Rudman's city: Guarding human rights? They have to be joking

By BRIAN RUDMAN

I guess if everything was well with the world, I'd be out of a job. But sometimes you do wish there was just a little less madness, especially when it comes from organisations you like to think are friends of the people - such as the Human Rights Commission.

Take the case of Auckland City councillor Penny Sefuiva and her fellow Western Bays representative Bruce Hucker.

For two years now they've had to live with a ragbag collection of defamatory and abusive signs splattered along the fenceline of Water Pressure Group activist Ike Finau's Warnock St house in Grey Lynn.

In a jumble of languages, they call on people not to vote for the two councillors, calling them liars.

The accusations are about what the two promised to do about the water company Metrowater, and are wrong. But this story is not about that. It's about the signs themselves.

Having put up with the signs for more than a year, the two councillors were concerned about having to go through an election campaign with them blaring out their defamatory messages.

They drew them to the attention of city officials and in June Mr Finau was given notice to remove the signs - not because they were political or erroneous but because they contravened a bylaw which said that only signs advertising a lawful use of the property were permitted in residential areas. If he didn't remove the signs, city officials would.

Mr Finau and his Water Pressure Group activists reacted by adding to the sign forest, threatening demonstrations on deadline day and bleating about being gagged. City officials backed off in the end and the signs remained in place throughout the campaign.

Dr Hucker and Mrs Sefuiva were re-elected anyway.

The election over, the city officials moved again, this time seeking a court order to have the signs removed. Late last week the court action was adjourned so Mr Finau could take a diversionary trip to the Human Rights Commission.

Water Pressure Group cheerleader Penny Bright, for her part, was off to the media in double quick time declaring the attempted "censoring" of the signs as "totally unacceptable" and claiming the implications were very big. It was, she said, "a question of rights to freedom of expression".

Reading that in her local paper was the last straw for Mrs Sefuiva. She'd had a gutsful of two years of lying signs and got on the phone to the Human Rights Commission herself.

She asked if, in fact, a complaint had been filed and if so, she wanted the opportunity to throw in a few complaints herself about being maligned by Mr Finau. She said the commissioners should appreciate that it wasn't just the rights of the water pressure group at stake here.

This week she received a written response from the commission's "intake officer", Tim Mitchell. It's the sort of New Age gobbledegook that makes even a sucker for do-good organisations like myself wonder at their worth.

"For reasons of privacy," Mr Mitchell wrote, "we can neither confirm nor deny that we have received a complaint of the sort you have described to us, until and unless that complaint is accepted for investigation or conciliation, or the commission seeks information from you before deciding whether to accept it."

Whose privacy was Mr Mitchell concerned about? The Water Pressure Group had trumpeted its intentions to complain through press releases and in the courts. It was the reason it used to get a court adjournment.

The letter also fails to indicate whether Mrs Sefuiva will be spoken to by the commission if it takes on the case. The closest it gets is to say: "If any complaint against the Auckland City Council is accepted, the council would have the right (under section 78 (1)(b)(ii) of the Human Rights Act 1993) to put its point of view ... "

Mr Mitchell concluded: "Despite not being able to answer the question that you asked this morning, I hope you find this information useful and that it offers you some reassurance as to your opportunity to respond to any complaint that involves you."

Mrs Sefuiva didn't find the reply either useful or reassuring. She just wanted a straight reply confirming that the water protesters had filed a human rights complaint. And she wanted reassurance that if a complaint had been received, she would get a chance to put her side of the story.

She is still waiting.