HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF NEW ZEALAND'S REPORT

Human Rights Committee
75th session
10 July 2002
Afternoon


New Zealand Has Made Considerable Progress in
the Full Realization of Human Rights, Chairperson Says


The Human Rights Committee this morning concluded its consideration of a fourth periodic report from New Zealand, with the Chairperson saying that New Zealand has made considerable progress in the full realization of human rights.
Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati, the Committee's Chairperson, said that the Committee had had a most interesting and constructive debate with the delegation concerning the human rights situation in New Zealand. The various measures adopted and laws enacted by New Zealand were most impressive and bore testimony to the commitment of New Zealand to attain the highest standard in the achievement of human rights.
Over the course of the discussion of the report, the delegation was asked if the Terrorism Suppression Bill had been vested by the Attorney General since its revision. The delegation said that the amendments proposed to the Bill following the 11 September attacks, which were intended to implement the key financing-related elements of Security Council Resolution 1373, were vested by the Crown Law Office last November to ascertain whether any provisions were inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations and recommendations on the report of New Zealand at the end of its three-week session, on 26 July.
As one of the 149 States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New Zealand must submit periodic reports to the Committee on how it was implementing the provisions of the treaty.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will discuss individual communications in private. It will meet in private at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 11 July for the country report task forces on Egypt, Suriname and Togo.

Response of New Zealand
In response to questions raised by Committee Experts during the previous meeting, the members of the delegation said that a special majority in Parliament or a referendum would be needed to give the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act a status superior to that of other domestic laws. In 1985, it was proposed that the Bill of Rights Act would be enacted as supreme law -- a statute empowering the courts to strike down legislation contravening the fundamental rights and freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights. However, the Select Committee Report in 1987 had noted a considerable opposition to a Bill of Rights Act with a status superior to that of other domestic law. During the debate at the recent constitutional conference, which brought together academics, judges, members of the Parliament and members of the Maori community, it became clear that previous objections had not changed.
The delegation said that in practice, New Zealanders were not disadvantaged by the current status of the Bill of Rights Act. The courts wielded considerable power in protecting rights and freedoms by providing effective judicial remedies to give effect to the rights guaranteed.
Under the new Human Rights Act 2001, complaints related to discrimination could be made to the Human Rights Commission with respect to all government activities, the delegation said. The process of complaints was publicly funded.
Questions were raised concerning the jurisprudence that had been developed in New Zealand which recognized the value of international agreements as a tool for interpreting the legislative provisions that implemented them at the domestic level. The delegation said that since the decision of the Court of Appeal in Tavita, the courts had routinely taken international human rights agreements into account in judicial review cases, especially immigration cases. In addition, the New Zealand courts took decisions of courts in other countries into account. Lawyers in New Zealand were becoming less and less "insular" so that foreign law and decisions of foreign courts were brought frequently to the courts' attention.
The Constitution of New Zealand guaranteed the right to freedom of thought and religion, the delegation said. Such freedoms could be practised individually or collectively without interference by the State.
Responding to a question on the number of complaints on discrimination on grounds of race, the delegation said that the Ombudsmen's Office had advised that they did not keep records of complaints received on discrimination on grounds of race specifically. Such complaints were outside their jurisdiction and were forwarded directly to the Human Rights Commission or the Race Relations Commissioner. Prior to the merger of the Race Relations Office and the Human Rights Commission, the Race Relations Office complaints system had recorded 1,286 complaints under the classification of "racial disharmony, racial harassment or both" between 1997 and the end of 2001. Of the 1,085 with a valid ethnicity element, 276 of the complaints were Maori. Since January 2002, there had been a total of 73 disputes concerning race.
Asked how many recommendations were made by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission to the Prime Minister, the delegation said that since 1995, the Commission had made four recommendations to the Prime Minister on substantive human rights issues. Two of those recommendations had not been acted upon; one was acted upon and the fourth matter had been subsequently implemented, but it was unclear if that was as a result of the Commission's recommendations.
The delegation said that the Human Rights Commission had commissioned a telephone poll of 350 people regarding discrimination. Sixteen per cent of respondents felt Maori experienced a great deal of discrimination; 54 per cent felt Maori experienced some discrimination; and 17 per cent said that Maori experienced "only a little" discrimination. However, one of the key functions of the new Commission was to promote a better understanding of the human rights dimension of the Treaty of Waitangi and its relationship with domestic and international human rights law.
On the issue of asylum-seekers, the delegation said that the operational instruction relating to detention at the border was a departmental document that was not required to go through any ministerial cabinet process, and did not have to have a formal human rights assessment. However, that instruction was developed with significant legal input and part of that input related to issues in the Human Rights Act and Bill of Rights Act, as well as to immigration issues. The instruction had been changed in order to comply with the recent decision of the High Court in the current Refugee Council proceedings.
Concerning the human rights of those extradited from New Zealand, the delegation said that extradition was based on the process of foreign countries making a formal request to New Zealand for extradition. There were various protection mechanisms that excluded the possibility of someone being unfairly returned through the extradition process. The offence for which extradition was sought should involve conduct which could be regarded as criminal in New Zealand.
Asked if the Terrorism Suppression Bill had been vetted by the Attorney General since its revision, the delegation said that the amendments proposed to the Bill following the 11 September attacks, which intended to implement the key financing-related elements of Security Council Resolution 1373, were vetted by the Crown Law Office last November to ascertain whether any provisions were inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
On the issue of definition of terrorism, the delegation said that the Select Committee was particularly concerned that the definition would not cover persons genuinely participating in acts of protest, advocacy, dissent, strike or other form of industrial action.
The delegation said that New Zealand, together with other regional organizations and donors, continued to work to raise Pacific Island countries' awareness of the measures being taken by the international community to combat terrorism and their international obligations in that regard. New Zealand, along with the United States and Australia, had funded a regional seminar for Pacific Island countries in Honolulu in April where the nature of the requirements flowing from Resolution 1373 was discussed .
A question was asked about the status of the Maori language in the country, to which the delegation said that Maori was declared an official language of New Zealand in the Maori Language Act 1987. Maori language use was highest in educational domains and in Maori cultural activities.
With regard to domestic violence, the delegation said that there was no mandatory reporting system for domestic violence against children.
Asked why permanent residents and New Zealand citizens who were not New Zealand passport holders needed a return visa, the delegation said that returning residents' visas were required by permanent residents, who might temporarily leave the country, and by those New Zealand citizens who might chose to enter New Zealand using the passport of another country. With regard to permanent residents, a permit for permanent residence would expire upon exit from New Zealand, unless a returning residents' visa was obtained.
The delegation said that there was no compulsory military service in the country and that the issue of conscientious objection was not a problem.

Concluding Statement by Committee Chairperson
PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BHAGWATI, Committee Chairperson, said that the Committee had had a most interesting and constructive debate with the delegation concerning the human rights situation in New Zealand. The report contained a wealth of detailed and comprehensive information; and it was an exemplary document. The debate in which the Committee engaged with the delegation had been frank and objective.
Mr. Bhagwati expressed appreciation at the considerable progress made by the State party towards the full realization of human rights. The various measures adopted and laws enacted by New Zealand were most impressive and bore testimony to the commitment of the country to attain the highest standard in the achievement of human rights.
He said that one concern was the handing over of prisons to private management. That was likely to encourage violations of the human rights of prisoners as private parties, as distinct from public authorities, might not be subject to the discipline of human rights and in any event, there would be lack of accountability. Another issue of concern remained the status of the Bill of Rights Act – it should be given a status superior to that of other domestic law.

Closing Remarks by Delegation

TIM CAUGHLEY, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of New Zealand to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said he appreciated the frank discussion with the members of the Committee. The feed-back would help New Zealand to further improve its human rights records. The Government attached great importance to the upholding of the letter and spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and would continue to implement its provisions.




* *** *