UNITED NATIONS ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE TAKES UP REPORTS OF NEW ZEALAND

CERD
61st session
14 August 2002
Afternoon


New Zealand Is Committed to Ensuring Full Compliance
with the International Convention, Delegation Says



The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon started its consideration of the consolidated twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth reports of New Zealand
on how that country implements the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Introducing the report, Tim Caughley, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of New Zealand to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the ratification of the International Convention had influenced the very foundations of the human rights legislation and infrastructure in his country and continued to do so as the situation evolved. Difficult issues and challenges remained; and there were pressures and tensions both within New Zealand's changing society, and imposed by contemporary circumstances, including international events.
Mr. Caughley said New Zealand would continue to address those pressures from the bedrock of tolerance and the commitment to freedom from all forms of racial discrimination; and it remained committed to ensuring full compliance with the provisions of the Convention.
Patrick Thornberry, the Committee Expert who acted as country rapporteur to the report of New Zealand, said that indigenous groups in many countries continued to suffer from land loss and resources depletion, destruction of key social structures, including family break-up, loss of esteem of culture and person, and forced incorporation into structures including State structures they did not devise. Fortunately, the pattern in New Zealand did not follow the "Terra Nullius" pattern in colonial enterprises so that cultural consequences were less extreme but real nonetheless.
Also taking part in the discussion were Committee Experts Kurt Herndl, Luis Valencia Rodirguez, Regis de Gouttes, Nourredine Amir, Mohamed Aly Thiam, Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr, Tang Chengyuan and Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill.
The delegation of New Zealand was also made up of Cheryl Gwyn, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Justice; John Paki, Deputy Chief Executive, Ministry of Maori Development; Jillian Dempster, First Secretary, and Tamra Mackevics, Policy Support Officer, New Zealand Permanent Mission, Geneva. New Zealand is among the 162 States parties to the International Convention. According to article 9 of the Convention, States parties are obligated to submit periodic reports to the 18-member Committee to enable it to monitor the implementation of the provisions of the treaty.
The Experts also briefly discussed organizational matters related to country reports and their presentation.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 15 August, it will continue its consideration of the report of New Zealand.

Report of New Zealand
The consolidated twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth periodic reports of New Zealand (document CERD/C/362/Add.10), note that the Government's firm commitment to opposing discrimination based on colour, religion, race or ethnic or national origin continued. The country's law specifically prohibits racial discrimination, and there continues to be a strong and active government commitment to the promotion of racial harmony. Successive governments have held strongly that there must be equality of social and economic opportunity in the country. Only thus can a mixed society be sustained, free of any form of racial discrimination and acknowledging diversity as a strength.
The reports note that recognition has continued to grow of the importance of the relationship between Maori and non-Maori people in the broad picture of race relations in New Zealand. The special place of Maori as indigenous people and people of the land is acknowledged. There is optimism that Maori grievances stemming from injustices of the past can be redressed, providing in turn encouragement of the full realization of Maori economic, social and cultural potential. The Government has made further significant progress towards addressing these grievances, though the task is by no means complete.
The nature of biculturalism in New Zealand continues to be an important issue of debate for all New Zealanders, as does the future of New Zealand as a multicultural society, the reports say. Debate was fuelled by changes in immigration policy which have brought increasing numbers of people into New Zealand from non-traditional sources. Biculturalism and multiculturalism are not viewed as incompatible. The Government has committed resources to resolving the challenges presented by this complex situation, but it does not claim to have completed this task either.

Presentation of Reports
TIM CAUGHLEY, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of New Zealand to the United Nations Office at Geneva, presented the consolidated reports by noting the several administrative adjustments which arose from the Government's determination to give a better focus to the delivery of programmes to combat social and economic under privilege. The reports described a wide range of initiatives, programmes and projects to address the specific needs of Maori, Pacific people and people from other groups such as migrants, refugees and ethnic minorities.
Mr. Caughley noted that while there was no general right of "self-determination" in the sense of self-government or complete autonomy for Maori, the evolving relationship under the Treaty of Waitangi issues involved a steady increase in the number of areas in which the transfer of resources or delegation of authority enabled the Maori to exercise a greater degree of self-determination. Settlements under the Treaty were pivotal for many Maori in regaining the ability to be self-determining, providing much needed capital to undertake social, economic and cultural developments as well as the recognition of the special status Maori had in the country.
Addressing the consequences for New Zealand of the events of 11 September 2001, both domestically and in respect of its international obligations, Mr. Caughley said that the terrorist acts had shocked all the international community. The Government of New Zealand had condemned the actions and had declared a commitment to join efforts to root out the evils of terrorism. The Government was currently advancing two pieces of legislation designed to implement Security Council resolution 1373. The Government had been very mindful of the fact that measures taken for that purpose needed to reflect an appropriate balance between the State's need to take effective steps to combat terrorist acts and its need at the same time to maintain respect for individual human rights.
Mr. Caughley said that following the 11 September terrorist attacks, almost all asylum-seekers arriving at the border without identity or travel documents were initially detained pending verification of their identity and in some cases final determination of their claims. The legality of that action was challenged in the High Court of New Zealand; the Court held that the Immigration Service in taking that action had failed to comply with the Refugee Convention; the Service had appealed against the decision of the Court. Meanwhile, the Service had suspended its previous practice pending the determination of the appeal
Mr. Caughley said that the ratification of the International Convention had influenced the very foundations of the human rights legislation and infrastructure in New Zealand and continued to do so as the situation evolved. Difficult issues and challenges remained. There were pressures and tensions both within New Zealand=s changing society, and imposed by contemporary circumstances, including international events. New Zealand would continue to address those from the bedrock of tolerance and the commitment to freedom from all forms of racial discrimination. It remained committed to ensuring full compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

Questions and Comments by Committee Experts
PATRICK THORNBERRY, the Committee Expert who served as country rapporteur to the report of New Zealand, said that the Committee was always interested in the essential demographic information on which anti-discrimination and other policies were based. Referring to the supplementary information supplied by the State party, he noted that 15 per cent of the population were Maori, 5 per cent Pacific Island, and 4.6 Asian; and "others" accounted for 10 per cent of the population. He asked if the same measurements were used in new census. Clarification was requested on the nature of multiple identification and its present consequences. Was there an increasing sense of multiple identity? What might that portend for inter-ethnic relations and the general issue of discrimination? And what were the statistical trends for the Maori? Would that particular identity maintain itself in a generation or two?
Mr. Thornberry said that a very interesting aspect of the new architecture was that the Human Rights Commission of New Zealand was charged, among other things, with carrying out an assessment of the relationship between the Treaty of Waitangi and international human rights law. The whole issue of relationships between anti-discrimination instruments and specific indigenous rights instruments was of great interest to the Committee. When was discrimination outlawed? Were there exceptions where discrimination might be "excused" or its condemnation mitigated? Were there general exceptions to the prohibition of discrimination, outside the immigration area?
New Zealand's policy in terms of asylum had changed considerably since 11 September, the rapporteur said, adding that the Government's evidence to the Human Rights Committee was to the effect that there was no policy of mandatory detention of asylum-seekers, but there was evidence that almost all asylum-seekers were detained. "As a general principle, asylum-seekers should not be detained", he said. Reports of their treatment in detention centres such as the Auckland Central Remand Prison and Mangere Centre were not encouraging.
Mr. Thornberry said that one might suppose that in the future most aboriginal people -- as the globalization processes accelerated -- would accommodate their aboriginal identity outside traditional structures. Was that part of the future of Maoridom?
According to the report, Maori had the highest rate of unemployment; continuing low levels of education attainment; and poor health, including key Maori problems of lung disease, heart disease and diabetes, Mr. Thornberry said. The recent report of the Ministry of Women's Affairs also pointed to the poor position of Maori women in a variety of sectors including domestic violence, health and educational attainment B with the bright spot of enrolment to tertiary education. Even in criminal justice, in common with many indigenous peoples and minority groups, the system seemed to bear down particularly hard. The report itself pointed to areas of possible discrimination in paragraph 127. Paragraph 128 referred to the over-representation of Maori as offenders and victims, and forecasted that the situation might get worse. Pacific islanders were caught up in the same gloomy prognosis.
The measures to address disparities across all sectors were to be greatly welcomed, the rapporteur said. The Committee was concerned about discrimination in effect as well as intention, and had made the point on disparities on many occasions, including the dangers it posed. Could the gaps be closed, if not entirely eliminated? Did the measures amount to a coherent and sustained national strategy towards social justice?
He said that indigenous groups in many countries continued to suffer from land loss and resources depletion, destruction of key social structures, including family break-up, loss of esteem of culture and person, and forced incorporation into structures including State structures they did not devise. Fortunately, the pattern in New Zealand did not follow the "Terra Nullius" pattern in colonial enterprises so that cultural consequences were less extreme but real nonetheless.
Mr. Thornberry noted the wide prohibitions of incitement to racial disharmony; he understood that in key areas, both the private and public sectors were involved in the prohibition of various acts. There was no direct prohibition of racist organizations, but they were caught up in the definition of "persons". Paragraph 139 of the report said, however, that prosecutions were rare and required the consent of the Attorney-General. The white supremacist group appeared to have escaped by dispersing themselves.
Concluding, Mr. Thornberry said that New Zealand was a complex and changing society. Very great interest was attached to its experience in bringing together two peoples in a complex synthesis on the basis of a founding instrument B that was the biculturalism referred to in the report and general documentation. One might ask if the basic structure was healthy and was capable of standing the test of time.
Other Committee Experts also raised numerous questions. An Expert asked if members of the dispersed neo-Nazi organizations had been prosecuted; and if the State party was planning to make a declaration under article 14 of the Convention regarding the recognition of the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals claiming to be victims of the violation of their rights set forth in the Convention by a State party.
An Expert said that there was disparity between Maori, Pacific Island people and non-Maori on economic and social areas. Socio-economic indicators had shown that Maoris and Pacific Island people had been marginalised. The infant mortality rate and abortion rate were higher among those peoples; and they were over-represented as offenders in the justice system.
Another speaker asked if female genital mutilation was practised in the country, and if complaints had been registered in that regard. Turning to the 11 September events, he asked if individuals had been arrested in connection with the incident. What were the nationalities of the individuals, if there were arrests?
A Committee Expert asked about the nationalities of people detained as a result of the 11 September events. Were there Muslims and Arabs among the detainees? What were the circumstances and conditions of their detention? As a result of the decision of the High Court, were the detainees released? It was said that a number of those persons were released at the border; which border? Were they left in an island or where did they go?



* *** *