The Human Rights Commission has received a confidential complaint about the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act.
If the complainant fails to gain redress, the appeal process may move to the United Nations.
The commission has refused to disclose any details about the complaint. Under the act, the Crown has assumed
ownership of the foreshore and seabed and all its resources, which is regarded by Maori as a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi.
In another case, Peter Goldsbury - who has posted correspondence with the commission on various websites - has been told he may be able to appear as an interested party at a mediation hearing if the confidential complaint goes ahead.
Mr Goldsbury initially complained that the select committee which studied the legislation had deliberately ignored major submissions from individuals questioning the constitutional validity of the proposed act, thereby giving grounds for declaring it legally invalid.
He argues that, given the complaints about the act, the Government can have no legal mandate to be unilaterally negotiating resource rights and licensing with any other party prior to human, constitutional and contractual rights being resolved.
But Mr Goldsbury was told the commission could not proceed with his complaint because he "was a Pakeha and not a member of any official Maori organisation".
"The commission is authorised by law to accept complaints about laws that are alleged to be discriminatory in that they disadvantage one group of people when compared with another by reason of one of the identified grounds of unlawful discrimination - one of which is race," said a letter.
Mr Goldsbury was told to take his complaints about the select committee process to the Speaker of Parliament. The commission confirmed that the Taranaki Maori Trust Board, which protested against the Foreshore Bill, is also planning to submit a complaint about the act.
The commission's powers to issue findings were axed in 2001 and it has developed a role as a mediator.
But if complainants do not reach satisfaction at the mediation stage, which seems unlikely if the Government is on the other side of the table, it can be referred up to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
