A/HRC/12/50 accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/NZL/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/NZL/3). 327. At its 16th meeting, on 24 September 2009, the Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on New Zealand (see section C below). 328. The outcome of the review on New Zealand comprises the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/8), the views of New Zealand concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, and its voluntary commitments and replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/12/8/Add.1 and Corr.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome 329. The delegation recalled that New Zealand strongly supported the introduction of the universal periodic review, which had lived up to its expectations. It also recalled that New Zealand’s national report had been the product of an open and consultative process, involving many groups both inside and outside Government. 330. The delegation indicated that New Zealand had received 64 recommendations, and had given serious consideration to all of them. A response to all the recommendations had been lodged with the Council secretariat and published on the Council’s website. Of the 64 recommendations, New Zealand had accepted 33 unreservedly. An additional 12 had been agreed to with further discussion. A qualified response had been given to 11 recommendations, and only 8 had been rejected. 331. The delegation highlighted some of the significant features of New Zealand’s responses, indicating that many of the recommendations focused on challenging areas that the Government itself recognized as requiring further attention. These included the social disparities between non-Maori and Maori; the status of the Treaty of Waitangi in domestic legislation; family violence; equality of opportunity; overrepresentation of Maori in the criminal justice system; and ratification of human rights treaties to which New Zealand was not party. 332. The delegation explained that Maori were integral to the national identity of New Zealand and represented about 15 per cent of the population. It acknowledged that there was a number of areas where improvements were needed, stressing that a wide range of measures to reduce social inequalities between Maori and non-Maori was under way. 333. Several countries had recommended that New Zealand give its support to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In May 2009, the delegation had explained that New Zealand would like to move to support the Declaration, provided that it could protect its unique and advanced domestic framework for the resolution of issues related to indigenous rights. The treaty settlement process recognized the interests of Maori in relation to land and natural resources, and provided redress where these interests had been abrogated. New Zealand had some of the most extensive consultation mechanisms in the world and the historical treaty settlements process was an unparalleled system of redress, accepted by both Maori and non-Maori. The delegation indicated that New Zealand’s position on the Declaration was still under active consideration by the Government. 334. New Zealand recognized the concerns raised about the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, explaining that an expert and independent ministerial review panel had been established in March 2009 to review whether the Act effectively recognized and provided for customary and public interests in the coastal marine area. After an extensive 112