1,721,005 research outputs found
Defining the Ambit of the Free Speech Privilege in New Zealand's Parliament
Full text linkThe Pricy Council decision in Jennings v Buchanan reasserted the judiciary’s role in deciding the ambit of Parliamentary privilege. This article outlines that decision and unpicks the reasons for the Court’s judgement. The author then considers some potential problems with the judicial approach taken, problems which may give the privileges committee cause to recommend that the House move to legislate to overturn the decision. Finally, the author makes some suggestions as to the form such legislation should take
End-of-Life Choice in New Zealand's Parliament and Courts
Full text linkThe issue variously termed “euthanasia”, “assisted suicide” or “aid in dying” repeatedly has been raised in New Zealand. In this article, the author considers the legislative attempts to permit it and the treatment of the issue by New Zealand courts. In particular, the author considers the New Zealand High Court case of Seales v Attorney-General
Defining the Ambit of the Free Speech Privilege in New Zealand's Parliament
No full textThe Pricy Council decision in Jennings v Buchanan reasserted the judiciary’s role in deciding the ambit of Parliamentary privilege. This article outlines that decision and unpicks the reasons for the Court’s judgement. The author then considers some potential problems with the judicial approach taken, problems which may give the privileges committee cause to recommend that the House move to legislate to overturn the decision. Finally, the author makes some suggestions as to the form such legislation should take
A world of (linguistic) possibility : the rights-consistent interpretive directives of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998
No full textiv, 89 leaves :col. ill., maps (some folded) ; 30 cm. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 84-89) University of Otago department: Law.INTRODUCTION: This dissertation examines the impact of two contemporary bills of rights, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ('BORA') and the United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998 ('HRA'), on statutory interpretation in the courts of New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Unlike other common law bills of rights, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982, neither the BORA nor the HRA sanctions judicial invalidation of legislation. But, as will be seen, the bill of rights model adopted by New Zealand and the United Kingdom is problematic, since it provides an evaluative and interpretive role for judges, which is occasionally wont to ascend to quasi-judicial invalidation of legislation.
In Chapter I, the problems raised by bills of rights will be discussed, proceeding from the premise that New Zealand and the United Kingdom are both constitutionally committed to the tradition of Parliamentary sovereignty. The concept of Parliamentary sovereignty is elucidated with close reference to Jeremy Waldron's defence of democratic law-making, which, it is suggested, is a particularly elegant explication of the philosophical basis of Parliamentary sovereignty. Then, against this background, the legislative histories and enacted provisions of the BORA and HRA are explained.
Chapter II examines the experience of the BORA and HRA in the courts, and the approaches that New Zealand and United Kingdom judges have taken to their respective interpretive roles in the protection of rights. As will be seen, the BORA and HRA have generated quite distinct lines of precedent, and Chapter II concludes with the observation that in the United Kingdom, statutory interpretation has undergone, since the enactment of the HRA, a fundamental recharacterisation.
Noting that this recharacterisation seems to be at odds with the traditional concept of Parliamentary sovereignty, Chapter III attempts to shed light on the United Kingdom's novel interpretive path, such that it might be rationally distinguished from that of New Zealand, rather than condemned as judicial roguery.
Finally, it is proposed that the BORA and HRA, while anatomically analogous, are the products of two politically, socially - and, increasingly, constitutionally - divergent countries. Their interpretation and application, therefore, is conditioned by the particular legal rubric in which each is operating.
But, setting aside for the moment the points of difference between New Zealand and the United Kingdom, it is with the points of constitutional convergence between the two jurisdictions that Chapter I begins
'Declarations of Inconsistency' Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Full text linkThis article considers the constitutional question of whether prisoners should be permitted to vote. The author discusses the case of Attorney General v Taylor and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, to conclude that the final say on this issue remains with the New Zealand Government
The Case for Allowing Aid in Dying in New Zealand
Full text linkThis article discusses the sensitive topic of whether and when persons suffering as the result of an incurable and/or terminal medical condition ought to be allowed to end their lives with the active assistance of others. The author argues that New Zealand law should be amended to allow those competent and consenting adult persons experiencing such suffering to directly request that a willing doctor actively help end their life
Judicial Enforcement of New Zealand's Reserved Provisions
No full textThis article provides commentary on the issue of prisoner voting, specifically the issue of prohibiting sentenced prisoners from voting. The author considers how the New Zealand Parliament’s decision to remove the right to vote from sentenced prisoners is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), the judicial response to this inconsistency, and the potential consequences for the New Zealand legislation prohibiting prisoner voting
Foreword
No full textThis article is the foreword to Volume 39, Issue 1 of the UNSW Law Journal. The article begins by considering the role of elections in liberal representative democracies, particularly with regard to answering deeply contested arguments about who should be in charge of the nation’s lawmaking and governing institutions. The author continues on to discuss each of the submissions to the Journal and how they relate to the field of electoral law
The Judiciary
No full textThe judiciary (the courts) have been referred to as the ‘third arm of government’ (Brennan 1996). This chapter considers the role of the judiciary in the overall institutional structure that exercises political power of New Zealand society. The author considers the different functions of the judiciary, including the ways in which they function independently of the elected, or political, parts of government in order to restrain how these institutions operate
Inter-Institutional 'Rights Dialogue' Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
No full textThis article considers the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), which is commonly viewed as the progenitor of the ‘parliamentary bills of rights’ adopted in the United Kingdom and various Australian States. In particular, the author examines how the NZBORA has affected the relationship between New Zealand’s Parliament and the courts
- …
