New Zealand's National Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Report ...

• Rawiti Marsh questioned what would happen if we did not meet the UNdeadlines/timeframes and instead explained to the UN that this was because the timeallowed was not adequate in the New Zealand context.Section Two: Background of Country2.1 Constitutional, Political and Legal Structure• Sacha McMeeking commented that while she appreciates the section is trying toprovide an objective statement of fact on the Treaty’s status, this is not easy in thiscontext. The section fails to reflect the criticisms of both UN treaty bodies,constitutional commentators and Maori, and there is a need for self-reflection (see forexample the shadow report to ICERD).• Dayle Takitimu commented that despite the Treaty’s constitutional status being ofcritical importance, it was reduced to only one sentence. She asked whether it wouldbe possible to cross-reference other points of view/reports to flag to readers thedifferent interpretations on the constitutional status.2.2 Relationships with the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau• Carolynn Bull queried why so much space was devoted to Tokelau, in 2.2 and anannex. Carolynn also noted that the second para covers some of the first, and couldtherefore be shortened.• Richard Kay explained that covering Tokelau in an annex was consistent with ourpractice in treaty body reports. The annex was not included in New Zealand’s 20 pagelimit.2.3 New Zealand Human Rights Commission (NZHRC)• Carolynn Bull suggested that the section could be strengthened by reference to thelanguage in the preamble to the Human Rights Act, and the link to internationalobligations. Carolynn also questioned the accuracy of saying that the New ZealandHuman Rights Commission (NZHRC) has the power to resolve disputes, when itsmandate is to assist in resolving cases. Carolynn suggested including the number ofcases dealt with by the NZHRC.• Dayle Takitimu suggested referring to the NZHRC’s report.2.4 International Commitments• Carolynn Bull recalled that work was done in the early 1990s on a Pacific Carter ofIndigenous Rights, which New Zealand was committed to at the time. This issomething positive we were involved in and perhaps it could be included.• Dayle Takitimu suggested that this section was a more logical place to include thegovernment’s position on the DRIP, rather than in 3.1.2.5 Incorporation of International Treaties2.6 Human Rights Legislation• Carolynn Bull commented that the delegation will need answers as to why BORA issubordinate legislation. While this is stated in para 1, it isn’t satisfactorily answered inpara 2.19