31 A fourth option similar to that just discussed comes from Canada. In this respect it is important to recall that our own Bill of Rights was based in important respects on  Canada’s  Charter  or  Rights  and  Freedoms.  It  would  be  a  relatively  simple change in technical terms to repeal section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and enact in its place a version of the Canadian provision, section 33 of the Charter: (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of  Parliament  or  of  the  legislature,  as  the  case  may  be,  that  the  Act  or  a provision  thereof  shall  operate  notwithstanding  a  provision  included  in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration. (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration. (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1). (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a  re-enactment  made under  subsection (4).   32 Some  rights  in  Canada  cannot  be  overridden.    These  are  democratic  rights  and some  equality  rights.    But  for  those  that  can,  the  override  only  lasts  five  years, although  it  can  be  re-imposed.    The  interesting  thing  about  this  provision  in Canada is how little it has been used. The political arms of government have to pay a reasonably high price to use the override and they do not seem willing to do so.    The  politics  of  overriding  fundamental  rights  in  a  democracy  are  never good.²⁸    Giving  Parliament  the  final  say  is  consistent  with  New  Zealand’s traditions  and  making  the  judgment  to  invade  rights  a  political  decision  is  also consistent  with  our  traditions.  This  option  would  protect  rights  and  restrain government,  but  at  the  same  time  it  would  not  disturb  the  supremacy  of Parliament. 33 The  fifth  option  comprises  a  number  of  smaller  changes  that  could  be  pursued independently  of  one  another.    The  Human  Rights  Act  1998  in  the  United                                                  28   Peter W Hogg Constitutional Law of Canada (3 ed, Carswell, Toronto, 1992) 898. 12