So, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) is advertising to hire a senior economist [edit: was advertising! I started writing this up yesterday but the ad has been pulled from its website today]. First reaction: I think that's great! I was genuinely excited and intrigued when I saw this advertisement pop up.
Let me explain. You see, I haven't heard much from the HRC lately. Which is a bit surprising. This is a pretty important time for having a national conversation on legitimate limitations on human rights: vaccine certificates, vaccine mandates for certain industries and occupations, lockdowns, and curtailing anti-lockdown protests.
For what it's worth, I have been broadly comfortable with where NZ has landed on a lot of these matters (although the handling of Auckland is getting messier by the day and I don't envy the decisionmakers). That's more based on gut feelings about the benefits outweighing the costs. But human rights is more HRC's domain than mine, do they have a position on this?
More importantly, does HRC really want to cede public commentary about the human rights implications of vaccine mandates to the likes of Damien Grant? I wouldn't think so. And yet, here we are.
I see that there's some advice on the HRC website that looks pretty good, but it doesn't cover the latest traffic light settings which call for vaccinations in a lot more situations than the ‘high risk' occupations currently described (MIQ and border workers, healthcare, disability support and education settings). The website's guidance says
This approach to balancing rights will of course depend on the particular issue and context. For example, the Human Rights Act applies differently to public decision-makers compared to private entities, such as businesses. What is ultimately important is that human rights guide decision-making, whether by government decision-makers or businesses. The Human Rights Commission encourages businesses, service providers and employers to seek legal advice to ensure their Covid-19 policies do not breach the rights of others.
Which is...very safe advice. But it'd be useful to know what human rights are at stake, instances where human rights might need to be balanced against each other, and possible grounds for limiting rights. We've got some court judgments coming through that test these waters, but given this is all pretty new I think it's worth making the public aware of the universe of possible interpretations.
And more recently, HRC expressed concern that the Government’s new traffic light system does not give priority to ensuring high vaccination rates among Māori before easing restrictions. I've got no strong allergic reactions to advocating for high vax rates, especially for a vulnerable group. Ensuring that everyone who wants to get vaccinated is able to, or that people receive the right information and guidance to make an informed decision about getting vaccinated, seems like the right way to go to protect the right to health.
But, given it is surely part of their analytical framework, it was disappointing the HRC weren't explicit about what other human rights they've balanced their concerns against.
Besides this recent media appearance, the HRC seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room: there's another niggly bit about the traffic light system that people are worried about. It's the idea that vaccination will be compulsory for some activities. Actually, a wide range of activities. Whether you agree this is good or bad thing, you have to agree that this is big.
I thought maybe that's why HRC are looking to hire an economist. Big issues like this involve striking a fair balance between multiple interests -- all protected by different bits of human rights law. Limiting the exercise of some human rights can be acceptable if the response is proportionate. Who better than an economist to look into the proportionality of responses? Economic frameworks are useful in analysing the trade-offs between multiple interests. I really thought this is where they were going with the advertisement.
Economists have done some good work in this area. If you haven't caught it already (it would be rude of me to presume that you do not regularly read the latest working papers coming out of the National Bureau of Economics), there's a great piece looking at the extent individual preferences for protecting rights and civil liberties are elastic to health insecurity. In other words, how individual preferences for protecting human rights and liberties might change (or on the flipside, be resistant to change) when there is a health threat like Covid. There's a lot of potential for NZ work to be done in the area: what are the specific trade-offs people make? What are the differences in elasticities between different demographic groups? What are the contingent factors that can tip the scales? If you're as excited about this paper as I am, you might be interested in their finding:
Turning to differences across sociodemographic groups within countries, we find that individuals disadvantaged by education, income, or race (in the United States) are less willing to sacrifice rights than more advantaged individuals. The smaller elasticity of Black Americans with respect to health insecurity may be surprising given the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color, but is consistent with a longstanding struggle for equal rights and few substitute means for accessing political power (e.g., lobbying or donations) outside of exercising traditional democratic freedoms.
This suggests that the ability to sacrifice rights in times of crisis may be better characterized as a “luxury good” than a sacred value.
A deeper understanding of how people are valuing certain human rights (and why) seems like useful information for HRC to have up their sleeve.
And let's be honest, HRC probably could have done with an economist before Covid times too. Remember in 2019 when they called for free early childhood education for all, fair pay agreement contracts for all, and raising the minimum wage to a living wage? I believe the Act Party called for the HRC to be abolished after that paper (OK, you caught me, I'm only linking to this article because the editors picked a hilarious picture of David Seymour to accompany the piece). All of these arguments would be a lot more compelling if HRC could assure the public that they'd run the numbers and were convinced that the benefits outweighed the costs, and done some thinking about who bears the costs and benefits and whether that's justified.
But anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself. I've read the job description and I'm not fully convinced that this is the work the HRC economist will be engaging in. The ad has disappeared between yesterday and today, maybe because the position has been filled. But here's a screenshot.
I suspect the pool of economists who have "demonstrable experience in advising on the implications of Te Tiriti and colonisation on economic wellbeing" is pretty small.
Whoever fills the advertised position, I hope they can bring the concept of proportionality into HRC's regular analysis. I don't want to sound clichéd, but these are unprecedented times, and the HRC has a potentially important role in advocating for how to balance competing human rights and duties.
Oh, and to avoid any doubt: no, I did not use this post as the cover letter for my application.