Canada helps Mr Palmer on Bill of Rights

Press, 19 September 1985, Page 22

Canada helps Mr Palmer on Bill of Rights

By

Tom Bridgman,

NZPA staff correspondent Canadian legal officials have provided the New Zealand Government with a detailed analysis of the proposed Bill of Rights. The Canadian Government has since April, 1982, had a charter of rights and freedoms on which the New Zealand Government drew heavily for its proposed Bill of Rights as set out in a White Paper earlier this year. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, has had detailed talks on the Canadian experience of the practicalities of its charter with Canadian Justice Department officials. They produced for him their analysis of the New Zealand legislation. Mr Palmer will take that back to Wellington as advice that can be used in deliberation on the New Zealand proposals. “I must say that I found

that a Government that would go to that extent to help another country is to be admired,” he said. The Canadians had given him a lot of “practical input on how (the charter) works in practice which you can’t get in New Zealand,” said Mr Palmer.

“If we can iron out some of the bugs before we start in learning from their experience it will be a really great advantage.” Mr Palmer said New Zealand had borrowed fairly substantially from Canada because it was the country with the most relevant experience.

Canada had a Westminster style of government and a similar background in common law.

Mr Palmer said that although he had not had a chance to study what was a technical and legal document provided by the Canadians, what he had learnt in his discussions was that New Zealand had to study closely the amount of legal resources needed by the Government to ensure that previous legislation conformed to the Bill of Rights. In the Canadian experience that had proved to be a substantial exercise. The Canadians had had to increase their justice Department staff by 54 to cater for legislation.

Mr Palmer said he did not envisage a similar number of extra staff being needed by New Zealand because it was a smaller country, but it was an indi-

cation of the level of legal issues involved and was something that had not been considered before in New Zealand.

Briefing had also been given on the difficulties the Canadians had had in dealing with the equality provisions of their charter. Experience had shown the necessity for the AttorneyGeneral to have early warn-. ing on arguments coming up about aspects of the charter so the Government could intervene and put its case where necessary. “I have a lot of good information to take back,” said Mr Palmer. The timing for New Zealand’s Bill of Rights would not be affected by what he had heard in Ottawa, he said. He had a “relaxed timetable” on it, a select committee sitting being due to begin hearing evidence in the next couple of months. A Bill of Rights was not the sort of reform that could be hurried. “It cannot be foisted on an unsuspecting public,” said Mr Palmer.