The bill of rights debate: why the New Zealand bill of rights act 1990 is a bad model for Britain

Abstract

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees a range offundamental rights and freedoms. However, while it mandates the Courts to interpret legislation consistently with the rights and freedoms which it guarantees (s 6), it explicitly prohibits judges from striking down or invalidating other legislation-whether passed before or after the enactment of the Bill of Rights-on grounds of inconsistency with the Bill (s 4). As part of the debate in Britain over the introduction of a bill of rights and the compatibility of such a bill with democracy and parliamentary sovereignty, quite some attention has been paid to the New Zealand Bill of Rights.' Indeed, in his recent and thought-provoking paper, 'Droit Public-English Style', Lord Woolf of Barnes strongly praised the New Zealand Bill as a model worthy of serious consideration in the United Kingdom. His Lordship commented:2