Geoff Parker: One Law For All Does Not Ignore History — It Recognises Who Makes The Law

Deborah Coddington (NZ Herald 23/9/26) is right about one thing: New Zealand's common law has developed through judicial decisions for centuries. But that historical fact does not answer the constitutional question ACT's “One Law for All” policy is addressing.

Her Donoghue v Stevenson example illustrates the point. The courts developed the modern law of negligence because Parliament had not comprehensively legislated in that field. But that does not mean judges possess an unlimited licence to create new legal duties whenever they consider them desirable.[1]

There is a crucial distinction between developing established common-law principles and creating new obligations in areas where Parliament has legislated — or deliberately chosen not to legislate.

Bruce Moon: 20 constitutional questions

Since the Constitutional Advisory Panel may be holding meeting at a place near you, sometime soon, it would be a good idea to prepare some questions to fire at the visiting panellists. Given that much Nazi-style propaganda about the meaning of the Treaty continues to receive publicity, e.g. that Maoris are a "sovereign Treaty partner" (Danny Keenan, Wanganui Chronicle, March 16, 2013), one question would be whether the panel makes its best efforts to deny such falsehoods at every opportunity, and if not, why not? I have prepared a list of questions which some of you may think worth asking, should opportunities arise. No doubt others would use somewhat different wording. They are in no particular order and for your consideration:

Elizabeth Rata: The treaty is not New Zealand’s founding document

I was surprised to read in Deborah Coddington’s recent Herald column that the Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand’s founding document. Of course some New Zealanders mistakenly believe that is the case. Where the belief becomes a problem is when a member of the government appointed and funded Constitutional Advisory Panel such as Deborah Coddington states that this is so. In describing the treaty as our founding document she has jumped the gun somewhat in anticipating the Panel’s recommendations about the status of the treaty. And she is certainly premature in gauging New Zealanders’ opinions on the subject.