Human Rights Committee considers the report of New Zealand

Human Rights Committee

15 March 2016

The Human Rights Committee today concluded its consideration of the sixth periodic report of New Zealand on its implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The report was presented by Amy Adams, Minister of Justice, who said that New Zealand was a democratic and multicultural nation which prided itself on fairness and equal opportunity for everyone.  New Zealand had a strong track record of human rights.  In 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi had been signed – the first and the most progressive treaty of its kind which made the Maori and the Pakeha, or European New Zealanders, equal under the law.  It was considered to be a founding document of the State of New Zealand.  New Zealand was also the first country in the world to give women the right to vote, in 1893.  In 1990, New Zealand had passed the Bill of Rights Act, enshrining in law the rights and freedoms of all New Zealanders. Ms. Adams recognized that, while New Zealand had achieved enormous gains, including one of the best refugee resettlement programmes, and had an exemplary human rights record, there were still remaining human challenges. 

In the ensuing interactive dialogue, Committee Experts raised concerns regarding the underrepresentation of women in corporate governance and senior management in the public and private sector, the overrepresentation of women in some types of occupations, and the gender pay gap.  They were also concerned about the high number or reservations to human rights treaties, prejudice against religious groups, and  rights of the Maori and Pacific Island Peoples.   Serious concerns were raised regarding the “Roast Boasters” case, the high number of cases of family violence, the extremely high rate of child abuse, and the right to privacy in the context of a series of anti-terrorism legislations.  Considerable attention was given to the issue of privacy and government surveillance of communications.

In her concluding remarks, Ms. Adams thanked the Committee and assured that the Government took interactive dialogue very seriously.  New Zealand held itself to the highest standards, and regarded itself as a country which had come very far, but knew there were always things that could be done better. 

Fabian Omar Salvioli, Chairperson of the Committee, in closing remarks, said that some of the issues of greatest importance were related to the Bill of Rights Act and the need for it to be fully in line with international standards for human rights, as well as the legislation related to counter-terrorism measures. He highlighted the importance of women’s rights, including employment issues, and the emphasis placed on violence towards women.

The delegation of New Zealand included representatives from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Permanent Mission of New Zealand to the United Nations and other international organisations in Geneva.

The Human Rights Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. today to discuss the third periodic report of Slovenia (CCPR/C/SVN/3).
Report

The sixth periodic report of New Zealand can be read here: CCPR/C/NZL/6.


Presentation of the Report

AMY ADAMS, Minister of Justice, said that New Zealand was a proud, democratic and multicultural nation of 4.6 million people, and a nation that prided itself on fairness and equal opportunity for everyone.  They were united in the belief that everyone should be treated equally under the law.  That principle formed the bedrock of the New Zealand justice system, from the police officers on the front line to the independent judges who presided over the courts.  New Zealand had a strong track record of human rights, both within its own shores and on the global stage.  In 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi had been signed – the first and the most progressive treaty of its kind which had made the Maori and the Pakeha, or European New Zealanders, equal under the law.  It was considered to have been a founding document of the State of New Zealand.  In 1893, New Zealand had become the first country in the world to give women the right to vote.  In 1990, New Zealand had passed the Bill of Rights Act, enshrining in law the rights and freedoms of all New Zealanders.

Ms. Adams recognized that, while New Zealand had achieved enormous gains, including one of the best refugee resettlement programmes, and had an exemplary human rights record, there were still certain remaining human right challenges.  New Zealand was considering ratifying additional human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.   The Government had no plans to review the Bill of Rights Act, but there had been recent developments which had enhanced the mechanisms for ensuring compliance with the Act, including changes to the Standing Orders of the Parliament.  Other positive changes in the legal framework included a second National Plan of Action for Human Rights and an online tool for monitoring advancement in the progress of human rights.

Important progress made thus far covered the areas of counter-terrorism, equality and non-discrimination issues, freedom from torture, deprivation of liberty, rights of children, and rights of ethnic minorities.  Particular human rights achievements since the submission of the report the previous year, as well as on-going challenges, included family violence.  Half of all the serious violent crimes and homicides were family-violence related.  Ms. Adams noted that preventing and reducing the impact of family violence was a key issue for the Government and top priority for her as the Justice Minister.  Another challenge was Maori overrepresentation in the criminal justice system both as offenders and victims.  Maori made up 15 percent of the general population, but were half of the prison population.  One of the initiatives designed to counter that trend was the Turning of the Tide police programme, which aimed at working with the Maori to reduce repeat offending and victimisation, as well as with the Rangatahi Courts, which operated under the same laws as other courts but were informed by Maori values.  In terms of refugees, New Zealand had undertaken the task to resettle an additional 750 Syrian refugees over the next two and a half years.  New Zealand had also recently fully aligned its definition of trafficking with the definition in the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in persons, Especially Women and children. 

Questions by Experts

Regarding the development of the measures for promotion and protection of human rights, an Expert asked the delegation to clarify its replies.  What was the status of the Bill of Rights Act? When had it been tabled at the Parliament?  The Expert was also concerned with regard to the funding and the selection procedure of the Commissioners of the Independent Human Rights Institution.  More details were asked about the implementation of that Institution’s recommendations.

What concrete measures had been undertaken to eliminate the inequality of women in the labour force, and more specifically, the underrepresentation of women in corporate governance and senior management in public and private sectors, the overrepresentation of women in some occupations, and the gender pay gap?

Another Expert was concerned about the high number or reservations on human rights treaties.   Did the State Party have a plan to address the shortage of juvenile facilities?  Why could the Committee guidelines in that respect not be implemented into the domestic law?  Could the provisions of the domestic legislation on hatred be interpreted to protect religious as well as ethnic groups?

An Expert said it was crucial that the Covenant was given full effect in the Bill of Rights Act; however, the right to privacy was not incorporated in it. Could a court issue a declaration that a law was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act?  What effect did such a law have, and which court was responsible?

What procedures were in place for the implementation of the views of the Committee, the Expert inquired. 

He welcomed the efforts to speed up procedures in the Family Court and asked the delegation to share the outcomes. 

Another Expert commended the new National Action Plan for Human Rights, which was aligned with the Committee recommendations, and the online monitoring system for that purpose.  What were the lessons learned from the first Action Plan?  Was the lack of continuity between Action Plans a shortcoming? 

On the Suppression of Terrorism Act, had there been a follow-up on the Government’s position in that regard?  There was still concern about the legal power to conduct classified security proceedings, and the delegation was asked to inform which safeguards were in place to protect individuals from that, in spite of the fact that no such proceedings had taken place thus far.  What did it mean, in practical terms, to cancel an identity document for a person who could be inside or outside the country?

Regarding the Government Communication Security Bill, were there sufficient safeguards to protect privacy and were the undertaken measures proportionate?   Why had there been expedited procedures with the passage of the amendments to the Bill and the Countering Terrorist Fighters?  There was a concern that the objectives and goals of the Bill were very open ended.    What kind of communication was expected to be intercepted?  What safeguarded that definition?

Question was asked about the differentiation between residents and non-residents in the Bill of Rights Act.  Why was there no right of privacy in that Act?  Did the requirements in this Bill, which required the State to act according to human rights acts, include international human rights acts?

The Expert was concerned about the splintering of different institutions and the roles courts played in security and surveillance issues in general. 

Regarding the Telecommunications Interception Capability and Security Act of 2013, question was raised on the nature of the obligation of network operations had. For how long did they have to retain data?  What safeguards were in place to ensure the privacy rights of individuals affected by those? 

Another Expert inquired how New Zealand was combating prejudice against religious groups. What protection measures did migrants have, in particular regarding access to the labour market?  Were Government services in that respect not extended to migrants?  How was racial hatred prevented on the Internet, asked the Expert.  

Question was asked on how the education system was contributing to improve the equal rights of the Maori and Pacific Island Peoples in terms of job opportunities.

An Expert inquired about the effectiveness of the measures against family violence.  Could the figures be provided for 2014 and 2015, especially for the rate of convictions of perpetrators?  Were there separate figures for the Maoris?  What were the remedies provided to victims of family violence? Were shelters available for women, as well as court protection orders? 

Another Expert was seriously concerned about the Roast Busters case, when thirteen-year old girls had been made drunk, raped, and the perpetrators later had boasted about it on the internet. Had the victims been provided psychological care? What was being done to prevent that type of occurrence ? Were any educative measures undertaken in schools?

An Expert asked why the State Party had changed its intention to withdraw from its reservations to the Optional Protocol.

Replies by the Delegation

Regarding the Bill of Rights Act, the delegation said that the Bill had never been intended to cover all the rights in a full and standalone manner; rather, it was intended to supplement acts.  It did not enable courts to strike down legislation and it did not have precedence over laws.  The system was designed so that the Parliament had clear visibility of any issue of inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act, and had the right to always be the final decision maker.  A constitutional review panel in 2014 had discussed those issues, and had decided in favour of the status quo.

Regarding the selection of members of the Independent Human Rights Commission, the delegation stressed that the procedure was fully democratic and involved consultations with society.

The gender-pay gap was one of the lowest among members from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; however, that was not enough, and a number of measures had been initiated to ensure more equality in that regard.  There were specific programmes in place encouraging women to work in less traditionally female sectors, including in science, construction and the stock exchange. 

The Government shared the concern of the Committee on the lengthiness of Family Court procedures and had therefore enacted family dispute resolution, which freed up space in courts for other issues which had to be dealt with.

The aftermath of the “Roast Busters” case emphasized the need for education and the still existing prevalence of victim-shaming in society.  The girls had access to Specialised Claim Service and to the Victims Support Service.

New Zealand spent 1.5 billion dollars a year on addressing family violence, and the focus was far more now on prevention.  The biggest single indicator of the perpetrators of family violence was the household they grew up in.  Thus, creating  a change in that process of generational thinking would involve time.  Other factors included drug taking, housing, social status and so forth.

Regarding the number of concerns raised by the Committee on the definition of personal information, intelligence, the role of the telecommunications and other related concerns, the delegation explained that those concerns had been precisely the reason why an independent report had been initiated.  The questions posed in the report were some of the questions posed by the Committee.  There was thus far no Government position on that issue, as political consensus was sought.  There was no obligation on telecommunications companies to retain data and the issue of data retention was not legislated in New Zealand.  The Telecommunications Interception Capability and Security Act of 2013 (TICS) provided a framework, as cybersecurity was increasingly used as a weapon of war.

On the Terrorism Suppression Act, the delegation said that the information that was used as domestic designation was publicly online on the police website. The information used was all open-source information.  The Act had been amended in 2007, and there had not been changes as to the designation, but how it might be reviewed.  The decisions to designate were made by the Prime Minister and were susceptible to review by the High Court. The criteria for designation were public on the website. 

There were a small number of reservations to the core human rights treaties, which were being reviewed.  On the question on why compensating miscarriages of justice would not be put into law, the Government believed that there was a high degree of transparency and there was residual digression that rested within the Cabinet for extraordinary circumstances.  Thus, the Government viewed that the existing system contained the flexibility needed to deal with the miscarriage of justice issues.  On the reservation to Article 20 concerning propaganda, the delegation said that the criminal legislation did prohibit hostility on the basis of colour, ethnic origin, race and so forth.  On the reservation to Article 22 on protests or sympathy strikes, which concerned the freedom of association, it was explained that a law provided that employees could not engage in sympathy strikes.

Regarding juveniles, New Zealand had designated youth units for males so that they were separated from adult units.  Female prisoners were very small in number and spread throughout the country.  Youth crime rates were dropping considerably.

Courts were able to interpret legislation consistently with international legislation.  They could make declarations that a piece of legislation was unjustifiable or against  human rights.  That included the Government Communication Security Bill.  Courts had created jurisprudence under the Bill of Rights Act.

On racial discrimination, the delegation confirmed that religious and racial discrimination constituted grounds for discrimination.  Any offence with religious or racial motivation could be covered by criminal provisions.

The delegation informed that migrants made up one third of New Zealand’s work force, and their participation in the labour market was very important to the country.  There was focus on several key aspects to ensure that they were treated on an equal basis in the job market, including ensuring services for migrants and refugees, and preventing their deportation.  Employers were obliged to provide protection against discrimination.  A strategy for migrant workers identified five areas: employment, education, training, learning the English language and inclusion.   Sanctions had been strengthened, and employers who exploited temporary workers faced prison sentences for up to seven years, as well as major fines. 

Regarding the Maori and Pacific Islanders, measures had been initiated towards their greater education and employment, and increased resources.  The Pacific Economic Strategy had been released in December 2014, stimulating the Maori people’s involvement in the economy through learning, community involvement and greater participation.  A sector work force engagement programme had also been initiated.  

It was explained that there was no mechanism to adopt Committee views under the First Optional Protocol, but all views were considered and appropriated responses were formulated.

On the first National Plan of Action, and what lessons had been learned from it, the delegation explained that that document contained 178 priorities for action.  When it had expired, an independent review had been initiated, which included recommendations such as establishing a framework for monitoring, which had led to a better second National Plan of Action.

The use of special advocates in courts was currently under consideration. 

Regarding the cancellation of  passports and identity documents, it was explained that there was a range of documents that could be used as identity documents.  The removal of a passport did not prevent a person from getting an emergency document from an embassy, if located outside of New Zealand.

With regard to the Terrorism Suppression Act, the delegation said that there had been no changes to the legislation and the Government opted for the side of caution.

There were many programmes educating young people on how to deal with cyber bullying, as well as other preventive mechanisms to violence and incitement towards racial discrimination.

Follow-up Questions by Experts

An Expert reiterated his question regarding the training of unemployed migrants.

Another Expert asked how many cases were documented under the criminal law attempting to punish mistreatment of migrant workers.  Regarding mistreatment of crew members, were they provided information about their rights and compensation?  To what extent did they use those rights?

Question was raised regarding the expedited procedure for terrorism legislation. A clarification was sought on the call-associated data.  The delegation had replied that the telecommunication companies were not obliged to keep data on the content of calls, but was data retained on who made the call, when and so on?

Another question was asked on the cancellation of identity documents, not only passports. 

Why had there been no progress regarding reservations since 2010?

A report suggested that family courts measures had failed to address issues. Could the delegation comment?

An Expert expressed concern regarding explanations on the “Roast Busters” case, especially with regard to the claim that the victims had given consent to their sexual abuse.  That claim was inappropriate, as some of the victims were thirteen years old.  In that respect, he welcomed the clarifications by the delegation that in no way was there suspicion of the victims having given consent.

Another Expert asked whether the Commissioners of the Independent Human Rights Commission were appointed by the Parliament or the Government.



Replies by the Delegation

Commissioners of the Independent Human Rights Commission were appointed by the executive, which was a longstanding process in which public expressions of interest were sought.  Commissioners  often survived and outlasted any particular government. The funding was adequate for them to maintain their roles and the Commission had not raised that issue with the Ministry of Justice.

An inquiry into the fishing vessels labour conditions had been made, and a chief recommendation had been that all vessels, foreign and domestic, had to operate under New Zealand laws, including labour law.  Government observers were placed on all foreign charter vessels.  Crew officials were obliged to open bank accounts in New Zealand so that their salaries could be tracked. 

Regarding the reservation to Article 10, the delegation said that New Zealand continued to ensure that youth were separate from adults at all times. The issues that remained a challenge  were attendance by court and attendance by the police, but New Zealand was currently unable to change its position vis-à-vis Article 10.

The delegation explained that only the first reading of the Communication Bill had been passed in the expedited fashion.  The Government was ready to make any changes as a result of a recently conducted review.

The legislation provided for cancellation of passports, not birth certificates and underlying core identity documents.

Regarding the Telecommunications Interception Capability and Security Act of 2013 (TICS), there was no provision that constituted a data retention or data preservation requirement, either for content or for other information.  The legislation required telecommunications companies to be registered, and to maintain for themselves (not for the purpose of disclosure) a list of customers, because smaller companies had an obligation to have under 4,000 clients.  The legislation was thus in reference to the number of customers, not the content.

Migrants qualified for all rights pertaining to New Zealanders regarding employment and social security.  One exception was migrants who were on short term visas.  There were 32 cases of employers who had exploited migrant workers, of which 24 had led to convictions. 

Questions by Experts

An Expert reiterated his question on network operators. What was the reason for sharing the list of names of customers with the Registrar, who was appointed by the Police?

The use of electro muscular disruption or Tasers was also brought up. The State Party had decided to increase, instead of decrease the use of Tasers.  Why was that the case and how often and in what circumstances were those used?  Were there plans to use body cameras which would provide a full picture on the use of weapons?

Another Expert asked if the delegation could elaborate on the alleged disparity treatment among refugees. Immigration detainees were in open detention, which was low-level security detention.  Were there plans to detain them in offshore detention centres?  Mass arrivals applied to groups of more than 30 persons, but the difference in procedures applicable to mass arrivals was unclear. The Expert asked more details in that respect.

The Expert required more information about human trafficking and targeted joint agency operations to identify victims.  In a specific case were a Ukrainian woman allegedly trafficked to New Zealand and forced into prostitution, the State Party had not regarded that as a human trafficking case but rather as an illegal immigration case.  What criteria were used to distinguish between trafficking and other cases?

Another Expert asked for a clarification on the Amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act, which abolished the presumption of innocence in relation to drug possession, which went through in spite of contrary legal opinions, and in spite of its violation of Article 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Regarding the privatisation of prisons, was there also solitary confinement in private prisons, and was the State Party prepared to apply the new Mandela rules adopted by the General Assembly, whereby solitary confinement would be limited to a period of 15 days?  Was there proper inspection of private prisons? Which components of the National Preventive Mechanism visited private prisons?   Had the findings of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture been made public following their visit to the New Zealand private prisons in 2013?

Question was asked on whether the Waitangi Tribunal had enough resources to conduct its work.  What were the criteria for registration?  Were parties not heard before the Tribunal were those that did not fulfil registration requirements, and was that the reason for the decrease in the number of claims?  Did the rejection of those types of claims frustrate the Maori community?

Regarding the incarceration rate of the Maoris, who constituted only 15 percent of the population in the country, but 50 percent of the prison population, the Expert inquired if the social or justice system was to be blamed.  The root causes were undoubtedly poverty and unemployment. In that respect, was there discrimination in terms of employment?  Were Maoris confined to menial jobs?   Were there community services or vocational training to ensure that Maoris did not engage in a life of crime or petty crimes?  

The Rangatahi Courts were a good initiative, continued the Expert, as were the seven crime prevention initiatives.  Could the delegation explain how those courts functioned?  Were there Maori judges and magistrates?  What was the proportion of Maoris in the police force?  Was there an element of bias, and was it true that young Maoris were more likely to be apprehended by the police?

Another Expert said that the level of family violence was unacceptably high, and that New Zealand had the fifth worst child abuse record among the 31 Member States of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development.  What measures were taken to punish acts and process and affect victims of child abuse?  Could disaggregated data be provided in terms of age and sex of child victims?

Were the recommendations of the Bullying Advisory Group binding for schools? Was there legislation to prevent bullying in schools? Had research been done to know what the cause of that phenomenon was?

Children between 15 and 18 were allowed to practice hazardous work.  What were the measures that the Government would take to better protect those children?

Regarding forced marriage, had the impact of the awareness raising campaigns been measured?

Was the Treaty of Waitangi considered on a case by case basis, asked an Expert.  How did the steps ensure that the Treaty formed part of the domestic law and what steps were taken to the address the Committee’s questions in that respect?

The latest percentage of elected Maoris in the local government was 3.6 percent, while they represented 15 percent of the population.   Could the delegation give recent figures  of representation? 

Replies by the Delegation

On the question of migrant workers, the delegation confirmed that social programmes referred to unemployed migrant workers as well.  

With regard to the use of Tasers, it was explained that the police did not routinely carry firearms. Tasers were used in specific circumstances.  All Taser users underwent specific training, and the use of Tasers was guided by the New Zealand Police Policy, and regulated under the Crimes Act of 1961.  Body cameras were on before the deployment of the Tasers.  While the police officer was giving warning before using the Taser, the camera had to be on.  For every ten times a Taser was deployed, it was discharged only once.  Statistically, it was the weapon with the second lowest percent of hurt.

Regarding refugees and asylum, the delegation stated that there were three types of arrivals.  In the refugee quota programme, arrivals were accepted as genuine refugees, placed in detention centres, and induction process started to ensure their inclusion in the community.  A separate process was in place for arrivals at the airports, where they applied for asylum and were held in custody for 28 days. The third way was by way of mass arrival by boat. Detention was allowed for up to six months, but such a mass arrival had not occurred yet.  A new open detention centre was being currently built, and would have more capacity than the current one.  In the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre, which was currently used for open detention for persons who claimed asylum on arrival, security was low and people were trusted. There was no offshore processing.

The delegation explained that many agencies were involved in combating trafficking.  The Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Bill had been amended.  The new plan ensured that victims were well cared for and officers were trained. Victims had government support services, and were provided visas.

On the presumption of innocence regarding drugs, there was a distinction between the offence of possessing drugs and the offence of having those drugs to supply to others, which was a higher offence.  If an individual was found to have a certain amount of drugs, it created a presumption of supply.  Thus, that led to a balance of probabilities (not the presumption of innocence), i.e. a presumption of supply. 

Solitary confinement was in use in private prisons.  Solitary confinement was legal for up to 14 days, and thus complied with the Mandela recommendations, except in certain safety cases, where the Department of Corrections issued a special order.  National Prevention Mechanisms were the same for private and public prisons.

Eight of the recommendations of the Sub-Convention on Torture on the  Mount Eden Corrections Facility had been followed up by the Ombudsman and the prison had to deliver and also follow up on those eight recommendations.

The Waitangi Tribunal could only progress at a pace that was appropriate.   The Tribunal had placed all historical claims in 37 districts, and had reported on 19 of them, which represented 79 percent of the country.    A major issue was the claimant’s ability to represent the affected Maori families, which was one of the requirements for registration.  876 unregistered cases had been detected, while currently a 59 percent reduction was seen.

The Marine and Coastal Area Act of 2011 (Takutai Moana Act) had created a marine and coastal area, removed Crown ownership, and thus recognised the inherited rights of the Maori.  Those rights were non-exclusive because other rights, such as right to public access, could still exist. 

The legislative differences of the Waitangi Treaty were regarding the rights of the Maori in decision making, settlement, redress and other issues.  All government legislation was expected to comply with the principles of the Treaty.  The Waitangi Tribunal Report (WAI 262), which had implications on the Maori  relationship with the environment and their cultural legal rights, recommended a range of measures which had been undertaken to strengthen the Crown-Maori relationship. 

The delegation informed that the most recent data showed that proportion of elected Maoris had increased.  Approximately 80 percent of councils had at least one structure to facilitate Maori engagement.  The Local Government Oakland Council of 2009 had established a board to assist the Maoris,  who had to be consulted.

The level of improvement in education among the Maori was remarkable said a delegate.

The Tide and Prevention Programme for the prevention of crime among the Maori had ambitious targets for 2018, including 20 percent reduction rates. 

Regarding the bias among the police towards the Maori, the Government recognized that problem and had a number of initiatives to address it, including developing police-Maori relationships.

Over 50 percent of prisoners had been previously unemployed, which confirmed the relationship between social problems and crime. Therefore, the industry-based training programmes existed during the time of imprisonment. In addition, there was community work, which included painting of local fences and so forth.

Abuse rates of Maori children were five times higher, and thus, related to the work the Government was doing with the Maori. A substantial body of work was addressing those issues.  It aimed to see a 25 percent level reduction of abuse of children. Child Sex Offender Legislature was being currently prepared, while other measures were also being developed, such as  creating replacement care for children who were abused.  The Vulnerable Children Act dictated that agencies had to collaborate to address the needs of children.

The Positive Learning Programme addressed the problem of bullying. The Harmful Digital Communications Act was aimed at preventing bullying and incidents similar to the “Roast Busters” case. 

Follow-Up Questions

An Expert asked the delegation to comment on the recent racial profiling cases that had been seen in the news.

Another Expert inquired about the statistics on adoption.

Replies by the Delegation

The Government was developing Guidelines on the Rights of Children, and included the right of the child to be heard, and to have that opinion taken into account.  The Guidelines were expected to be finalized in the very near future.

On the Adoption Act, the delegation said that the findings of the Human Rights Tribunal had come out very recently, and it was too soon to give information about how the Government would respond to that.
Regarding alleged racial profiling by the police, the delegation stated that those media stories on young people complaining about treatment by the police and were not credible.  There were options available for complaint. 

Concluding Remarks

AMY ADAMS, Minister of Justice, thanked the Committee and assured that the Government took interactive dialogues very seriously.  New Zealand held itself to the highest standards, and regarded itself as a country which had come very far, but knew there were always things that could be done better.  Ms. Adams expressed hope that the contribution by the delegation helped the Committee have a better understanding of the human rights issues in New Zealand.

FABIAN OMAR SALVIOLI, Chairperson of the Committee, said that the dialogue would indeed allow the Committee to better understand the issues in New Zealand.  Some of the issues of greatest importance were related to the Bill of Rights Act and the need for it to be fully in line with international standards for human rights, especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.   The legislation related to counter-terrorism measures was also important, and it would be useful to have respect and guarantee of human rights standards in that legislation. Women’s rights had also been discussed, including employment issues, and the emphasis placed on violence towards women.  The Committee would follow the issue of the “Roast Busters” and would hope to see that the perpetrators of those crimes would be punished appropriately.  There was still much to be done, including on problems related to child abuse, and the greater prudence related to the withdrawal of reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

__________
For use of the information media; not an official record
Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr