Talk:New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand: Politics / Law High‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the New Zealand law task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Semester Two 2017. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Canterbury/International Human Rights Law (Semester Two 2017)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Untitled[edit]

Do we have an Article about the HRC? Brian | (Talk) 02:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, can't find one. The HRC doesn't really relate to the Bill of Rights however; the're mainly concerned with breaches of the Human Rights Act --Lholden 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should complete the remedies section with the case law - declaration of inconsistency, baigent damages and exclusion of evidence.

I would, but most of my law books are packed away now :-). Perhaps over the summer break I will... --Lholden 04:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect section?[edit]

An anon changed part of the article as follows:

This wikipedia article did read:

"Under section 4, the application of the Act grants the Courts the power to rule any provision of an enactment to be "impliedly repealed or revoked", or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or decline to apply any provision of this enactment by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights."

In fact, section 4 of the Act has exactly the OPPOSITE effect, stating that:

"No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights),—

(a)Hold any provision of the enactment to be impliedly repealed or revoked, or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or

(b)Decline to apply any provision of the enactment—

by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights."

Since it certainly looks to my untrained eye like they are correct, I've removed the self-reference and left the quoting of the act. This could be tidied up.-gadfium 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the section which specifically denies the Act any supremecy over other legislation.

Anon is correct - the mistake was my fault for not reading the section correctly. Duh! I'll edit the article. --Lholden 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fundamental?[edit]

Is it accurate to say this statute sets out "rights and fundamental freedoms" when it doesn't have status over any other laws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robomc (talk • contribs) 00:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill of Rights is a codification of a series of natural justice concepts, and you are correct it is not superior law in the sense that the US Constitution is. However it's biggest benefit is that it allows judicial review of "behavior" of the government. Having a forum for review is in itself is valuable for citizens in that it brings light on those "behaviors" and into a public forum. Without a Bill of Rights, there is a tendency for legal interpretation to expand into areas previously not intended (see Simpson v AG). It is fundamental in the sense that it will slow the expansion of acts of government through judicial review and provides those tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtroyal2012 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the legislation[edit]

This link is defunct, does anyone have an active link to the legislation? Thecrystalcicero (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it, assuming you're talking about the first link under "External links".-gadfium 20:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Summary Everyone vs Citizens[edit]

The original opening statement has "fundamental freedoms of the citizens of ...". This is incorrect. The term "everyone" (except voting rights) was explicitly used to include anyone citizen or not who is subject to New Zealand law. This includes refugees, visitors, temporary residents, ipso "Everyone" (and "No one" in the negative). Gtroyal2012 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Also the term "New Zealand citizen" in Section 12 is used explicitly to create a subset of "everyone", that is citizens, thus it is not correct to interchange "everyone" and "citizen". 24.150.88.160 (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

How can this legislation be only applied to the workings of the government when down a bit further of the article the laws are "guarenteed" to protect everyone in New Zealand from any violations full stop? Maybe make it clear that it will only hold government responsible because in its present form it is an incorrect generalisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.185.133 (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]