Bill of Rights

Press, 19 February 1986, Page 18

Bill of Rights

Sir,—An examination of Mr Palmer’s proposed Bill of Rights reveals a transfer of freedom of the individual through common law to rights granted by the State and interpreted by Stateappointed judges. An example of rights as interpreted by the judi-

ciary can be seen in the recent thwarting of the All Blacks’ de--parture from New Zealand. The individual decisions of some 30 New Zealand citizens to leave New Zealand at a time of their own choosing was cancelled by a judge lest it infringe the alleged rights of two lawyers who did not wish them to go. The Bill of Rights will take from the individual and give to pressure groups. — Yours, etc., B. F. PRESTON. Hokitika, February 16, 1986.

Sir,—The Bill of Rights is perceived even more clearly as an abdication by Parliament of its responsibility to govern, especially when we consider a recent remark made by Mr Palmer to the Canterbury District Law Society. He is reported as saying that many members of Parliament, including himself, do not read all the legislation that comes before Parliament, and he uses this as a good reason for having a Bill of Rights. Consequently, under a Bill of Rights, members will not have to be quite so careful about taking an interest in the affairs of the House, and so will be able to spend . even more, time ia Bellaimys. It IS time 'New? Zealanders: woke . up. to. what , is ..happening, , and. replaced those - members who do nbt bother to read the legislation so vitally affecting us all, with ones who will. Once we get a Bill of Rights it will be too late.—Yours, etc., MATTHEW J. JENKINSON. February 14, 1986.