A/HRC/18/35/Add.4 the report of the former Special Rapporteur.31 Likewise, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended in its concluding observations that New Zealand “continue the public discussion over the status of the Treaty of Waitangi, with a view to its possible entrenchment as a constitutional norm” (CERD/C/NZL/CO/17, para. 13). 48. Other rights, specifically those enshrined in the Bill of Rights Act of 1990 (No. 109) (which guarantees mostly civil and political rights, including the rights of minorities) and in the Human Rights Act of 1993 (No. 82) (which guarantees the right to non-discrimination on the grounds of race), are similarly not enforceable as against the legislature. Further, both these Acts can be amended by a simple majority of Parliament. 49. However, the Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act do include a few safeguards to provide some security to the rights contained in those instruments. Under the Bill of Rights Act, courts are required to construe enactments as consistent with the Act, where possible (sect. 6). Also under the Bill of Rights Act, the Attorney General may bring to the attention of the House of Representatives any provision of draft legislation that appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights guaranteed under the Act (sect. 7). In addition, the Human Rights Act allows for a declaration by the Human Rights Review Tribunal that legislation is inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination. The Special Rapporteur notes that, at a minimum, the development of similar checks would be important in the context of the Treaty of Waitangi. 50. Yet even if legislation is found to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights or Human Rights Act there is no requirement for the Government to modify or repeal the inconsistent legislation. In this connection, the Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations, noted with concern that “it is possible, under the terms of the Bill of Rights, to enact legislation that is incompatible with the provisions of the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]”, and regretted that “this appears to have been done in a few cases, thereby depriving victims of any remedy under domestic law” (CCPR/CO/75/NZL, para. 8). The Human Rights Committee recommended that New Zealand “take appropriate measures to implement all the Covenant rights in domestic law and to ensure that every victim of a violation of Covenant rights has a remedy in accordance with article 2 of the Covenant” (ibid.). 51. In order to address concerns related to the lack of domestic legal security for Maori rights, among other reasons, the Government is planning to undertake a constitutional review process, which will include a review of “Maori representation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution,” among other issues.32 The Special Rapporteur will continue to follow this constitutional review process with great interest and hopes that it continues to be the subject of concerted action on the part of the Government. B. The Foreshore and Seabed Act 52. A notable example of the lack of security of Maori rights is the passage of the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2004. The Act vested the ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Government, thereby extinguishing any Maori customary title over that area, while private fee simple title over the foreshore and seabed remained unaffected. Also of particular concern was that Maori people were not adequately consulted about the Act 31 32 See, for example, E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.3, para. 10. See www.beehive.govt.nz/release/govt-begins-cross-party-constitutional-review. 15