32 C. The Commission recommends that the Committee urge New Zealand to commit to concrete timeframes to respond to the recommendations of the Constitutional Advisory Panel and to establish without delay processes – with public consultation and participation - to:  explore in more detail the options for amending the BORA with a particular focus on adding property rights, the right to privacy and incorporating other ICCPR obligations; and  develop a range of options for the future role of the Treaty of Waitangi within New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. Reservations to the Convention LOIPR Does the State party envisage withdrawing its reservations entered upon its ratification of the Covenant? If not, please provide detailed reasons explaining why it does not intend to do so and how those reservations are compatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant (CCPR/C/NZL/CO/5, para. 5). (Para 4) 33 Article 20 (2) of the ICCPR provides: Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination or violence shall be prohibited by law. 34 On ratifying the ICCPR in 1978 New Zealand entered the following reservation in relation to Article 20: The Government of New Zealand having legislated in the areas of advocacy of national and racial hatred and the exciting of hostility or ill will against any group or persons, and having regard to the right to freedom of speech, reserves the right not to introduce further legislation with regard to Article 20. 35 The Government’s Report to the Committee notes that the reservations remain because “New Zealand considers current legislation is sufficient in this area and in particular has duly balanced the right to freedom of expression. New Zealand has legislation against the advocacy of national and racial hatred, and the inciting of hostility or ill will against any group of persons.” 36 Recently a case was brought before the Human Rights Review Tribunal to test the application of s61 of the HRA, which prohibits publishing material (or using words in certain circumstances) which is likely to incite racial hatred. The plaintiffs, in this case, alleged that certain cartoons published in the Marlborough Express and Christchurch Press were insulting and likely to have the effect of bringing Māori and Pacific people into contempt by reason of their race, colour and/or ethnic or national origin. As a result they said the cartoons breached s.61of the HRA. Page 15 of 93 Human Rights Commission submission to the Human Rights Committee in relation to New Zealand’s 6th periodic review under the ICCPR