Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Treaty bodies
Committee on the Rights reviews the reports of New Zealand
Child rights: New Zealand
16 September 2016
Introducing the reports, Anne Tolley, Minister for Social Development, said that New Zealand cared about all children and young people and was committed to improving their well-being, particularly for those who were vulnerable, at risk, or disadvantaged. The Government was committed to giving full effect to the Convention. Ms. Tolley informed that in 2015 she had appointed an independent expert panel and a youth advisory panel to advise her on a complete overhaul of the care and protection system. She had taken that step due to concerns that the existing operating model was seriously underperforming and was incapable of delivering on New Zealand’s vision.
In the ensuing dialogue, Committee Experts welcomed the steps the Government had undertaken in the direction of the promotion and protection of the rights of the child, but outlined several areas that remained of concern. Notably, they were concerned that the Government’s recent efforts, including the establishment of the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, were too narrow and did not take into account the welfare of all children in New Zealand. A comprehensive policy and strategy for all children was what would be welcomed by the Committee. Other areas of concern were whether the best interest of the child was observed in judicial proceedings, the abnormally high rates of death due to unintentional injuries, the high level of child abuse among the Maori, Maori youth suicide rates, bullying and discrimination in schools, and the low legal age of marriage, among others.
On the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Experts commended New Zealand’s efforts including in digital international networks, but inquired why the language used in the domestic legislation did not undertake the wording of the Optional Protocol. Experts asked questions on the number complaints and prosecutions for trafficking of children, child prostitution and sexual exploitation in tourism, the dissemination of the provisions of the Protocol and forced labour. In particular, they were concerned about child labour, the compensation of victims who were abroad, and the criminality under New Zealand law which allowed for the possibility that perpetrators went unpunished when two countries were involved.
In concluding remarks, Gehad Madi, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for the Optional Protocol of New Zealand, said that he hoped the Government would consider withdrawing the reservations it had made to the Convention on the Rights of the Child twenty three years ago. Amal Aldoseri, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for the Optional Protocol of New Zealand, highlighted the Committee’s satisfaction that the delegation would reconsider the enlarging the scope of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children.
Ms. Tolley, in concluding remarks, said that the dialogue had provided a great opportunity to reflect on the rights of children in New Zealand.
The delegation of New Zealand consisted of the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministryof Maori Development, the Police, and the Permanent Mission of New Zealand to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The next public meeting of the Committee will take place on Monday, 19 September at 10 a.m, to consider the second periodic report of South Africa (CRC/C/ZAF/2).
Report
The fifth periodic report of New Zealand can be found here: CRC/C/NZL/5. The initial report under the Optional Protocol is available here: CRC/C/OPSC/NZL/1.
Presentation of the Report
ANNE TOLLEY, Minister for Social Development, said that New Zealand cared about all children and young people and was committed to improving their well-being, particularly for those who were vulnerable, at risk, or disadvantaged. The Government was committed to giving full effect to the Convention. In that regard, Ms. Tolley informed that in 2015 she had appointed an independent expert panel and a youth advisory panel to advise her on a complete overhaul of the care and protection system. She had taken that step due to the concerns that the existing operating model was seriously underperforming and was incapable of delivering on New Zealand’s vision. The panel had found that the child protection agency was not effective in intervening early to provide the support that vulnerable children and young people needed, and that a fundamental change was required to achieve better outcomes. The need to do much better had been highlighted by the results of a study which found that by age of 21, for children with a care placement born in the 12 months to June 1991, almost 90 percent were on a benefit, around twenty-five were on a benefit with a child, more than 30 percent had a youth justice referral by the age of 18, almost 20 percent had a custodial sentence, and almost 40 percent had a community sentence. Following the receipt of the panel’s report, the Government had decided to overhaul New Zealand’s care and protection system and immediately raise the age of state care and protection to a young person’s eighteenth birthday. The Government was currently assessing whether that should be raised even further, to the age of twenty one.
The Government was making a transformational change by establishing a new operating model which would be in place by April 2017. It was expected to take up to five years to fully implement all the changes. The new operating model would focus on five core services: prevention, intensive intervention, care support services, transition support and youth justice service aimed at preventing offending and reoffending. A new child-centered Ministry would be responsible for providing the core services. It would be called the Ministry for Vulnerable Children. There was a strong focus on reducing the over-representation of the Maori people in the system; currently, 60 percent of children in care were Maori, yet they made up only around twenty-five percent of all children in New Zealand. Ms. Tolley also informed of the legislative changes, a New Advisory Panel, budgets for child material hardship packages and adequate homes, investments to lift educational achievement, improved access to primary health care through a “Zero Fees for Under-13s’ Policy” and other initiatives.
Questions by Experts
AMAL SALMAN ALDOSERI, Member of the Committee and Coordinator of the Task Force for New Zealand, asked whether the Government was considering raising the legal age of marriage.
KIRSTEN SANDBERG, Member of the Committee and of the Task Force for New Zealand, asked why the Convention on the Rights of the Child had not been extended to the territory of Tokelau. Was there a timeframe to remove the observations on the Convention?
There seemed to be focus on vulnerable children, however the Committee would like to see a comprehensive policy and strategy for all children, said the Expert.
Did the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children have a role for coordination of all activities under the Convention?
Referring to General Comment Number 19 on the allocation of resources, the Expert inquired how inequalities were addressed among children through budgeting.
WANDERLINO NOGUEIRA NETO, Member of the Committee and of the Task Force for Zealand, inquired how a comprehensive system could be established in order to facilitate the analysis of the situation among all children, in particular the married children, as well as children in the Pacific islands, children in care, children with disabilities, children in poverty, migrant children, refugee and asylum seeking children, as well as other vulnerable categories of children.
How did the Government ensure the effective implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, by line Ministries? Did the Government use the methodological and conceptual guide to that effect? Were awareness raising and dissemination activities in place to ensure that the provisions of the Convention were widely known?
Did New Zealand intend to take measures to ensure that its initiatives also reached out to the illiterate?
How could further systematic training be stepped up for all groups who worked with children?
Had the Government planned to implement regulations that would ensure that the business sector was complying with international human rights standards in labour, environment and other areas, and in particular as regarded the rights of the child?
Had New Zealand adopted corporate social responsibility parameters for the domestic and international corporations, asked the Expert.
Referring to the fact that disparities were reflected among Maori and Pasifika and that those experienced low birth rates, obesity, mortality, lower participation in early education and many other issues, YASMEEN MUHAMAD SHARIFF, Member of the Committee and of the Task Force for New Zealand, asked the delegation to inform the Committee on how initiatives outlined in the report had reduced the difficulties of Maori and Pasifika children. What measures were in place to systematically impact those children?
Was it true that young workers were not entitled to the same wage for the same work as other workers?
Question was asked on how the best interest of the child were observed in judicial proceedings, schools and medical proceedings.
Did the State Party have plans to review in the near future the adoption legislation?
According to data, there were abnormally high rates of death due to unintentional injuries, as well as suicides. Had the State Party conducted research to find out the cause of suicides, especially among the Maori?
AMAL ALDOSERI, Member of the Committee and Coordinator of the Task Force for New Zealand, inquired about the children that had suffered and died due to abuse. What programmes were in place to educate the general public on emotional abuse and what culturally appropriate programmes were in place to tackle abuse among the Maori, where a large percentage of the abuse was taking place? Were there national policies to tackle abuse and neglect?
What data was available on abuse and violence, and what was the number of investigations carried out? What were the sanctions and redress accorded, including compensations? Question was also asked about the three rehabilitation programmes.
There seemed to be problems of bullying in schools. What were the plans of the Government to systematically collect data on bullying in schools? What were the results of the evaluation of the impact of the initiatives launched against bullying? The current section of the Education Act gave guidance to provide physical and emotional help for students, but not to prevent bullying. Were there plans to change this? What efforts were put together to legally stop the genital normalization of children?
Was there data on child marriages, including cases of forced marriages, an Expert inquired.
Replies by the Delegation
Responding to a question regarding age provisions in relation to legislation, the delegation replied that there had been an agreement to extend the legislative care protection system for children up to the age of eighteen. The possibility for extending youth justice provisions to seventeen was also being considered.
The Care of Children Act described situations in which the children’s welfare and best interest had to be taken into account.
There were no current plans to increase the legal age of marriage. Certain provisions within the legislation would still be available to children aged 16 and 17, even when they were married.
On the question of Tokelau and the extension of the Convention to that territory, the delegation responded that Tokelau had a unique constitutional status as a self-governing territory, which had its own Government, but in which the citizens were considered citizens of New Zealand. It suffered from an extreme geographic isolation and very low population. The Government of New Zealand’s focus in Tokelau remained on education and health, and it would continue to discuss the extension of the Convention with the Tokelau Government.
On the question dealing with the consistency of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which was a trade agreement signed between 12 Pacific Rim countries in 2016, the delegation said that it had provisions which recognized its coexistence with other international agreements. There were high standards of labour protection and it included prohibition of child labour. New Zealand’s consultation on that agreement had been active and had engaged many stakeholders. The Government had released a substantial material of information on the website, as well as roadshows, in particular in relation to the Maori.
On the reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the delegation informed that the Government was not currently planning to remove them. There were also no plans for a comprehensive review of all plans and strategies. Rather, each legislation was reviewed as it came before the Government.
On the question of why the Ministry for Vulnerable Children only included vulnerable and not other children, the delegation responded that the Vulnerable Children’s Act introduced a requirement that the chief executives of all children’s institutions coordinated on all issues affecting children. The Government ensured that children had access to universal services, including education and health. There were public service targets which were set for all children, such as immunization rights. Whilst it was not in one place as comprehensive plan, across the Government there was commitment that all children would thrive and succeed. There were over one million children in New Zealand, however the Ministry for Vulnerable Children was focused on children most at risk.
There was a Statistics Unit, as well as research units within Ministries. There was also a new initiative in place which collected data across agencies, including family research, justice, education, and migration data.
Follow-Up Questions by Experts
An Expert inquired how the Children’s Commissioner was nominated. Did he report to the Ministry, and, if so, why not to the Parliament? What was the complaints mechanisms in that institution? Was it possible for children or adults to complain to that Institution about the violation of children’s rights?
Another Expert stated that while cross-cutting coordination was good, it was very important to address all children, and not just vulnerable children. The Committee found it extremely important to have a Ministry for the whole range of children’s issues, and not just for vulnerable children.
Replies by the Delegation
It was the Minister who nominated the Children’s Commissioner. He reported to the public, however, and was very independent. There were more than one person employed in that Office. The previous year, his office had published a report that underpinned the state of care and protection in the system. The Office was now under review and a complaints process would be redesigned. It was true that the budget had not increased, however the incoming Children’s Commissioner had asked for a budget raise and that would probably be implemented in the following year’s budget.
In terms of how the business sector was complying with international standards, it was explained that all businesses were subject to the employment law, the human rights law and the labour law. The Ministry of Social Development used standards which included reference to the Rights of the Child.
On the number of questions regarding disparities for Maori and Pasifika children, the delegation said that the Ministry of Maori Development had a key role in providing strategic support and development of the Maori communities. One of the approaches aimed to promote health education and improve wellness and safety of children. Implementation was guided by six tribal leaders. There was a particular focus on improving the quality of Maori housing. There was also a special programme in place to curb Maori youth suicide rates. Two priority areas were cyber-bullying and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual communities. The Government also intended to hold a Suicide Prevention Summit. There was a Minister for Pasifika Affairs, who ensured the protection of Pasifika children’s rights.
The delegation stated there had been a misunderstanding regarding the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, which had grown out of a Ministry that targeted dysfunctional families. The delegation urged the Committee to look at the system as a triangle, where the Ministries of Health, Education and Social Development were at the bottom, and encompassed all matters, while the Ministry for Vulnerable Children was at the top.
On the best interest of the child and the family court, the Care of Children Act 2004 ensured that the interest of the child was represented in the all court proceedings. The Family Dispute Resolution Act was an enabling machinery for the Care of Children Act.
On children that had died from unintentional injuries, it was explained that there was a significant cross-agency focus on the abuse of children. There were clear protocols for those issues, including on reporting. An inter-ministerial group for family and sexual violence focused on that issue, as did the police.
Clear protocols were in place for situations where Government officials were involved in abuse, the delegation stressed.
An initiative called healthy homes, which recognized that a considerable proportion of homes did not have adequate standards, had been put into place. The Government had provided 18 million New Zealand Dollars to improve the conditions of 25,000 homes.
Tribal leadership and community participation were very important regarding Maori issues, especially when it came to family violence and abuse of children. A lot of work was being done on the perpetrators of family violence and child abuse, in order to make sure that they would not repeat the offence.
An inter-agency team had been launched to tackle bullying, which had produced an anti-bullying as well as a cyber-bullying guide. An interagency website had also been created to that effect. An independent education review office reviewed the bullying prevention response. The Government was considering incorporating the anti-bullying act into primary legislation.
On the best interest of the child in adoption, a recommendation had been put forward to that effect, however it had not been undertaken in the legislation. In spite of no legal framework, the courts adopted an approach that took into account the relevant international instruments on that matter.
There was no legislative framework to prevent the genital normalization of children. However, all medical practitioners worked under the Medical Counsel, which discussed all surgeries, including gender surgeries.
Questions by Experts
The Committee was concerned about the right to privacy surrounding the Vulnerable Children’s Information Sharing, enabling information sharing between Government agencies.
The Harmful Digital Communications Act about children’s online safety was for children aged up to 14. How were children over 14 protected from harmful information?
What steps were taken to integrate the Sustainable Development Goals directly into policy?
GEHAD MADI, Member of the Committee and of the Task Force for New Zealand, asked
what system was in place for the provision of guardians for unaccompanied asylum seeking minors.
Had children been recruited over the Internet to serve in armed groups such as ISIS? How was the Government controlling this new international trend?
On juvenile justice, children at the age of 12 and 13 were still prosecuted in the court for serious offences, and the Committee remained seriously concerned about the detainment of children in prisons. It was also concerned that 16-year old children who were married were treated as adults, and asked the delegation to respond to those concerns.
Replies by the Delegation
The Child Youth and Family Programme had been drafted, informed a delegate, and it included a mandate to ensure the safety of children in care, making most of mobility devices, and streamlining existing practices,
inter alia. Nearly USD 350 million would be invested in the next few years to enhance the programme. Part of that enhancement was the establishment of the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children,
Oranga Tamariki, which would replace the Child Youth and Family agency, and which would be in operation from April 2017.
There were three stages in the process when a child’s safety was in question in the family – intake, investigation, and assessment. In cases of serious sexual abuse, physical abuse and neglect, social workers were involved.
Cultural capability was improved under the Child Work and Family agency motto of “changing young lives”, said the delegation. The programme engaged with Maori children, and included embedding indigenous cultural principles. Similar programmes were also designed for Pasifika youth. Maori principles would be embedded into the Child Youth and Legislative Act as part of legislative changes.
There were no criteria in the law for taking children into care. Rather the decision was made on a case-by-case basis, based on a set of decisions and assessments made by the social worker who was involved with the family. In order to be taken out of the home and into care, the child had to be under a serious risk of harm.
The delegation said that the Office of the Children’s Commissioner oversaw Maori cases, and the Government was working on making it much more effective by promoting rehabilitation in the community rather than putting those children in the residence.
Questions by Experts
How long on average did the placement in preventative centres or youth residences last? Did those children benefit from a review on the decisions that had been made on them?
An Expert had understood that existing support to permanent care givers had been abolished, and that the special guardianship possibility was available only to a small group of care givers. Did this mean that care givers no longer had the proper mandate to give care? Were any amendments planned in that respect?
Was there any timeframe to acceding to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption?
On early childhood care, question was asked if kindergarten was also used to support children who had a difficult family background. Was there a system in place for early prevention?
Replies by the Delegation
The sentence in youth residences could be up to six months, and the Youth Court could make that decision. The concern by the Government was how effective those programmes could be for the young people. There was also concern that if they were there for a long time, how they would reintegrate back into the community. On the other hand, the ones who were there for a short time disrupted the ones who were there for a longer period of time.
There was no informal process for children entering care, explained the delegation. They had to meet statutory requirements, and there were a number of requirements to be met for a child to enter care. There were a small number of exceptions to that. If the Children Youth Family agency was aware of those cases, they could assign case worker to help a family in the process.
There was a grievance process in the residences and a young person had a right to put forward a challenge should they feel they were treated unfairly. However, the delegation did agree that the complaints mechanism had to be strengthened.
Follow-Up Questions by Experts
An Expert asked how many reports and complaints had been received in the institutions for children. Were there hotlines, and what were the guarantees for confidentiality?
Replies by the Delegation
The delegation said that, in 2015, the Chief Executive Panel had found 26 complaints from children about their treatment. There had been over 900 complaints about child youth and family services more broadly.
On the questions related to children with disabilities, the delegation replied that the funding had increased by 11 percent this year. Although expectations by parents continued to rise as far as services that were expected, funding was limited, however there were sufficient specialist doctors to treat children with disabilities. There were Child Development Centres in all areas. Child psychology workers were lacking. Services for autism, spectrum disorder, and behavioral support were being developed. A new project involving mental health, disability, child youth and family, and education services was in the pipeline to work with those particular families.
Health care funding had been increased for all children under 13. That was a free service, and over 90 percent had free provision of health care within a 60-minute travel time. In addition, there were system-level measures that focused on quality improvement. On obesity, it was explained that a plan called “Raising Healthy Kids” was in place.
Follow-Up Questions by Experts
An Expert asked a series of questions regarding children with disabilities. Was there still sterilization of children with disabilities with parental consent? The Committee had asked New Zealand to establish inclusive education – had that happened? Had there been an increase in reasonable accommodation?
What special measures had been taken for the prevention of bullying and harassment?
Another Expert asked whether there were orthopedic services for children with severe disabilities. Were there programmes and funds that could support families in those efforts? How were the issues of education of Maori children with disabilities addressed?
Replies by the Delegation
The law in New Zealand still permitted parents to make a decision of sterilization of children with disabilities, explained a delegate. There was a programme of early assessment for children with disabilities, where by when delays were identified, children were referred to a child development service.
The National Plan of Action for Breast-Feeding was part of the Healthy Eating Initiative.
Access to contraceptives and family planning was provided for young people, in particular for females. Case workers working in high-need communities also worked on that. There were plans to initiate 11 one-stop shops in that regard.
Follow-Up Questions by Experts
An Expert asked a series of questions regarding health and children. How were the breaches of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes addressed? Was there any breast-feeding campaign to promote breast-feeding as a counterbalance to aggressive marketing? How about polluted drinking water? Were people given guidance for boiling water?
Question was asked about care given to HIV-positive pregnant women. Was there a system to monitor those women, and were there statistics on mother-to-child transmission?
Replies by the Delegation
An independent panel did perceive breaches to the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, and the identification of a breach was made public and available to the company. There were no sanctions, apart from notification that a breach had occurred. Midwives worked very closely with pregnant women to encourage breast feeding.
There was an ongoing inquiry into the reasons for the pollution of drinking water and residences had been advised to boil the water, but chlorination nonetheless continued.
Programmes were in place to curb alcohol abuse among pregnant women, which included raising awareness, support and primary care.
Pregnant women were routinely checked for HIV, following their consent. There had been no HIV-positive newborns in New Zealand for many years now.
The Government was working on effects of global warming, due to which a number of diseases had been detected.
Following the 2010 earthquake, the Government had launched a number of initiatives in the Canterbury District aimed at community support, strengthening the psychological effects of the earthquake. Those included a focus on early return to school, consultation, workshops, and other processes to support over one hundred schools.
A multitude of initiatives were in place to promote the health, well-being and education of Maori children, all with respect to and promotion of the Maori culture.
On early childhood, the “Gateway Programme” was in place where professionals worked with social workers to develop an inter-agency agreement that would help children develop and build resilience.
The Mass Arrival Act treated the mass arrival of asylum seekers. Children separated from their families were settled in New Zealand under the refugee programe, which took into account the best interest of the child. On arrival, all refugees were settled in the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre, and underwent a programme which included health and education.
There were no known cases of children recruited in foreign armed groups, including ISIS.
Follow-Up Questions by Experts
A series of questions were asked by three Experts in order to clarify the answers provided regarding children refugee and asylum seekers. Were unaccompanied children provided a guardian? Was free movement secured in the resettlement centres or were they detained until their application was reconsidered? For how long did they stay in those centres?
Replies by the Delegation
Refugee and asylum seeker usually arrived to New Zealand by plane, which minimized the number of unaccompanied children arriving. When there were cases of unaccompanied children, the centre manager took on the guardianship of the child and passed on the case to the Child Youth and Family Agency.
There was free movement in the refugee centres, the delegation assured. The period of stay in the centres was six weeks. The vast majority of refugees were presented through the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees.
The Education Act made school mandatory for children aged six to sixteen, informed the delegation.
Regarding why children could drive tractors, although safety laws forbade it, the delegation said that there were exceptions for farmer children aged twelve to fifteen, who were allowed to drive only when fully trained.
Follow-Up Questions by Experts
As a follow-up question to the answer provided on children driving tractors, an Expert asked what was the minimum age for child labour. What was the minimum age for employment in hazardous work, bearing in mind that New Zealand was party to the International Labour Organisation Convention 183?
The delegation was asked to provide numbers on the imprisonment of female minors. Had the Committee understood correctly that the reservation on the provision ensuring separation of minors from adults only applied to female and not male prisoners? Were the young girls separated from the women at least during the night within the facilities?
Were there really no unaccompanied refugee and asylum seeking minors, asked an Expert.
Had the New Zealand Government provided funding for genital correction surgery outside of New Zealand for intersex children? If so, could the numbers and funding be disclosed?
Questions related to Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography
AMAL SALMAN ALDOSERI, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for New Zealand on questions related to the Optional Protocol, inquired why the language used in the laws in New Zealand on matters related to the Optional Protocol was different from the language in the Optional Protocol.
How many complaints and prosecutions for trafficking of children, child prostitution and sexual exploitation in tourism had been detected?
What policies and procedures had been put into place for coordination between agencies mandated for the implementation of the Optional Protocol? What relevant awareness raising programmes were in place, she asked. What body was responsible and mandated to the monitoring of the Optional Protocol?
What plan of action was envisaged for the implementation of the Optional Protocol?
Was the Government considering providing automatic assistance for criminal investigations and proceedings covering all observations under the Optional Protocol?
GEHAD MADI, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for New Zealand on questions related to the Optional Protocol, underlining that it was very important to disseminate the provisions the Protocol and to provide training in this regard, indicated that the Committee had been surprised that there were no such provisions.
With regard to convicted cases, he asked if the victims received any compensation.
The Expert underscored the importance of bringing all related legislation in line with the Optional Protocol as well as with the Palermo Protocol.
Was it the case that there was extraterritorial jurisdiction over crimes in the Optional Protocol when the victim was a citizen of another country, yet there was no extraterritorial jurisdiction when the victim was a New Zealand citizen?
On extradition, the Committee encouraged the Government to do away with the dual criminality possibility, in order to ensure that the perpetrators would be tried and that there was no impunity.
What system was in place on recovery, rehabilitation, and psychological support for victims under the Optional Protocol?
Another Expert stated that it seemed that the legislation focused more on the trafficking than on the sale of children. Those concepts were linked, but did not necessarily overlap. If the child was subjected to forced labour, was that punished as sale? If an intermediary facilitated the adoption, did the Criminal Law punish it as the sale of the child? Did extraterritorial jurisdiction cover all crimes under the Optional Protocol?
Replies by the Delegation
New Zealand did not have a minimum wage for children employment, because some employment of children, such as paper delivery, was not considered as harmful for the child, but rather provided gainful employment. New Zealand had not ratified International Labor Organisation Convention 138 on minimum age.
On the coordination of agencies, when sexual exploitation of children and child trafficking were concerned, the delegation said that New Zealand took the “all of New Zealand approach.” Police officers, customs officers, intelligence services, digital customs officers and the child exploitation team worked together to combat that scourge through the Task Force against Trafficking. However, the coordination did not stop there: the Government worked with the private sector, academia, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders.
New Zealand actively contributed to the international anti-trafficking network, by developing software and so forth. Its positive role had been highlighted by INTERPOL, in a situation where New Zealand had distributed software free of charge to be able to track sex offenders, and see where people were logging on internet and trying to engage in online grooming.
Educational programmes engaging law enforcement agencies, border control agencies, and other agencies and stakeholders were available. As part of the initiative entitled "Netsafe", children were regularly made aware of Internet safety. Helpline numbers were also made available for child victims of harassment.
In response to a question on bringing legislation in line with the Optional Protocol, the delegation replied that some legislation had been updated many times, including the Crimes Act of 1961, which had been revised as many as 94 times. It took into account tthe provisions of the Optional Protocol, even though it dated from 1961. Opportunities to review acts came up in accordance with parliamentary schedule. The Crimes Act criminalized the use of force against a child sexual behavior towards a child. In addition, that law rendered sexual exploitation of children by New Zealand citizens outside the country criminal and punishable by law.
While there was a cyber safety week in place, education did not stop there. There were ongoing programmes throughout the year, as well as information and safety monitoring with parents which happened often at the beginning of the school year. Social media was used, as were organizations which could plug in and report automatically something that they considered inappropriate.
There was a plan of action that provided anti-trafficking strategies, and a consistent and coordinated approach to trafficking. That would be reviewed by an interagency group. It was a government initiative and multiple agencies were responsible for its delivery.
The delegation explained that New Zealand was involved in a number of regional initiatives in relation to combatting child trafficking, which were led by the Government as well as non-governmental organisations, and in particular ECPAT. That renowned organisation had stated that it had not had seen a case reported of child trafficking in New Zealand.
On the question of what type of coordination mechanisms were available between the agencies, the delegation informed that there were memoranda of understanding between agencies. The Task Force was made of three different agencies.
Extradition and other related matters, including dual criminality, were covered by the Extradition Act and the Mutual Assistance and Criminal Matters Act as a starting point on those matters. Those acts had been recently reviewed, and the review included looking into dual criminality. Formal legal mutual assistance could be received.
Regarding the harmonization of the New Zealand legislation with the Optional Protocol, the delegation explained that New Zealand could not amend its laws after the ratification of an international treaty. Accession to a treaty had to be preceded by an enabling act initiated in the Parliament. Although the wording of international treaties was sometimes not used, the main effort was to ensure the purpose of the international treaty.
Extraterritorial provisions provided for under the Optional Protocol were followed in the domestic legislation. Thus a person who possessed or distributed information in violation domestic legislation regarding child trafficking, pornography and other related issues, was subject to several years of prison – just as they would be under the Optional Protocol.
Through the Virtual Global Taskforce and EUROPOL, the New Zealand Government was informally working in order to speed up enforcement and protect children. It took a network to defeat a network, said a delegate.
The New Zealand system did not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, and provided care and support to all victims in New Zealand.
When the victim of an offence was in New Zealand, the offence was committed on the soil of New Zealand and no extraterritoriality was needed. When the offender lived in another country, the authorities provided for extraditing them and bringing them under the New Zealand law. The dual requirement was logical because the offence needed to be an offence in both countries in order for the prosecution to proceed.
Section 98D of the Crimes Act of 1961 had been amended and was completely aligned with the language of the Palermo Protocol, regarding both people offshore but also in New Zealand. It did also apply to slavery, servitude, forced labour and the removal of organs.
On traveling sex offenders, sometimes referred to as sex tourists, the Government took back feedback from the financial sector and non-governmental organizations. One of the issues that was escalating was digital child trafficking and exploitation, which was why the financial and digital sectors were used. The digital child industry sector was rapidly growing and becoming a massive problem. The Government thus worked through the financial institutions and websites by blocking those accounts. By working with non-governmental organizations and the financial sector, among others, the Government was working to counter trafficking not just in New Zealand, but to counter trafficking that was happening internationally.
Regarding support to child victims, a great deal of work had been done in the last few years and those services had been redesigned to fill the gaps.
On the question regarding the Code of Conduct for Tour Operators and Travel Agencies, information was sent online and travel operators were asked to put it up on their walls. Advertisements in the airports on how to report those crimes were also available. The Government was aware that that was not enough, however, and it was looking at how Australia was dealing with this to make it more effective.
Follow-up Questions by Experts
Referring to dual criminality, an Expert insisted on the importance of getting rid of it, noting that unfortunately not every State criminalized child prostitution and that, therefore, dual criminality opened space for offenders to get away with the crime.
Replies by the Delegation
In relation to the question on breaking the network, the delegation explained that sometimes that did not require New Zealand to prosecute; sometimes the network could be broken beforehand. The Internet Task Force against Crimes was in place to support investigations.
In response to the comment on dual criminality, the delegation was of the feeling that that could be positive, in the sense that it could force other Governments to start prosecuting those crimes.
Regarding the sale of children, there had been people who had looked to buy children and those had been prosecuted. One of those persons had actually been talking to a covert investigator. Additionally, New Zealand worked internationally, and had detected a child being sold online for 250 dollars in another country.
Concluding Remarks
GEHAD MADI, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography on New Zealand, noted that New Zealand had ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child 23 years earlier, and lamented that the country had still not withdrawn the reservations it had made at that time. He hoped that the Government would consider taking opportunity of the twenty fifth anniversary of the ratification to take that step.
AMAL ALDOSERI, Member of the Committee and Rapporteur for the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography on New Zealand, thanked the delegation for their punctuality and impeccable management of time. She thanked New Zealand for the work on both the Convention and the Optional Protocol. The delegation had provided many responses, and the Committee would look forward to receiving the rest in the upcoming 48 hours.
ANNE TOLLEY, Minister for Social Development, thanked the Committee, as well as her delegation, and said that the dialogue had provided a great opportunity to reflect on the rights of children in New Zealand. The large amount of questions had given a chance for a substantial dialogue. New Zealand was a fantastic place to live and raise children, but the delegation recognized that a number of them did not live the lives they would have wanted them to live.
BENYAM DAWIT MEZMUR, Committee Member and Chairperson thanked the delegation for the fruitful dialogue and stated that the numerous answers and questions were part and parcel of the communication process, and they were there to push the boundaries.
__________________
For use of the information media; not an official record