The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a state monitoring mechanism of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC).
It was established by General Assembly resolution 60/251[1] in 2006 to periodically review the protection and promotion of human rights in each of the 193 United Nations (UN) Member States.
The main goal of the UPR is to maintain and improve the domestic human rights situation in United Nations countries.
[8] A list of questions was prepared by Argentina, Denmark, Hungary, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and presented to NZ for consideration.
[9][10] The majority of questions focused on the social inequities (health, housing, employment, education, social services and criminal justice) faced by the indigenous people of New Zealand (NZ) (Māori); the high level of domestic violence against women and children; and why the Treaty of Waitangi is not given greater constitutional recognition and protection.
[7] A list of questions was prepared by the Czech Republic, Germany, Liechtenstein, Mexico, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
[11] As in 2008, the focus of the questions remained on the reduction of the high level of domestic violence against women and children; the rights of the indigenous people and the social inequities faced by them as outlined above.
This last category examines specifically: In 2008 the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) engaged in a consultation process with relevant stakeholders.
[7] The consultation process for New Zealand's 2nd national UPR report was managed by MFAT in collaboration with other government agencies including the Ministry of Justice, Te Puni Kokiri and the NZHRC.
[11] The meetings were attended by a broad range of civil society organisations and NGO's, iwi (Maori tribe/s) and individuals who raised specific human rights issues.
[19] Relevant stakeholders including the governments of the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau were invited to comment on the draft report.
In addition it was suggested that the Waitangi Tribunal recommendations should be made binding; concern was expressed at NZ's vote against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP); and repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which extinguished any Māori customary territorial title to the foreshore or seabed in NZ, was urged.
The repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 (which had provided a defence of reasonable force for parents who physically discipline their children) was welcomed, but unease was expressed about plans for a referendum on the issue.
There was concern regarding the systemic gender pay gap; the alarmingly high child poverty rates; and the proposed amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, which may result in unwarranted intrusion into the rights to freedom of association and expression.
As in 2008, concern was raised about Operation 8 (anti-terrorism raids carried out on 15 October 2007), which allegedly used excessive use of force against Maori Communities; it was recommended that NZ ensure that the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act 2007 is not applied in a discriminatory manner.
Among the suggestions were calls to continue to adopt policies to achieve full gender parity and to address the socio-economic inequalities affecting Māori and other minorities, as well as incorporating the fight against xenophobia and racism in the education curriculum.
Among the suggestions were calls to incorporate the Treaty of Waitangi; take concrete measures to ensure the implementation and promotion of the UN DRIP; and to continue to address all forms of political, economic and social discrimination against the Maori and Pacific population by meeting their various demands for constitutional and legal reforms and recognition.
25 recommendations were directed at women's rights; among these was the call for a national plan to address specific issues such as violence and pay inequality.
A further 3 recommendations were made regarding the Canterbury earthquakes; including to consider policies in relation to gender mainstreaming, adequacy of housing and access to buildings for persons with disabilities; and to facilitate the realization of economic, social and cultural rights through the reconstruction of the areas affected.
Academics and jurists see UPR as a mechanism to "empower" both civil society and the human rights movement as it affects New Zealanders in everyday life.
[33] McGregor et al states that "the UPR process clearly has raised covenant consciousness generally with civil society in New Zealand.
gender identity, intersex people and legal abortion, were not reflected in the recommendations of the Working Group or the interactive dialogue of the UPR.
[30] As these issues were raised by the Human Rights Commission and NGOs in the submissions, NZ proposed to follow up separately as part of the ongoing civil society interactions with the UPR.
The National Plan of Action bridges the UPR and the work being done on the recommendations looking towards the next review cycle and the people it purports to protect.
It was formed by the Human Rights Commission together with local government, iwi, civil society and non-government organisations to respond to and address recommendations made by the second cycle of the UPR.
"[35] The Human Rights Commission identify "civil society stakeholders who should be involved in creating and monitoring" the actions.
[35] The plan then sets out "a small number of concrete, achievable actions with timeframes" and holds identifiable agencies accountable.
[39] Conte said that UPR would need to "live up to expectations" and really change "human rights on the ground translating the recommendations and commitments made under the first cycle into measurable improvements".