User:Lord322/sandbox

NZ Response to Recommendations
The NZ government response to the 2nd cycle of the UPR process was released on 26 May 2014.ref New Zealand received 155 recommendations as part of the UPR Working Group process. The government response was to accept 121 recommendations and reject 34. Unless accepted outright (fully supported and implemented) reasoning was given for each recommendation, for example, a decision split over distinct areas may be made to accept the “spirit” behind the recommendation but not accept the “method of implementation”.ref THE ISSUES REJECTED AND ACCEPTED. The report was adopted by the Human Rights Council on the 19 June 2014.ref

The NZ government response to the 2nd cycle of the UPR process was released on 26 May 2014. New Zealand received 155 recommendations as part of the UPR Working Group process. The government response was to accept 121 recommendations and reject 34. Unless accepted outright (fully supported and implemented) reasoning was given for each recommendation, for example, a decision split over distinct areas may be made to accept the “spirit” behind the recommendation but not accept the “method of implementation”. REF The report was adopted by the Human Rights Council on the 19 June 2014.

NGOs/Civil Society
Following the 2014 review, after meeting with individuals, NGOs and civil society, NZ received 11 civil society submissions, bringing the total to 54. NGOs and civil society, while able to make submissions, are not part of the Working Group and can sometimes appear to be side-lined. 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. McGregor et al states that “the UPR process clearly has raised covenant consciousness generally with civil society in New Zealand.” Alex Conte discussed the UPR process in between the first and second cycle and stated that many see the key benefit to come out of the process as the greater consultation with civil society as well as to “improve the situation of human rights on the ground”. In response to the second cycle of the UPR, NZ acknowledged that some issues, rights relating to sexual orientation. gender identity, intersex people and legal abortion, were not reflected in the recommendations of the Working Group or the interactive dialogue of the UPR. 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.

Human Rights Commission National Plan of Action
NZ Human Rights Commission has a National Plan of Action for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (National Plan of Action). 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 New Zealand government together with the Human Rights Commission, civil society and non-government organisations to respond to and address recommendations made by the second cycle of the UPR. The plan is available publicly on the Human Rights Commission website and there is an interactive webtool which “monitors human rights in New Zealand”. The Human Rights Commission coordinates and develops the National Plan of Action but it is mandated by the Human Rights Act 1993. It is a collaborative effort. Government agencies identify actions which will “progress the UPR recommendations accepted by government.” The Human Rights Commission identify “civil society stakeholders who should be involved in creating and monitoring” the actions. The plan then sets out “a small number of concrete, achievable actions with timeframes” and holds identifiable agencies accountable. These are reported as per the plan.

There are four main focus areas for the National Plan of Action:
 * How human rights issues are managed within the policy and law making processes
 * New Zealand’s growing diversity and its impacts on our society and race relations
 * Issues raised in respect of inequalities and discrimination in New Zealand
 * Tackling violence and abuse in New Zealand

Criticism
There was a plan for a National Plan after the first cycle of UPR, however the government did not adopt it. McGregor et al discusses the consequence of that failure to adopt the first plan as various civil society and NGOs required more clarity from the plan for the second National Plan of Action and had concerns about the outcome of the plan.

Responses To Recommendations
The first cycle of UPR had problems with responses to recommendations and concerns about the implementation of recommendations. Conte discussed the problems which evolved from having three answers available to states: accept, reject and partially accept. This led to convoluted answers from some states which slowed the process. For the second cycle the answers were more defined being only accept or reject, however as an official report written by Judy McGregor, Sylvia Bell and Margaret Wilson (McGregor et al) shows answers were still convoluted. New Zealand rejected 34 recommendations but used language such as “New Zealand accepts the spirit of these recommendations, but is unable to accept them in full” when rejecting a recommendation. McGregor et al see this as “differentiating” between “acceptance through spirit and acceptance through action.” Language used is an ongoing and complex concern with responses as they impact on the level of action taken by states.

Ratification and Compliance
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”. McGregor et al outlines the progression of New Zealand’s human rights instruments with the ongoing UPR process. There has been little progress since the first UPR cycle in 2009 in terms of ratification of human rights treaties in New Zealand. This is largely because compliance was already high as New Zealand is an early adopter of many significant treaties. In 2010 New Zealand accepted the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. McGregor et al found that there has been a “maturing of process” from the first cycle of UPR to the second and that this can be seen in the wider involvement in civil society, the increased prominence of the Human Rights Commission and the increase in the number of recommendations from cycle one to cycle two.

NZ Media Coverage of UPR
The UPR process is not closely covered by NZ media. Media coverage of human rights issues are centred on specific issues relevant to current events which were covered in UPR recommendations to NZ. This is similar to global trends in reporting of UPR in mainstream media. The lack of publicity given to the UPR process in NZ was described by McGregor et al as an “existing indifference of the mainstream news media to human rights treaty body reporting in terms of publicity and promotion.” This was not the position of the government. Media attention was described by the Minister of Justice as being of a “moderate amount”, however academics such as McGregor at al see this as an inflated assessment which precludes open reporting and creates a barrier to awareness of human rights and treaty body reporting being reported in a clear and systematic way. In McGregor et al’s report a practical recommendation was given to improve reporting of human rights and the international treaty body system. It was suggested that Journalists Educators’ Association of New Zealand (JEANZ) and the Human Rights Commission (HRC) work together to develop a “practical toolkit for journalists” to encourage and facilitate reporting.