Blue Liberals Newsletter: March 2009
The Bill of Not Quite Rights
In 2007, full of pretended outrage about the brethren and the pernicious influence of big money in politics the Labour Government introduced and passed into law the Electoral Finance Act.
It was a partisan piece of legislation roundly criticised for its drafting and the assumption that it is political parties that own politics, rather than the people. But its greatest fault was its overt trespass on the freedom of speech guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Yet it still became law, prompting the question how 'guaranteed' the guaranteed rights provided by the Bill of Rights Act actually are.
The answer is not very much. From a legal point of view the Bill of Rights Act is a flaccid document indeed. It does not override other legislation and it allows Parliament to limit the rights contained in it wherever and whenever it considers such limitation justified. Lord Cooke of Thorndon said of the Act that "it is regarded internationally as one of the weakest affirmations of human rights." It is a view shared by the Civil Rights Committee of the United Nations, which regularly criticises the failure of successive Governments to do anything to strengthen it.
Nor, it seems, can we rely on the courts. In a judgment issued this month on a challenge to the Electoral Finance Act and the failure of Attorney-General Dr Michael Cullen to draw Parliament's attention to the inconsistency with the Bill of Right, the Court of Appeal refused to trespass on what it saw as Parliament's business.
Instead, what Kiwis we are supposed to rely on is the fact that our politicians are reasonable people and that they will be nervous about doing anything that looked like they were legislating away our rights. This is a normative or cultural guarantee rather than a legal one. And it was one that Labour, the Greens, Progressive, and New Zealand First felt free to ignore.
Of course you can now say a year and a bit on that the cultural protections won out. A repugnant Act has been repealed and the Parties responsible for it have been rightly removed from power. In the case of New Zealand First the blow that fell on it was even more mortal.
But it was a near run thing. So much hung on the fortunes of Winston Peters and we all know that in an increasingly complex world people rarely vote on single issues. Also the realities of MMP make the chances of being called to account on a rights issue pretty small. Tell a good story and raise enough fear and, bit by bit our freedoms die. It's how such things as the US 'Patriots' Act' get their name.
It used to be that we could rely on people being reasonable. But as the Electoral Finance Act showed it’s a less reasonable hope.
For this reason the Blue-Libs would like to see work begun on how to strengthen the New Zealand Bill of Rights so that laws like the Electoral Finance Act cannot be visited on us again.
What do you think? Email: laura.dalby@national.org.nz
The Bill of Not Quite Rights
In 2007, full of pretended outrage about the brethren and the pernicious influence of big money in politics the Labour Government introduced and passed into law the Electoral Finance Act.
It was a partisan piece of legislation roundly criticised for its drafting and the assumption that it is political parties that own politics, rather than the people. But its greatest fault was its overt trespass on the freedom of speech guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Yet it still became law, prompting the question how 'guaranteed' the guaranteed rights provided by the Bill of Rights Act actually are.
The answer is not very much. From a legal point of view the Bill of Rights Act is a flaccid document indeed. It does not override other legislation and it allows Parliament to limit the rights contained in it wherever and whenever it considers such limitation justified. Lord Cooke of Thorndon said of the Act that "it is regarded internationally as one of the weakest affirmations of human rights." It is a view shared by the Civil Rights Committee of the United Nations, which regularly criticises the failure of successive Governments to do anything to strengthen it.
Nor, it seems, can we rely on the courts. In a judgment issued this month on a challenge to the Electoral Finance Act and the failure of Attorney-General Dr Michael Cullen to draw Parliament's attention to the inconsistency with the Bill of Right, the Court of Appeal refused to trespass on what it saw as Parliament's business.
Instead, what Kiwis we are supposed to rely on is the fact that our politicians are reasonable people and that they will be nervous about doing anything that looked like they were legislating away our rights. This is a normative or cultural guarantee rather than a legal one. And it was one that Labour, the Greens, Progressive, and New Zealand First felt free to ignore.
Of course you can now say a year and a bit on that the cultural protections won out. A repugnant Act has been repealed and the Parties responsible for it have been rightly removed from power. In the case of New Zealand First the blow that fell on it was even more mortal.
But it was a near run thing. So much hung on the fortunes of Winston Peters and we all know that in an increasingly complex world people rarely vote on single issues. Also the realities of MMP make the chances of being called to account on a rights issue pretty small. Tell a good story and raise enough fear and, bit by bit our freedoms die. It's how such things as the US 'Patriots' Act' get their name.
It used to be that we could rely on people being reasonable. But as the Electoral Finance Act showed it’s a less reasonable hope.
For this reason the Blue-Libs would like to see work begun on how to strengthen the New Zealand Bill of Rights so that laws like the Electoral Finance Act cannot be visited on us again.
What do you think? Email: laura.dalby@national.org.nz
