Prime Minister critical of UN committee's process

Prime Minister Helen Clark has criticised the way a United Nations committee reached its conclusion that the Foreshore and Seabed Act appears to be discriminatory.

The committee's report, issued on Saturday, has been hailed by opponents of the legislation as evidence that it disadvantages Maori and there have been calls for its repeal.

Helen Clark said today the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination did not find New Zealand was in breach of any UN convention, and had noted the country's good track record of dialogue and negotiation with Maori.

"I don't think we should elevate this to a statement that the UN is making a finding against New Zealand," she said on TV One's Breakfast programme.

"This is not the UN Security Council... this is a committee that sits on the outer edge of the UN system."

Helen Clark said the committee followed "a most unsatisfactory process" when it met in Geneva to consider complaints by Maori who were opposed to the legislation.

"When our representatives arrived the process was changed... they had to sit while members of the committee made statements about what they thought the situation was," she said.

"Our people had about 35 minutes to say, in essence, what was a very complex situation."

Helen Clark said she thought people opposed to the legislation were taking more from the report than it actually contained.

"This isn't a statement that New Zealand is a terrible country in breach of international conventions that those who went trotting off to it wanted to hear," she said.

The committee's report referred to the "extinguishment of the possibility of establishing Maori customary title over the foreshore and seabed" and said the legislation failed to provide a guaranteed right of redress.

The Maori Party and the Greens have both called for the act to be repealed in light of the committee's report.

When it was released on Saturday, Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen urged caution in interpreting it.

He said it ran to only nine paragraphs and did not provide much commentary on the committee's reasons for reaching its conclusions.

- NZPA