Technically, parliament can create any new legislation they want to (even if the new law breaches BORA), as long as they follow the proper process. This power is called “parliamentary supremacy” – in other words, their decision is “supreme” over all other authorities, including the court system.
There are two main checks on this process, but neither of them have the power to change or revoke a new law:
Before a suggested new law (called a “Bill”) is passed (at which point it becomes an “Act”), the Attorney-General will review it and see if it might breach BORA. If so, the Attorney General will prepare a report that explains the issues with the Bill (called a “Section 7 report”). The Section 7 report may make recommendations to parliament about how the Bill could be changed so it doesn’t breach BORA. These are only recommendations – parliament can choose to ignore them if they want.
Once an Act is passed, it can be reviewed by the courts through a process called judicial review (see: “Going to the courts: ‘Judicial review’”). If the judge decides that law is not consistent with the rights protected by BORA, they can make a statement about this, called a “declaration of inconsistency”. This doesn’t change the law, but it does send a strong message to parliament that the judge thinks the new law breaches human rights in a way that should not be allowed. In general, the judge will also try to interpret the law in a way that doesn’t breach BORA, if possible.