A/HRC/18/35/Add.4 and there was no avenue for redress by the courts for the extinguishment of Maori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed. 53. In his report, the previous Special Rapporteur recommended the repeal or amendment of the Foreshore and Seabed Act and that the Government engage in Treaty settlement negotiations with Maori regarding their customary rights and interests in the foreshore and seabed (E/CN.4/2006/78/Add.3, para. 92). The Act was also the subject of criticism by United Nations treaty bodies, including the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.33 54. In November 2009, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would repeal the Act providing that a suitable replacement regime could be developed. Various actions have been taken to address the concerns brought forth by this law, including a nationwide consultation by an independent Ministerial Review Panel in 2009 which concluded that the law was unfair, discriminatory and needed to be repealed. The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives in late 2010 to replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The bill was passed into law in March 2011. 55. According to information received, the new bill is meant to restore the customary interests extinguished by the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In order to obtain customary marine title, a Maori group must prove it has used and occupied the area claimed according to custom (tikanga), without substantial interruption from 1840 to the present day, and to the exclusion of others. Also, the bill contains a burden of proof clause that states that a customary interest will be deemed to not have been extinguished, in the absence of proof to the contrary. 56. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes the need for the law to be in line with international standards regarding the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional lands and resources. It is of note that the bill is the first legislation to be introduced into Parliament that affects indigenous rights since New Zealand’s expression of support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Special Rapporteur notes that the bill still allows for certain past acts of extinguishment of Maori rights to have effect, and he reminds the Government that the extinguishment of indigenous rights by unilateral, uncompensated acts is inconsistent with the Declaration. In addition, concern has been expressed that the bill only requires the Government to “acknowledge”34 rather than “give effect” to the Treaty of Waitangi, the latter being understood to establish a stronger, positive obligation on the part of the Government to promote the Treaty and its principles, as required in some other legislation.35 Also of concern for some Maori representatives is that the limit of six years to assert customary interest claims (sect. 98, clause 2) may have the effect of barring some legitimate claims. V. Maori development 57. The Special Rapporteur cannot help but note the extreme disadvantage in the social and economic conditions of Maori people in comparison to the rest of New Zealand society. This disadvantage, which manifests itself across a range of indicators, including education, health and income, is certainly detrimental to Maori people’s ability to act in partnership 33 34 35 16 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, decision 1 (66) on Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 (CERD/C/DEC/NZL/1), para. 7. Sect. 4, clause (1)(d). See, for example, sect. 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 (No. 65).