Bangalore Principles have been reaffirmed by the 1993 High Level Judicial Colloquium in Bloemfontein, South Africa. New Zealand was represented by Rt Hon Sir Robin Cooke, XBE, President of the Court of Appeal. Further, in the Bloemfontein statement, it was stated "that it is during the times of public emergency that fundamental rights are most at risk and when courts must be vigilant in their protection.... In democratic societies fundamental human rights are more than just paper aspirations. They form part of the law. In a society ruled by law... all branches of government-the legislature and the executive, as well as the judiciary itself... must act in accordance with the law".

The World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993, acknowledged that three quarters of the violators of human rights guaranteed in international documents are the State Parties themselves. This government has implemented a compulsory labour regime as a solution to an economic/unemployment crisis in New Zealand. In the process it has greatly undermined fundamental human rights and international laws in its adoption of this programme through the recent systematic modifications of the Social Security Act 1964 culminating in the proposal of this Bill. In 1978 the Prime Minister of NZ, in his speech to ratify the two Human Rights Covenants said,

"We have regarded the two international covenants as legal documents of substantial value and importance..." "human rights has had a central place in our traditions... We have now completed a comprehensive review of our legislation and are satisfied that our laws are in compliance with the requirements of the two international covenants."

The NZ Bill of Rights as well as the NZ Human Rights Act of 1993, both refer to these covenants in their introduction as the basis of their existence.

At present the Unemployed are not covered by The Human Rights Act due to government exemptions. They are not covered by the Employment Contracts Act. They have no direct means for representation in NZ under the ILO agreements and have extremely minimal access to the UN Human Rights Commission due to the shear volumes of complaints. This Bill continues a regressive move to dehumanise a once internationally recognised country for its progressive social policies.

 

Recommendations Table of Contents

5. Aotearoa (NZ) has a history of full employment extending over a period of 30 years. The methods that were used then are consistent with some of the ones that our group is advocating now. We recommend that the committee adopt the following:

1. Scrap this Bill and its direction entirely along with the work test for all beneficiaries.
2. Eliminate the compulsory requirements of training schemes and allow them to be voluntary;
3. Provide a variety of paid jobs available to meet individual differences;
4. Provide jobs that meet a sufficient minimum income to raise a family.
5. Investigate the feasibility of an unconditional universal income for all New Zealand citizens and permanent residents.

Introduction Table of Contents

1. This submission is from UUI Action NZ, C/-Volunteer Centre, 50 Halifax Street, Nelson, NZ; E-mail: uui/ubi@xtra.co.nz
2. We wish to appear before the committee to speak to our submission.
3. UUI Action NZ is a group of concerned people whose primary aim is to support the establishment of an unconditional living wage for all Aotearoan (NZ) citizens and permanent residents in compliance with and in conjunction to the full adoption into law of the International Bill of Human Rights.
4. Primary people consulted in the preparation of this submission were Sarah Ayre, Joanna Danahey, and Patrick Danahey.

Recommendations Table of Contents

We submit that the Government should, in accordance with international human rights laws that take precedence over national statute laws, do the following:

1. Research the various universal income systems that comply with the International Bill of Human Rights. Opt for those that would be most suitable for Aotearoa NZ's unique social and economic environment.
2. Fund universities to carry out this research to find and develop the most economical and social viable proposals. Present them to voters with pros and cons for selection.
3. Prioritise supporting a UUI form of a universal income that pays a basic living wage to every individual, unconditionally, for their responsibilities as sovereigns of the nation. These responsibilities include monitoring and caring for the natural environment, the economy, and securing human rights for everyone.
4. Fully adopt into statute laws the International Bill of Human Rights for everyone.
5. Prioritise the development of an education system that educates people of their responsibilities as sovereigns of society and how a democratic society functions in accordance with the International Bill of Human Rights and its subsequent conventions.
6. Recognise and act on the need for the immediate adoption of these types of policies due to the recent law changes for common law countries (i.e. international human rights laws take precedence over statute laws and are the first responsibility of all governments.). The government's present and proposed policies as they relate to unemployed beneficiaries are illegal and will exacerbate the unemployment problem. See submission to the Social Security Amendment Bill #5 by UUI action NZ.

Universal Income Systems - defined and delineated Table of Contents

In conjunction with the above rights, which help to form the parameters of a given income system's legitimacy, the system must also accommodate the mandate to move towards a free education system for all, along with an equal access health system which by definition would probably also have to be free for everyone (For additional parameters, see the International Bill of Human Rights. Contact the Universal Income Trust for more information.).

Unconditional Universal Income - defined and delineated Table of Contents

1. This is one form of a universal income system. It is an unabated "right to life" wage adjusted to the cost of living. This income is a sufficient amount for each person to live on. Note that the words "wage" and "income" are used interchangeably. This is to reinforce the point that the basic "right to life" income is earned.
2. It is unconditional. There are no strings attached apart from those stated in points 3 and 4 below. No one has the right to take it away from anyone else. If there is an economic problem, we will generate income without taking people's "basic right to life" away from them.
3. It is universal. The income is provided to everyone living in Aotearoa/New Zealand whose primary taxes are paid to this government. This would include all citizens and permanent residents, but would exclude, for example, US military personnel living in New Zealand who pay their primary taxes to the US government.
4. The "right to life" wage is provided for the responsibilities each individual has for his/her role as a sovereign in a democratic society. (See Charter of UN, Article 2 for principle of equal sovereignty in a democratic society.) The basic responsibilities of a sovereign include; monitoring and caring for the natural environment for the benefit of future generations, monitoring and protecting everyone' s basic human rights as outlined in the United Nations General Assembly Proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 of which Aotearoa/New Zealand is a signatory, and supporting the development of a healthy economic community.

Proposals: suggested guidelines for research Table of Contents

There are two aspects to any universal income proposal, which are necessary to take into account in order to measure the effectiveness in achieving the stated outcomes:

(1) How it will be funded-the money

(2) The purpose for which the money is allocated

To use standard technical terms, the first part comprises the "reinforcer" components, and the second part determines what is being reinforced. This means that various universal income proposals can achieve very different outcomes. These outcomes are not only based on who receives the money and how much this is, but also on what the money is allocated for, as well as how well the recipients are aware of that fact. These factors combined form the basis for setting up proper evaluation scales that can measure the overall effectiveness of the varying proposals' abilities to achieve their stated objectives.

Special note on experts: An expert is one who will, with given parameters, show how something can be achieved to the best of their abilities and skill levels. Therefore, a variety of experts will give a diverse array of possibilities and options. A person who responds to the parameters and says something cannot be done is simply not an expert in that field.

Benefits of a UUI Table of Contents

1. UUI complies and is a practical application of international human rights laws.
2. UUI will end "unemployment" as everyone will be paid for his/her job as the sovereign in a democratic society.
3. UUI can provide employment distribution equity amongst job seekers. Presently, many people are overworked to maintain an adequate standard of living while other skilled workers are being under utilised and living in poverty. A UUI will provide a raise in salary to workers, thereby, allowing people to reduce their hours if they wish. This will allow more jobs for others. People will be able to make a living at part time work granting individual dignity and respect for everyone. We are living in an age where technology has reached a stage where there is no longer well-paid fulltime employment for everyone. The role of the traditional "job' has changed. All people have the right to receive the benefits of humanity's collective efforts by receiving their due rent payments from the taxes collected via the public domain.
4. It raises the incentive for those seeking further employment, or additional income, to take up part-time and temporary employment. Also, a vast array of studies from around the world reveal that basic resources like access to the telecommunication systems networks, information technologies, and transportation are vital to obtaining employment. A UUI ensures that people will have this access. The government's recent Social Security Amendment sanctions on beneficiaries ensure that they won't. Hence, the government's present plan, will increase unemployment and despair.
5. Benefits for employers include the relief of minimum wage law requirements, as everyone will already receive a basic minimum income from the "public pool". The economy will also be revitalised, such that more people will have money to purchase goods and services. Workers will be more enthusiastic, skilled and co-operative leading to increased productivity.
6. UUI will end financial poverty.
7. UUI will reduce violence and crime. Equal status and the eradication of poverty will greatly reduce the power and resource issues associated with the causes of violence and crime.
8. UUI will provide better protection of our environment. People will be able to regulate institutions by withdrawing their support to those damaging the environment and offering support to those institutions that promote a healthy sustainable environment.
9. Many Nobel Prize winning economists from both right and left wing perspectives (e.g. Jan Tinbergen, James Meade, Milton Friedman, and Robertson) have shown how universal income systems would actually stimulate the economy. Distribution of income to the lower wage earners in society ensures that people will be spending money thereby increasing the amount of money in circulation and increasing the purchasing power of the dollar.

Additional Legal considerations Table of Contents

NZ Statute Laws do not supersede basic universally recognised rights even in emergency situations. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Report, Fact Sheet No. 2, (Rev.1), the International Bill of Human Rights, pages 6-7, "Certain rights, therefore, may never be suspended or limited, even in emergency situations. These [include] the rights to life ...[and] freedom from enslavement or servitude...." The Auckland District Law Society's report Human Rights Law from Domestic and International Sources, Section 5.37, states that under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of Treaties, "...the national law of the State may not be relied on as a justification for failure to perform its obligations under an international treaty."

Under the Bangalore Principles, principles no. 7-9, "It is within the proper nature of the judicial process and well-established judicial functions for national courts to have regard to international obligations which a country undertakes whether or not they have been incorporated into domestic law... However, where national law is clear and inconsistent with the international obligations of the State concerned, in 'common law' countries the national court is obliged to give effect to national law. In such cases the court should draw such inconsistencies to the attention of the appropriate authorities since the supremacy of national law in no way mitigates a breach of an international legal obligation which is undertaken by a country. ...It is essential to redress a situation where, by reason of traditional dimension, judges and practising lawyers are often unaware of the remarkable and comprehensive developments of statements of international human rights norms." The Bangalore Principles have been reaffirmed by the 1993 High Level Judicial Colloquium in Bloemfontein, South Africa. New Zealand was represented by Rt Hon Sir Robin Cooke, XBE, President of the Court of Appeal. Further, in the Bloemfontein statement, it was stated "that it is during the times of public emergency that fundamental rights are most at risk and when courts must be vigilant in their protection.... In democratic societies fundamental human rights are more than just paper aspirations. They form part of the law. In a society ruled by law... all branches of government-the legislature and the executive, as well as the judiciary itself... must act in accordance with the law".

The World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993, acknowledged that three quarters of the violators of human rights guaranteed in international documents are the State Parties themselves. This government has implemented a compulsory labour regime as a solution to an economic/unemployment crisis in New Zealand. In the process it has greatly undermined fundamental human rights and international laws in its adoption of this programme through the recent systematic modifications of the Social Security Act 1964 culminating in the proposal of Bill No 5. In a news industrial press release, Dunedin, February 18, 1997, "Josh Stevenson, of the Centre for Psycho-Sociological Development, said the ILO committee of experts viewed working for the unemployment benefit as forced labour, as it meant losing the benefit if the work was turned down."

In 1978 the Prime Minister of NZ, in his speech to ratify the two Human Rights Covenants said,

The NZ Bill of Rights as well as the NZ Human Rights Act of 1993, both refer to these covenants in their introduction as the basis of their existence.

The New Zealand Courts have also upheld international human rights laws.

1. Ankers v Attorney-General. [1995] NZFLR 193
2. Elika v Minister of Immigration [1996]1 NZLR 741
3. Simpson v Attornery-General (Baigent's Case) [1994] 3 NZLR 677
4. Noort [1992] 3 NZLR 260 "In approaching the Bill of Rights Act it must be of cardinal importance to bear in mind the antecedents. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights speaks of inalienable rights derived from the inherent dignity of the human person. Internationally there is now general recognition that some human rights are fundamental and anterior to any municipal law..."(see Mabo v Queensland (1988) 166 CLR 186, 217-218) Source: Human Rights Law From Domestic and International Sources, Auckland District Law Society, F Joychild and M Roche, 13 February 1997.

At present the unemployed are not covered by The Human Rights Act due to government exemptions.

Conclusion Table of Contents

Top of the Page | Back to UBINZ |