KEY POINTS:
United Nations reviews of race relations in New Zealand are usually either praised to the skies or condemned as worthless exercises. There is no middle ground. So it has been with the report of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which, among other things, criticises
the Foreshore and Seabed Act, questions a proposal to remove Treaty of Waitangi references in statutes, and repeats concerns about the over-representation of Maori in the prison population.
According to the Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell, this represents a blow to this country's international reputation. But to Winston Peters, the leader of New Zealand First, the UN document is nothing more than "meddlesome". Neither has got the right perspective. As much as there is no reason to get thin-skinned about such critiques, so there is no reason to believe anyone outside New Zealand will be interested in them. Only those identified as being victims will accord them importance.
In large part, that is the result of the flawed nature of the UN process. Such committees are made up of a hotch-potch of representatives from around the globe. Each one of them brings a particular set of prejudices to an inquiry. As Mr Peters suggests, there is also no requirement for expertise in the issues with which they are dealing. This can lead to them being easily swayed by whoever they talk to, and lends predictability to their findings.
That is not to say it is not occasionally helpful to hear an outside view of ourselves. Many of the findings of such commissions may be mundane, but some are worthy of discussion. One, in this instance, is the commission's concern that steps taken to target programmes and policies on the basis of need rather than ethnicity may have been adopted in a "political climate unfavourable to the rights of Maori". That is a reference to the Government's hasty grasping of race-blind social programmes after former National Party leader Don Brash's well-received speech at Orewa in 2004. It is fair to ask whether this unfairly tarnished the value of services delivered by Maori for Maori.
Several of the committee's recommendations have been made by previous UN reviews, including that a year or so back by Rodolfo Stavenhagen, of the Commission on Human Rights. Calls for the Waitangi Tribunal to have legally binding powers to adjudicate on Treaty matters will again find little traction, given the well-practised formula for the claims process and the far greater pressure that would be placed on the tribunal.
Nor does the committee have anything particularly new to say about the Foreshore and Seabed Act, the catalyst for the formation of the Maori Party. It suggests only that there should be renewed dialogue between the Government and Maori. This is often the main defect of such reports. Problems are identified but no new or original solutions are provided. The committee's examination of the Maori prison population is another case in point. Having, to the surprise of nobody, identified the problem, its recommendation amounts to according it a higher priority.
New Zealand, of course, has its own human rights and race relations watchdogs. Their work is informed by a more intimate appreciation of the workings of this society and the reasons for them. It offers one viewpoint on the recognition of minorities. The UN offers another perspective. Its mode of operation may be flawed and its findings somewhat compromised. But that should not make them unwelcome. To intimate as much would be tantamount to conceding they are getting close to the bone.