THE PRESS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988. Bill of Rights lacks appeal

Press, 6 October 1988, Page 14

THE PRESS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988. Bill of Rights lacks appeal

The watering-down of the supreme Bill of Rights, which the Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, so keenly sought, comes as no surprise. Even Mr Palmer himself acknowledged many months ago that his hoped-for charter, entrenched in law, was probably an idea for which the time had not yet come in New Zealand. Plainly the overwhelming weight of evidence to the Select Committee of Parliament that studied the proposed bill was against it. The result is that the committee has recommended to Parliament a soft-line Bill of Rights, which can be changed at any time by a simple majority vote of Parliament. The main thrust of the new proposal is that the Attorney-General and a new Select Committee, chaired by an Opposition member of Parliament, will act as twin watchdogs on any new law proposed in Parliament, and on any regulations put through by an Order-in-Council, to ensure that they conform with the rights and freedom endorsed by the proposed Bill of Rights. These will be a list of highly desirable intentions but, because it is proposed to include so-called social and economic rights, as well as civil and political rights, not allot those well-meaning declarations are likely to be fulfilled.

At a time when the number of unemployed people has not been higher, the notion of enshrining “the right to work” in a Bill of Rights will strike many people as hollow rhetoric. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bolger, probably reflects a widespread perception of the merits of such declarations when he described this particular provision as a sick joke. Such anomalies between theory and reality are probably the reason that Mr Palmer was unable to rouse much enthusiasm for his Bill of Rights: to a great many New Zealanders the constitutional debate is just so much theoretical claptrap and neither Mr Palmer nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate

a clear need for a Bill of Rights in New Zealand or a strong public sentiment in favour of such legislation. In countries that have relieved themselves from oppressive government, or where an entirely new form of government is being initiated, the sentiment has been very different. History plays a role in the demand'for constitutional protections.

As Mr Palmer notes, New Zealand has had an excellent record in upholding human rights. Few of its citizens are persuaded that setting down in law the rights they already enjoy under statute and constitutional convention is necessary or desirable. Most of those who have given the matter some thought saw fish-hooks in the plan, mainly in what they saw as a transfer of ultimate power from an elected Parliament to appointed judges. Mr Palmer believes these concerns are ill-founded, but accepts that New Zealand is not yet ready for a fully fledged Bill of Rights. He obviously hopes that the committee’s compromise is a step towards an entrenched Bill of Rights, perhaps in 10 years or so.

In view of the great upheavals the Government has already imposed on the community, it might be best to put aside a Bill of Rights altogether until things have settled down. Perhaps in 10 years time, when people can see how the new form of regional government works, and when the full impact of issues such as Waitangi Tribunal recommendations can be seen in calm reflection, public demand for a Bill of Rights may grow. Mr Palmer and others must allow that a huge number of changes — made without the benefit or hindrance of a Bill of Rights — have more than occupied public attention over the last five years. A Bill of Rights cannot be imposed on an unwilling or unenthusiastic citizenry. Given the public’s present mood and preoccupations, talk of a Bill of Rights only incites resistance from adversaries and inspires little enthusiasm.