A/HRC/18/35/Add.4 lowest level of the Government’s development index.29 A two-part report by the Waitangi Tribunal, part 1 published in 2009 and part 2 in 2010, documents the continued confiscations of land within the Te Urewera region from 1860 to around the 1950s. The Waitangi Tribunal determined that these acts resulted in breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, but refrained from making recommendations for redress. For more than two years, Tuhoe have been involved in negotiations with the Government for redress of their historical grievances. Tuhoe were very close to reaching a settlement that included the return of ownership of land within the Te Urewera National Park, but in May 2010 the Government changed course and announced that it would not transfer ownership of the national park, a last-minute decision that was met with extreme disappointment on the part of Tuhoe. 45. Additionally, two cases currently pending assert claims on behalf of all Maori and pose particular challenges to the Treaty settlement process. One of the longest-standing cases before the Waitangi Tribunal is the Flora and Fauna case (Wai 262), which involves a claim by Maori to property rights related to Maori knowledge and indigenous flora and fauna, which they argue are guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi. The rights involved are described as falling under four main categories: matauranga Maori (traditional knowledge); Maori cultural property (tangible manifestation of matauranga Maori); Maori intellectual and cultural property rights; and rights to environmental, resource and conservation management—including bio-prospecting and access to flora and fauna. Another pan-Maori case currently pending settlement is the so-called Radio Spectrum case. In this case, Maori claim to have a right to a fair and equitable share in the radio spectrum resource. Maori are asking for reservation of a portion of the spectrum and a portion of the future benefits that derive therefrom, although the specific allocations of spectrum and benefits are expected to be settled through negotiations with the Government, as recommended by the Waitangi Tribunal.30 IV. Constitutional security of Maori rights A. Lack of constitutional security of Maori rights 46. The concerns identified above relating to Maori participation in decision-making and the Treaty settlement process lend support to the repeated call by Maori that the principles enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi and related internationally protected human rights be provided with constitutional security. For years, Maori representatives have expressed that their rights are too vulnerable to political discretion, resulting in their perpetual insecurity and instability. This vulnerability has been underscored in recent actions by the Parliament, including the passage of the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2004, and the Government’s support of a bill in Parliament in 2006, as part of an agreement with a minority political party, which proposed to delete the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from all legislation—though this bill was defeated by the Parliament’s Select Committee at its second reading. 47. In particular, there has been a persistent call by Maori for constitutional change to give greater security to the Treaty of Waitangi and Maori rights. While the Treaty is judicially enforceable to the extent that it has been incorporated in various pieces of legislation, it cannot be used to repeal or invalidate legislation. The lack of constitutional security of the provisions and principles of the Treaty of Waitangi was a principle focus of 29 30 14 New Zealand, Office of Treaty Settlement, “Background report” (note 8 above), p. 16. Wai 2224.