Graeme Reeves: Water Services Entities Bill – Breaches New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

On the 25th of May 2022, the Attorney-General of New Zealand (Hon David Parker) received legal advice from the Ministry of Justice (LPA 01 01 24) entitled “Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Water Services Entities Bill.”

The New Zealand Bill if of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) is an Act –

(a) To affirm, protect, and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in New Zealand; and
(b) To affirm New Zealand’s commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

In New Zealand we have one of the oldest representative democracies in the world. Our first general election was in 1853.

Derek Mackie: Jacinda's new "progressive" Bill of Rights

Jacinda's diary  -  26 Sep 2022

My recent speech at the UN on the dangers of mis and disinformation was truly momentous. 

It shone a spotlight on the dire threat free speech and opinion poses - as “weapons of war” no less - to the safety and security of my New World Order. 

 It was received by my adoring fans with the same zeal and reverence as God bestowing the ten commandments on Moses. Or perhaps, more appropriately, Lenin presenting the Communist Manifesto to the Soviet Union’s General Assembly just after the Russian Revolution and the bloody, but necessary, assassination of the Tzar….and his imperial family. 

 In light of the effusive praise and positive feedback I received from virtually all the Western mainstream media, and my dear elite socialist colleagues, I’ve decided to lead by example and forge the way to a brighter, more inclusive neo-Marxist future by “modernising” the NZ Bill of Rights Act. 

Graeme Reeves: Report of the Attorney General on the Rotorua Council Bill

Report of the Attorney General of 21 April 2022 Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements ) Bill (A.G.)

The Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill (the Bill) seeks to override the provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA) by substituting the formula set out in the LEA by another formula which would allow for Council representation to be over represented by Maori.

The A.G sets out in clauses 10 to 13 the following analysis of the effect of the proposed representation arrangements in answer to the question, “Does the legislation draw a distinction on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination?”

Chris Trotter: Protecting Freedom/Preventing Harm. Can New Zealand’s New Chief Censor Do Both?

It is to be hoped that the new Chief Censor, Caroline Flora, will waste no time explaining herself. It is important that New Zealanders are told how her old job, Associate Deputy-Director Strategy and Performance, at the Ministry of Health, made her the obvious choice for her new job.

According to Peter Dunne, the Minister of Internal Affairs responsible for the appointment of Ms Flora’s predecessor, David Shanks: “The Chief Censor is responsible for protecting New Zealanders from material likely to cause harm while balancing the important right to freedom of expression”.

Clearly, the person tasked with this delicate legal and cultural juggling act should be someone with a solid background in law, and more than a passing acquaintance with philosophy, political history, the arts and literature, film, television, and social-media. Are these the core competencies required of the Associate Deputy-Director Strategy and Performance at the Ministry of Health? They may well be, but the prima facie case is not strong.