Talk:New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do we have an Article about the HRC? Brian | (Talk) 02:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, can't find one. The HRC doesn't really relate to the Bill of Rights however; the're mainly concerned with breaches of the Human Rights Act --Lholden 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone should complete the remedies section with the case law - declaration of inconsistency, baigent damages and exclusion of evidence.

I would, but most of my law books are packed away now :-). Perhaps over the summer break I will... --Lholden 04:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect section?

An anon changed part of the article as follows:

This wikipedia article did read:

"Under section 4, the application of the Act grants the Courts the power to rule any provision of an enactment to be "impliedly repealed or revoked", or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or decline to apply any provision of this enactment by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights."

In fact, section 4 of the Act has exactly the OPPOSITE effect, stating that:

"No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights),—

(a)Hold any provision of the enactment to be impliedly repealed or revoked, or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or

(b)Decline to apply any provision of the enactment—

by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights."

Since it certainly looks to my untrained eye like they are correct, I've removed the self-reference and left the quoting of the act. This could be tidied up.-gadfium 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the section which specifically denies the Act any supremecy over other legislation.

Anon is correct - the mistake was my fault for not reading the section correctly. Duh! I'll edit the article. --Lholden 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)