Today began, much where Friday left off – at my new favourite place in NYC – Kinkos.  Caroline, Liz Broderick and I spent a slightly frantic hour doing the last of our printing for the Committee.  Today was the big day for the Australian NGO Delegation, with the presentation of our NGO Statement, our lunch briefing with the CEDAW Committee and Liz’s statement on behalf of the Human Rights Commission.

Our lunch briefing was very successful .  15 Committee members attended the briefing where we covered the 14 priority issues identified.  There was then about 25 minutes of questions from the Committee and it was evident they were all very interested and engaged in the implementation of CEDAW in Australia.  One Committee Member commented that our lunch briefing had been very effective, giving Committee Members a “fantastic overview” of the issues facing such a diverse group of women.   In particular, she highlighted the quality of the papers which have been presented to the Committee.  We were pleased to have Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Liz Broderick attend the briefing and appreciated her engagement on the issues of participation and women in leadership. 

NGO Delegates from Australia, Albania, Turkey, PNG and India presented their statements today and responded to a range of questions from the CEDAW Committee.  We were thrilled to be able to support our sisters from PNG – as PNG is reporting on CEDAW for the first time this year.

Each NGO Delegation had 10 minutes to present their issues.  Each Delegation took a different approach to reporting – but it was interesting to note that the major issues affecting us all were very similar.  Violence against women remains a pervasive issue in all countries who were reporting.  Challenges for women from minority groups was also cited by all NGO Delegations. The Turkish NGO delegates reported major barriers to women in accessing employment and education due to the bans placed on women who wear headscarves.

Our representatives, Michelle, Christina and Edwina did an amazing job of presenting the verbal statement.  We were the only NGO group not to run over time!  After all of the delegations had presented, the Committee Members were invited to direct questions towards the delegations.  The Australian delegation received (and responded to) questions on paid parental leave, the situation of rural women and of older women and some specific questions about temporary special measures for political participation and employment options for women with disabilities. 

After the formal briefing ended, the NGO Delegation did what we do best – lobbying - and we each targeted a Committee Member to ensure they had the information they needed for the Australian Government’s report tomorrow.  We are hopeful that armed with some fantastic materials, the Committee Members are going to ask the Government questions relating to our priority areas.

We will make the NGO statement and our notes from the lunchtime briefing available in the coming days.

I will look forward to reporting on how tomorrow goes.  If you are interested in the details of how the questions are being asked and what sorts of responses are being given by NGOs and Governments, I would be pleased to share my detailed notes.

Tonight we met with most of the Australian Government delegation, many of whom had only arrived in New York hours beforehand.  It was good to have the opportunity to catch up informally and to talk them through what we had learned from attending the previous three days of CEDAW meetings.  We were able to give them a sense of the mood of the Committee, the types of questions being asked and the priorities of various CEDAW Committee members.

We are anticipating some challenges with regards to the election having been called – as the Government will be in care-taker mode at the time of their report.  This will mean that delegates cannot comment on future plans and programs of government.  The Government’s media strategy will also be impacted.  This is somewhat frustrating, as we had hoped that the Committee would be able to get some commitments from Government about future plans.

Afterwards, the NGO delegation had another couple of hours (thanks to the hospitality of Michelle and Sela – whose room has become our headquarters!) to finalise the oral statement.  We have done a run through and you will all be impressed to hear that it is currently just under time.

 Our lunchtime briefing begins at 1pm and we formally present at 3pm tomorrow.  It is an honour to be part of this delegation and representing so many women who contributed to the shadow reporting process.

Today was the first day that the Committee has had a closed session, which they use to discuss complaints which have been brought to the Committee through the Optional Protocol to CEDAW and other business.  Three of our delegates participated in the IWRAW training – which involved a 3-day intensive course on all things CEDAW – but I will leave it to them to report on the training.

The remaining delegation members had the job of finalising the draft concluding observations, the lobbying sheets and developing an agenda for the informal briefing with the CEDAW Committee.  This year, the Committee are trialling a different mechanism of engaging with NGOs and rather than taking individual meetings with NGO delegates, they are allocating a lunch break to each NGO.  Australia, unlike all the other NGOs, has our lunch immediately prior to our oral statement on Monday – giving us two opportunities to get our key priorities across to the Committee.   The lunch is between 45 minutes and an hour, so we have been debating the best way to spend that time.  We have decided to focus our oral statement on the two focus areas and use the lunch briefing to go into more detail on the other 14 issues which have been identified as priority issues.   

The CEDAW Committee have adopted a new process this year for the Concluding Observations –where they require State parties to report back on progress on 1 or 2 of the issues which arise in the Review.  On the basis of the consultations, we have identified violence against women and the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women as the two issues we hope the CEDAW Committee will ask the Australian Government for a progress report on.
With the lobbying sheets finalised, concluding observations agreed and index sheets developed, it was off to Kinko’s for some mass printing.  I was having flashbacks to the Commission on the Status of Women in 2008, where the Kinkos nearest to the UN building is filled with women from all over the world printing leaflets and event flyers on every possible coloured paper!!

Over the weekend we need to finalise the oral statement and prepare for the lunch briefing.  We are meeting with the Australian Government Delegation when they arrive on Sunday.

This morning, the full delegation was together for the first time.  Meeting in the Temporary North Lawn Building (or TNLB for those in the know), we had a quick debrief of the previous day, before heading in to see Russia’s opening statement.

In contrast to the previous day, the Russian Federation commended the work of the NGOs in putting together the shadow report and welcomed their feedback on the Government Report.  Once again, the CEDAW Committee were asking some tough questions of the Russian Government, including requesting information about why there is no specific reference to gender equality in the constitution.  The Committee were concerned about the lack of legislation surrounding women who experience violence in Russia, noting that while discrimination broadly is illegal – there was no specific reference to domestic violence in the legislation.

The CEDAW Committee Member from  the Netherlands posed an interesting question about the rights of lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgender  and intersex women in Russia, which was met by some discomfort by the Russian Head of Delegation.  The CEDAW Committee also asked a number of questions about the nature of government in the Federation, focusing on how the Government ensured implementation of CEDAW in all parts of Russia.  Interestingly, in 2008, Russia conducted an analysis of all of its laws at a national and local level to ensure compliance with international treaties.

From midday onwards, the Delegation was in lock down finalising the lobbying sheets and identifying 15 priority issues.  In previous years, the CEDAW Committee have structured their responses to government reports in line with the articles of the CEDAW Convention.  Upon review of their recent reports for Canada and the UK, we discovered that a new approach had been adopted – focusing on 12-14 priority issues for each country.  The Delegation set about identifying 15 priority issues, which we agreed we would draft recommended ‘concluding comments’ for the Committee.   It is hoped that by drafting language on each of the priority issues, it will make it easy for the Committee to use some of our language in their report.

The sight of seven women, crowded around seven laptops in the UN Cafeteria was picture perfect!  In need of power for the laptops, we later moved to Michelle and Sela’s hotel room – where we camped for another 6 hours or so –drafting language for the Committee.  We are in the process of developing an index of all of the information we have provided to the Committee – including our Shadow Report, updates to the Shadow Report, lobbying sheets and draft concluding comments.

The night ended with a few laughs, great Mexican food and promises that I would not mention on the blog, what one member of the delegation did to prepare her feet for summer shoes....

Well, it would not be a UN women’s meeting without the usual drama getting our security passes, but after a couple of false starts, the CEDAW Review process formally began for Australia’s NGO delegation (or at least those of us who had made it to NY before the crazy  storms closed JFK).

The Fijian Government, Represented by the Minister for Social Affairs was reporting to the CEDAW Committee today.  The process is fairly straight forward – the government has one hour to report on its activities and then the CEDAW Committee Members ask questions relating to all of the CEDAW articles, followed by general questions and follow up questions. 

There were a lot of questions from the Committee about the nature of the suspension of the Constitution and reasons why an election was not being planned until 2014.  The Government responded that this was part of the process of reforming the system and overcoming historical challenges with the way the political system operated in Fiji.

Since the 2009 Coup, there have been a multitude of ‘Decrees’ made by the Fiji Regime, including the Crime Decree and the Violence Against Women Decree.  The Committee noted that while these Decrees went some way to building back in provisions which had been lost when the constitution was suspended, the Government had failed to report on their implementation or any outcomes to date.

Much attention to the role of NGOs and civil society in Fiji was given by the NGOs and the CEDAW Committee.  The Government were very critical of the anonymous nature of the CEDAW Shadow Report , however the Committee provided feedback to the Government about the fear of repercussions from NGOs – and  noted that in these circumstances, it is understandable why people won’t put their name to a report.  The issues of freedom of association and freedom of movement were also discussed in this context.

The CEDAW Committee cited concerns about the lack of legislation around violence against women – and the lack of support services for women, victims of violence.  The Fijian Representative noted these concerns and acknowledged that more needed to be done on this area by the Government.

Discussions about trafficking, prostitution, the compulsory retirement age and concerns about freedom of movement were also addressed by the Committee.

I was pleasantly surprised at how direct the CEDAW Committee Members were, not only in their questioning – but also in their follow up, when questions were not answered by the Government.

In her concluding comments, the Chair reiterated the importance of reinstating democratic rule in Fiji as well as engaging strongly and positively with NGOs.  She noted that there was a need for training of people including police and judges about women’s rights and CEDAW and closed, referring to the ongoing patriarchal society in Fiji and the challenges this presents for the future implementation of CEDAW.

Tomorrow, we will be hearing the Russian Government report.  We met with some of the Russian NGO delegates tonight and it was interesting to hear about the challenges they face, as all of the different women’s NGOs have tabled separate Shadow Reports – and are lobbying for different outcomes.  It made me very grateful to the wonderful leadership of the YWCA of Australia and commitment of the Australian NGO sector to working together to find common ground!!

It is very timely that I am in New York this week – just after the landmark announcement of the establishment of the new entity – UN Women.  There is much excitement about what the future will hold for the new entity and strong support for increasing UNIFEM’s existing programmatic work.

The decisions are far from complete however, with major challenges about how the strategic plan and the budget for the new entity will be developed.  The first decision on the agenda is the appointment of an Under Secretary General to head the new agency.  It is hoped that this person will be a charismatic, high level, political figure who is able to provide strong leadership and mobilise substantial resources.  Support for UNDP’s leader, Helen Clarke has encouraged some member states to call for a Head of State to nominate for the UN Women position, but to date no such nominations have been received.  There is some talk about whether Chilean President Michelle Bachelet would consider the post, but there is no formal word on this yet.

So far, 10 formal nominations have been received by the Secretary General including:
• Louise Mushikiwabo, Foreign Minister of Rwanda
• Rachel Mayanja, Assistant Secretary-General, Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women
• Radhika Coomaraswamy, Under-Secretary-General, Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict
• Dr Ines Alberdi , current ED of UNIFEM

To have a look at the selection criteria for this position click here.

I understand that the Secretary General is also meeting with the leadership of the GEAR Campaign this week, to seek civil society input into who should be the leader of UN Women.

National Committees for UNIFEM will transition to the new entity and it is hoped that they will be strengthened as civil society partners of the new agency. 

Some big issues remain for the new entity including how to balance budgeting for normative activities versus programmatic ones and how to bring together gender and development issues and human rights – which have previously been considered as somewhat separate within the UN System.

Have your say about who should lead UN Women online at www.genderequalityonline.org.au

The closing session was held in Tonga and even though I wanted to finish the blog from there it was impossible as the net connection was very slow.

The focus of the two-day closing session was sharing our experience from the study tours. The challenge given to us was to be creative…no boring power points! The group presentations were outstanding – everything from a live TV talk show to a parliamentary debate to a short film (that what the group I was on did a film on leadership).

The closing reception was attended by HRH Princess Pilolevu from Tonga, The Prime Minister of Tonga (Dr. Feleti Sevele) and  HRH Princess Anne and several High Commissioners from different countries.

As some of you know Tonga has not ratified CEDAW.  Naziah (from UNIFEM Pacific) and I thought we would make use of this opportunity to advocate for CEDAW. I spoke to the Princess (as the royal family still wields a lot of influence) and both of us talked with the PM. We only had a few minutes and will have to follow up with a letter. But the crux of the reservation is that a) signing CEDAW will mean going against cultural and social heritage that makes up the Tongan way of life b) Tonga is already doing lot to promote women’s empowerment even without signing CEDAW. The PM also mentioned that signing CEDAW might be seen by some as neglecting the rights of men. We would have liked time to unpack these further and were just about to when we were interrupted by the Japanese ambassador. After that there was no opportunity as there were too many people who wanted to meet with the PM.

According to the press release by the PM’s office in 2009:

1. Tonga’s cultural and constitutional roots are innately strong. Tonga is proud of its 132 years old Constitution in which are enshrined most of the basic human rights and freedoms which are, today, the subject of International Treaties.

2. The Tongan way of life is not solely based on the rights and responsibilities, freedoms and obligations of the individual, but also emphasises the rights, responsibilities, freedoms and obligations of the individual to the extended family and whole community.

3. The Legislative Assembly believed that to ratify CEDAW would cut across our cultural and social heritage that makes up the Tongan way of life. It would require the creation of fundamental changes for every Tongan citizen to a way of life and social organisation that has sustained Tonga to date. The Legislative Assembly could not in good conscience force those fundamental changes upon the Tongan people. In any event the majority of the Tongan people, much like the majority of the Legislative Assembly on this resolution to reject ratification of CEDAW, would not accept such fundamental changes.

4. Tonga takes the ratification of International Treaties very seriously. Tonga did not want to be listed amongst those States who ratified with reservation as a matter of international convenience so they could look good in the eyes of friends or to simply appease critics. Tonga would rather be judged on its actions of empowerment of women in Tongan society over the past century than by a ratification of convenience .

5. As the Tonga Government representatives said last year in Geneva before the UN Human Rights Council during our Universal Periodic Review, in the Tongan social structure women outrank their male relatives. Women are respected and cherished. Women outnumber men in educational achievement at primary, secondary and tertiary level. Leadership positions in business and government are held by Women.

6. Rather than ratify CEDAW with reservation and thereby compromise Tonga’s long family, cultural and social history Tonga would instead address specific areas of concern for women and continue to cherish and respect their unique place in our society.

On a final note…this was a great opportunity to learn more about the Pacific. The challenge will be to keep the networks alive…..

It’s been my mission throughout this study tour to ask Corporates one question – how many women do you have at the senior management level and what strategies do you have in place to promote women’s leadership in your organisation. And yes I have been disappointed by the answer which has often been on the lines of male dominated professions and the clash of traditional culture vs. new ways of thinking. What was I looking for when I asked this question – very simply ….honesty – either a “No we haven’t thought about this and its high time we do” or a “Yes we have but we have not been very successful because its not been on our priority list” or Yes we have and this is what we have in place.”

Only one organisation stood apart from the rest the Port of Tauranga. Graeme Marshall, Commercial Manager, was the only one who was open enough to admit that the default position had been “this is a male dominated profession” and acknowledged their organisation didnt have many women in senior management positions but this was something they needed to change especially now when succession planning is perhaps one of the most critical issues facing the company – this to me was can be contrasted with the response from the CEO of Port of Auckland who when asked the same question not only went back to the default but came up with the often heard argument (as many other Corporate houses did) “we want the best person for the job.” He went on to say, with the classic caveat “don’t tell anyone” but ..and you know the rest an unacknowledged affirmative action policy. Here is are my questions:

1) How do you know you have the best for the job when you don’t actively recruit women but come from the default position that : a) this is male dominated profession  b) women are cleverer, they have a better idea of what is important in life and so they don’t want high stress positions
2) What’s the use in having an affirmative action policy if no one knows about it!

Anyway to come back to the Port of Tauranga, Graeme has some advice for young leaders:

“Too many of us look externally for answers we hold within us…honesty and integrity are the pillars of leadership. Know what your core values are, align your actions with your core values, have deep honesty and integrity.”

And something to think about:

“I don’t know how the world can sustain consumerism as a benchmark for success…”

Next on the list was a Kiwi fruit packing outfit and we met the HR manager for RSE. The visit left me seething with anger.  “When you are here, this is New Zealand…this is how we do things here…” was her response to challenges faced in working a multi-cultural environment…apart from questioning the work ethic of Pacific Islanders (hinted at… not directly stated by comparing Pacific Islanders with people from other countries) and their inability to save money and since many don’t return the next year questioning whether they are worthwhile investment - the company spends NZ$1000 training each person who comes under RSE (approx 200 people), but the profit they made in 2007 (the year they started taking RSE) was $5.459m in 2007. Need I say more?

When I asked if Pacific Islanders get any pre-departure training, I was asked if I had ever gone to Antarctica…the argument was that no amount of pre-departure training can prepare me for what awaits me in a place I have never been to….and of course pre-departure training is the responsibility of the home country….why should a business worry about these things? After all an HR manager cant be expected to spend time in Vanuatu or Solomon Islands trying to build capacity to undertake pre-departure training. Heaven forbid!

Southern Cross School was a delight. It’s the only school that has a Maori curriculum running along side the mainstream curriculum. So Maori children from year 1 to 10 learn their language and culture as part of the schooling. The school is trying to provide Maori children with an anchor to their heritage so they can know who they are, know their language as well as get the required qualifications that will get them into University. According to the principal “the ability to walk in two cultures and knowing how to bridge that is very powerful”

Day 6 and 7 Princess Anne tours with us

We had Princess Anne with us as she is a patron of EPLD. She impressed me with the questions she asked…seemed to know a lot about everything. The organisations we visited weren’t that exciting though. I guess they wanted to impress royalty so I personally didn’t get much out of the trips to Aotearoa Fisheries Limited, NIWA, ANZ, Icehouse, National Aluminium Company, or the Committee for Auckland – actually the last one had the potential for being a useful visit as they run a leadership program as well. However, their had the CEO of the Port of Auckland take up the bulk of the time which meant that we ran out of time when it came to speaking with participants in their leadership program.

The only interesting comment made at NIWA (National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research) was that our approach to climate change has been one of “engineering” around nature. That is “we can tame nature rather that we need to manage humans.”

The trip to TV 3 was a robust discussion around the challenges of being an investigative journalist at a time when ratings trump everything.

This last blog come from Auckland airport just as I am leaving for the closing in Tonga.

The success of claiming Maori rights under the treaty settlement.  Here’s a brief from www.nzhistory.net.nz/category/tid/133

“The Treaty of Waitangi takes its name from the place in the Bay of Islands where it was first signed, on 6 February 1840. The Treaty is a broad statement of principles on which the British and Maori made a political compact to found a nation state and build a government in New Zealand. The Treaty has three articles. In the English version, these are that Maori ceded the sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain; Maori gave the Crown an exclusive right to buy lands they wished to sell, and, in return, they were guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries and other possessions; and that Maori would have the rights and privileges of British subjects.

The Treaty in Maori was deemed to convey the meaning of the English version, but there are important differences. Most significantly, in the Maori version the word 'sovereignty' was translated as 'kawanatanga' (governance). Some Maori believed they gave up the government over their lands but retained the right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed 'undisturbed possession' of all their 'properties', but the Maori version guaranteed 'tino rangatiratanga' (full authority) over 'taonga' (treasures, not necessarily those that are tangible). Maori understanding was at odds with the understanding of those negotiating the Treaty for the Crown, and as Maori society valued the spoken word, explanations at the time were probably as important as the document.

Different understandings of the Treaty have long been the subject of debate. From the 1970s especially, many Maori have called for the terms of the Treaty to be honoured. More than 1000 claims have been lodged with the tribunal, and a number have been settled. For more see http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/treaty/meaning.asp

What stands out is the collaborative approach to treaty settlements. While there are still individual claims being filed…many Iwi (tribes) have come together to file collective claims. According to Chris McKenzie and Roger Pikia, who have been negotiating some of these claims on behalf of the Iwi’s, there has been a dramatic shift in approach. The younger generations desire to break “the negative cycle of hate we were caught in which was really a pathway to nowhere.” The new way was focused on the future and building relationships…on the notion that “we need to honour our ancestors and build a foundation for our children.” So rather than confront injustice by attacking/assaulting and ending up in jail, the challenge for the Maroi was using the rule of law to assert their customary rights!

When if comes to natural resource management the model being followed is one of co-governance and co – management. A significant aspect of this is funding to build the capacity and capability of the Maori so that they can sit at the table. The key according to Chris and Roger has been “building good relationships with those in the seat of power.”

For the Maori, establishing a strong economic base through treaty settlements has paved the way for returning to their culture. This has required strong leadership to address intra-tribal issues and well as issues between Iwis and the Crown in a manner founded on partnership and collaboration.

On leadership:

“Leadership is about making use of opportunities when they present themselves”

“The quality of leadership is not inherited…mentors are important for emerging leaders”

The other visit was to the population studies department at the University of Waikato where we looked at the challenges of changing population trends. What I took away from this session was that economic growth alone is not going to sustain development in the Pacific and immigration polices that are not backed and supported by social justice policies are a recipe for disaster.

The visits to the other sites didn’t inspire, largely because they were too technical in nature.

Day 5: 14 March 2010

Springhill Corrections Facility is the first to have Pacific Unit. I didnt expect to leave a prison with a sense of hope. What has stayed with me is the correction facilities stated purpose - "there is only one purpose (to our work); it is the wellness and wellbeing of the people." The secret to effective corrections we were told was "putting the right intervention to the right person
at the right time."

While the need for a Pacific Unit reflects the over representation of Pacific Islanders in  crime, the question we need to ask is not why are they over represented but why do they commit more crime - and the answer to that would point to several factors a) low socio-economic status which in turn implies poor employment opportunities, poor housing etc b) displaced and dispossessed so ideally we should stop pouring money into creating correction facilities and reallocate them to deal with socio-economic issues. However, this is not a popular policy option.

In terms of leadership, this visit was an example of what can be achieved if we believe in human potential - whether its the potential of staff or prisoners. The focus is on a "pathway to release" so that each prisoner knows that one day they will be released and its all about how they are going to be re-integrated into the community. So for most it is about a journey from high security to self care to re-integration. I saw what a difference it makes when we treat people in a humane manner - "they may have committed a crime but they never stop being human or being an individual" we were told. How many times
have you heard a warden say "one of the things that drives us is that we are not here for anyones benefit except for the prisoners,"? At the same time there is a recognition that there are limits to what can be achieved - "you can take a
horse to the water but you cant make it drink. However, it doesnt hurt to have a jockey."

The purpose of the Pacific unit is to allow prisoners the opportunity to maintain their cultural identity - it is about building their sense of identity and pride in being from the Islands by talking about their legends, culture, norms etc...what more can I say than that we were treated to a Pacific Islander "Haka" that had elements of Maori, Samoa, Tonga and some of the other islands.

What I learned from this visit is that leadership is about being a catalyst for change and in that pursuit we need to surround ourselves with the right people who are good at what they do and give them the authority to act confident in the teams ability to handle any situation. From a collective leadership point of view its about facilitating communities to recognise their potential and enabling them to be catalysts for change --- a team that recognises that "none of us are good without each other."

Some things I will always remember from this visit:

"I am a great believer in growing people"

"recognise that the very things that make them criminals can be explored to make them (prisoners) leaders"

The day had just began....and it ended with an equally moving experience an opportunity to hear first hand from a two Maori men actively involved in treaty settlements (Treaty of Waitangi) how a community can be transformed when social
justice principles are practiced. After a heart wrenching presentation of Maori history we heard about the difference it made when the focus shifted to engagement rather than confrontation.

Its about 11pm now...and I have leave by 7.30am tomorrow...so more on this later.

Anu