COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL A.Z. BILL OF RIGHTS WAS PROMISED—10 YEARS AGO

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32383, 24 August 1970, Page 12

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL A.Z. BILL OF RIGHTS WAS PROMISED—10 YEARS AGO

(By

C. R. MENTIPLAY,

Our Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, August 23.—A task that the Government volunteered to perform 10 years ago was revealed last week to be still undone. Though a New Zealand Bill of Rights appeared briefly in Parliament seven years ago, before disappearing, nothing has been done to define the rights of the individual.

This places New Zealand and its people in a position inferior to those of the citizens of other modern democracies, such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. The fact that Australians occupy a similar position of non-definition should not be a matter of comfort to our legislators.

The Minister of Justice (Mr Riddiford) is well aware of this shortcoming. When asked to comment after the tabling of the Ombudsman’s special report on his investigation into complaints against police conduct, he said: “Nowhere in the law are the specific rights of demonstrators spelled out, unless we go back to the Declaration of Rights. There is no constitutional right to demonstrate in New Zealand, as there is in the United States through the provisions of the American Constitution relating to free speech and right of assembly.” Election Manifesto The extraordinary thing is that this should be so, more than 10 years after a National Party Government promised New Zealand a Bill of Rights of its own, to be linked (if this proved feasible) with a Constitution set down in writing. Much work appeared to be done on both these projects—but it is now six years since the result was dropped into that Parliamentary waste-paper basket called “measures lapsed or otherwise disposed of.” Chafing after three years in Opposition, the National Party in 1960 produced a manifesto which promised a number of things. The bid was successful. Offering its wares again for the 1963 General Election, the National Party was able to claim that all of its 1960 promises had either been implemented or were on the way to being so. One of the promises was for the introduction and passing of a Bill of Rights, defining and preserving the “fundamental human rights and freedoms” of private citizens in New Zealand. Ten years ago this was regarded as an urgent necessity. The Ombudsman’s report indicates that its urgency has not decreased with the passing of a decade. Birth Of A Bill

There was no doubt about the National Party Government's intentions. The imminence of a New Zealand Bill of Rights was mentioned by the GovernorGeneral in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the 1961, 1962 and 1963 sessions—but no Bill of Rights appeared. On November 13, 1962, we find the Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. E. Kirk) asking after the promised Bill, and receiving the answer (from the then Minister of Justice, the late Mr J. R. Hanan) that for various reasons it would not be brought down that session. At last the Bill appeared

imminent almost as imminent as the 1963 General Election. In the GovernorGeneral’s Speech from the Throne on June 20, 1963, occurred the passage: “Since its assumption of office, my Government has been at all times conscious of the need to remove unnecessary restrictions on the freedom of the individual citizen, and to expand the scope for him to enjoy his fundamental rights . . .” The New Zealand Bill of Rights arrived in the House on August 15, 1963. It was a measure of four clauses, with a preamble full of warm and sonorous phrases such as: “An Act for the recognition and protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms in New Zealand.”

Broad Definition It did not attempt close definition. The operative section, Clause 2, referred to the existence of fundamental human rights, and laid down that there should be no discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion, opinion, belief or sex.

A subclause mentioned the validity of Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and made the point: “Everyone has duties to others, and is therefore subject to the limitations imposed by law for protecting the rights and freedoms of others, or in the interests of public safety, order or morals, the general welfare, or the security of New Zealand.”

In its definition section, the Bill prodtlced more phrases like whiffs of well - remembered fragrance from other men’s flowers. How else could one define “the right to life, liberty and the security of the person, and the right not to be deprived of these except in accordance with law?” (Personally, 1 prefer the pure, unarguable American form: “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”) However, the Bill was in the House. It provided for freedom of speech and expression, and freedom for peaceful discussion and assembly. For. what it was, the Government had fulfilled that much of its pledge.

The Bill Dies There was quite a long discussion on this Bill, just seven years ago. For many of those in the House that day it was a beginning. Very few, if any, would have been prepared to predict that this would be the last to be heard of it.

Mr Hanan spoke extensively, both in introducing

the Bill and in answering questions by a curious Opposition. One of his comments is noteworthy: “The balance between the citizen and the State over a long period has moved in the direction of the State, and many people believe the time has come for a reassessment of the liberties of the individual.” Talking about possible arguments against the Bill, he spoke of fears that “it would import a catastrophic uncertainty into the law,” and that any assertion of a right would also bring the necessary qualification of an obligation.

Opposition members (who had not seen the Bill) asked many questions. Mr S. A. Whitehead (Lab., Nelson) wanted to know whether there was anything in it restricting the sovereignty of the people “as happened when the National Party became the Government and joined the World Bank.” Mr H. G. R. Mason (Lab., Waitakere) asked whether Mr Hanan .believed that human affairs, especially human rights, could be based on a law that was itself uncertain. Racial Questions

The late Sir Eruera Tirikatene (Lab., Southern Maori) asked whether the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi were included in the Bill. He was told by Mr Hanan that the preamble of the Bill was close to that of the Canadian Bin of Rights, with additions covering racial origin.

The Bill was read a first time, given a second reading pro forma, and referred to the Constitutional Reform Committee which had been set up to consider petitions asking for a written Constitution for New Zealand. And that was all. The New Zealand Bill of Rights was never heard of again. It was mentioned daily in the Order Paper as being before this Select Committee—and thus no charges could be made by candidates in the General Election, only three months later, that the National Party bad forgotten its promises. In 1964, nothing relating to a Bill of Rights appeared. There is no record even of an Opposition member asking what was happening about it One would assume that the Opposition, through its members on the Select Committee, knew —but the public did not. And in the Appendix to the 1964 Session, under “measures lapsed or otherwise disposed of,” this elegant expression of fundamental truths had its final resting-place.