DOCSLIB.ORG

The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights Don’t Leave Us with the Bill: The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights Edited by Julian Leeser and Ryan Haddrick Don’t Leave Us with the Bill The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights Edited by Julian Leeser and Ryan Haddrick Published by The Menzies Research Centre Limited RG Menzies House Cnr Blackall and Macquarie Streets BARTON, ACT 2600 ISBN 978-0-9806383-0-1 The Menzies Research Centre Limited is a company limited by guarantee ACN 067 379 684. The Menzies Research Centre is supported by a grant from the Commonwealth Department of Finance and Deregulation The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Directors or staff of The Menzies Research Centre. © 2009 The Menzies Research Centre Project management and production: QOTE Canberra (02) 6162 1258 iii Foreword THE RT HON SIR NINIAN ST EPHEN , KG, AK, GCMG, GCVO, KBE, QC he expression ‘a bill of rights’ has an immediate attraction to it; to be subject to such a measure seems at first sight inherently desirable, just the kind of legislative measure a freedom loving nation would Taspire to. Only with experience of the operation of such measures do doubts arise. The true measure of those doubts lies in the assumption, inherent in any such measure, that at a given moment in time it is possible once and for all to identify and declare, both for now and for the future, all those rights which citizens should desirably possess, secure in the knowledge that such a declaration will serve all future needs of the community. The very enshrining of rights in a single measure of special status carries with it the consequence that its formulation is critical and that its interpretation becomes of the highest significance and confers extraordinary power upon those to whom the task of interpretation is given; yet those possessing such power will not customarily be the elected of the people but instead, almost necessarily, lawyers and appointees of government. All this has, of course been much debated in the past; this volume now states the issues both pungently and with particular application to Australia and we citizens are fortunate indeed to have those issues expressed with such clarity and from a great variety of viewpoints. Australia’s democracy is surely the better for the publication of this work. Sir Ninian Stephen Melbourne May 2009 v Chairman’s Preface TO M HA R LEY he Menzies Research Centre is proud to publish this important collection of essays making the case for preserving liberty and against an Australian bill of rights. It is the first time such a collection has Tbeen assembled. The Centre arranged this collection of essays to respond to an imbalance in advocacy in the debate, and to demonstrate why a bill of rights is not the answer to our present challenges. The case against a bill of rights is also the case for freedom: for freedom and flexibility, with our liberties protected by parliaments subject to the will of the people, an independent judiciary and a free and sceptical media. Our legal tradition is embodied in the principle that a person is free to do whatever he or she wishes unless it is otherwise prescribed by law. Freedom is ours unless the government gains our permission, through the ballot box, to curtail it. Our rights have developed organically through the common law and Parliament allowing maximum freedom for individuals to respond to the challenges of our age. As Menzies said ‘[t]o live in a common law country is, in itself, the very best guarantee of the rights of the individual.’ By setting and limiting our rights a bill of rights hampers our freedom and creates uncertainties in our law. The idea of a bill of rights in Australia is not new. Australians have rejected inserting a bill of rights in our Constitution at federation and again in 1944 and 1988. Two attempts to introduce statutory bills of rights in 1973 and 1986 were also abandoned. A statutory bill of rights neither represents new ideas nor fresh thinking. The Menzies Research Centre saw a need for some of the many bill of rights sceptics to provide a contribution to the debate in the lead up to the report of the Brennan Committee and the Government’s response to it; and to delve a little deeper into why the enthusiasm of bill of rights advocates is misplaced. Most of the contributors to this volume are policy professionals. Many carry no partisan flag. Their contribution should not be seen as an endorsement of the Menzies Research Centre or the Liberal Party but, rather, as indicative of their policy expertise and concern that the issues raised in their papers need to be addressed. The Menzies Research Centre has a role is in bringing experts together and putting ideas on the table to improve the standard of public debate in Australia. We hope that this volume contributes in that way. vi DON’t LEAVE US WITH THE BILL I would like to congratulate Julian Leeser, our Executive Director and co-editor Ryan Haddrick, for bringing together this timely and thoughtful collection of essays. I know this issue has been of great concern to Julian for some time. The editors have demonstrated that some of the ideas put forward by bill of rights proponents, no matter how well intentioned, can be blighted by murky and muddle-headed thinking. Finally, the Menzies Research Centre wishes to thank the authors for their contribution to the debate and, in particular, Sir Ninian Stephen and Dr Sue Gordon who have honoured the Centre by writing the foreword and afterword respectively. Tom Harley Chairman, Menzies Research Centre May 2009 vii Contents Foreword ..........................................................................................................................................................iii The Rt Hon Sir Ninian Stephen, KG, AK, GCMG, GCVO, KBE, QC Chairman’s Preface ......................................................................................................................................v Tom Harley Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................ix Julian Leeser and Ryan Haddrick The Contributors .................................................................................................................................... xvii PART I: AN OVERV I EW 1. A Reflection on a Bill of Rights ...................................................................................... 3 The Hon Chief Justice Paul de Jersey, AC 2. The Debate We Didn’t Have to Have: The Proposal for an Australian Bill of Rights ................................................................................................... 17 Senator the Hon George Brandis, SC 3. Responding to Some Arguments in Favour of the Bill of Rights ......... 31 Julian Leeser PART II: SE PARAT io N O F PO WER S 4. Don’t Risk What We Have .............................................................................................. 67 The Hon John Howard, AC 5. In Whom We Should Trust ............................................................................................. 73 The Hon Ian Callinan, AC, QC 6. What’s Wrong About a Statutory Bill of Rights ............................................... 83 Professor James Allan 7. Solomon’s Heirs? Dissecting the Campaign for Judicial Rule in Australia ................................................................................................................................ 97 Alan Anderson 8. Human Rights: The Question is – Who is the Master? ............................ 111 The Hon Justice Kenneth Handley, AO PART III: SPECIFIC CHALLENGE S 9. Principles and Exceptions: Problems for Bills of Rights ........................ 119 Dr David Bennett, AC, QC 10. Pluralism, Parliamentary Democracy and Bills of Rights ..................... 127 The Hon Christian Porter, MLA 11. The Judicature, Bills of Rights and Chapter III ............................................ 145 Ryan Haddrick viii DON’t LEAVE US WITH THE BILL 12. A Legal Perspective on Bills of Rights ................................................................. 169 Professor Helen Irving 13. A Charter of Rights will Harm Aboriginal Prospects ............................... 183 The Hon Dr Gary Johns 14. Trust Me – It Will Not Be As Bad As You Think .......................................... 197 Major General AJ Molan, AO, DSC (Ret’d) PART IV: His T O R I CAL AND CULTURAL PER sp ECT I VE S 15. A Chaos of Rights .............................................................................................................. 207 Professor Geoffrey Blainey, AC 16. From British Rights to Human Rights ................................................................ 215 Dr John Hirst 17. There is More to it Than Meets the Eye! ............................................................. 223 The Hon Bronwyn Bishop, MP 18. Four Fictions: An Argument Against a Bill of Rights ............................... 233 His Eminence Cardinal George Pell, AC 19. Slaves Cannot Be Free – The Biblical Roots of Our Rights ................... 243 Rabbi Dr John Levi, AM 20. Why Should Christians be Concerned About a Bill of Rights ............ 251 Brigadier Jim Wallace, AM (Ret’d) 21. Ethics and Limits of a Bill of Rights ..................................................................... 263 Amanda Fairweather PART V: BILLS O F RI GHT S IN OP ERAT io N 22. The Human Rights Act 1998 (UK): An Impossible Compromise .... 271 Felicity McMahon 23. The Devil in the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Agenda 0945 Welcome Explaining the Rule of Law and Its Elements Using the Rule of Session 1: Law Pyramid
    17/09/2017 WELCOME TO THE “RULE OF LAW EXPOSED” PROFESSIONAL LEARNING SEMINAR Agenda 0945 Welcome Explaining the rule of law and its elements using the rule of Session 1: law pyramid. 1015 Session 2: Explore contemporary examples, especially Racial Discrimination and Freedom of Speech. 1100 Session 3: Promoting student engagement in Years 7-10 RoLI resources and Q&A. 1125 Session 4: Teaching & Learning approaches to help understand rule of law in contexts suitable to students of both Civics & Citizenship and Politics & Law ATAR. 1145 Conclusion Q&A or WACE Student Revision Seminar for Politics & Law 1 17/09/2017 RULE OF LAW EXPOSED BY JACKIE CHARLES Please see the separate document which contains the presentation 2 17/09/2017 TEACHING & LEARNING STRATEGIES FOR CIVICS & CITIZENSHIP AS WELL AS POLITICS & LAW CIVICS & CITIZENSHIP CURRICULUM Year 7 Civics & Citizenship: the purpose and value of the Australian Constitution; the concept of the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary and how it seeks to prevent the excessive concentration of power; how Australia’s legal system aims to provide justice, including through the rule of law, presumption of innocence, burden of proof, right to a fair trial, and right to legal representation; Year 9 Civics & Citizenship: the key principles of Australia’s justice system, including equality before the law, independent judiciary, and right of appeal; Year 10 Civics & Citizenship: the role of the High Court, including interpreting the Constitution; the international agreements
    [Show full text]
  • Talking to Judges About the Art of Judging: an Annotated Performance Text
    TALKING TO JUDGES ABOUT THE ART OF JUDGING: AN ANNOTATED PERFORMANCE TEXT Greta Bird and Nicole Rogers* [We performed this paper at the Judicial Reasoning: Art or Science? conference held at the Australian National University in February 2009. We were performing on at least two levels: as academics and editors of a collection of judicially-authored essays on the art of judging but also, as we proclaimed at the outset, as Jester and Fool. We did not appear in costume as jesters or fools. We did not even appear as fairies, although one of us is well-known at Southern Cross University for donning fairy wings and fairy tales featured in this performance (as did sheep, land rights and playfulness). But then, our audience of judges had also left their costumes behind; there were no wigs or robes. They were in civilian clothes, recognisable only as judges through name tags. They were, in fact, unmasked. Greta began by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land. Nicole then spoke. The accompanying slide portrays a fool, colourfully clad, balanced lightly and without any apparent concern at the edge of a precipice, and a jester in classic costume.] Our focus is on judging as performance and judging as playfulness. We write as outsiders, in the guise of the Jester and the Fool: playful figures who are outside the law. Brian Sutton-Smith argues that the Fool ‘live[s] in the place where the “writ does not run”’.1 We are also influenced, however, by our role as editors of a recent collection of articles on the art of judging.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Law Conference
    >'-1 ·~·1;': ...::.,1·.. ', .. 't··'··lj.·' ! i ·'.c<'""r;,., ...•-F"I"R:=.s-'-'r--""=~===""""''''''=''''-====~'- ':':C-~-~;~E:~~RA; . :A-;:-~-i'?~:t9 a~ II I. I I I : I I I i I , ; ,~ > • FIRST CANADA-AUSTRALASIAN LAW CONFERENCE CANBERRA APRIL 1988 f I It is timely to note an important law conference which took place in Canberra, Australia in April 1988. The First Canada-Australasia Law Conference was held at the Australian National University in that city. organised by the Canadian , Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, the convenors of the conference were Chief Justice Nathan Nemetz of British Columbia and Justice Michael Kirby, President of the New South Wales I The conference attracted a number of leading Court of Appeal. 1 judges and practitioners from Canada, Australia, New Zealand I and the Pacific region. It was opened on 5 April 1988 by the Governor General of Australia (Sir Ninian Stephen). During the 1 conference, the Governor General hosted a dinner at Government House, Canberra, which was attended uniquely by all of the Chief Justices of Australia, who were meeting in Canberra at I the same time, all of the Chief Justices of the Superior Courtscourts f of Canada (except for the supreme court of ontario), the Chief Justices of New Zealand and Singapore and other distinguished guests. I In his opening remarks to the conference, the Chief f Justice of Canada (the Rt Han RGR G Brian Dickson PC) spoke of the need to further the links between Australian and Canadian - 1 - \ I jurisprudence. The same theme was echoed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia (Sir Anthony Mason).
    [Show full text]
  • List of Members 46Th Parliament Volume 01 - 20 June 2019
    The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia House of Representatives List of Members 46th Parliament Volume 01 - 20 June 2019 No. Name Electorate & Party Electorate office address, telephone, facsimile Parliament House telephone & State / Territory numbers and email address facsimile numbers 1. Albanese, The Hon Anthony Norman Grayndler, ALP 334A Marrickville Road, Marrickville NSW 2204 Tel: (02) 6277 4022 Leader of the Opposition NSW Tel : (02) 9564 3588, Fax : (02) 9564 1734 Fax: (02) 6277 8562 E-mail: [email protected] 2. Alexander, Mr John Gilbert OAM Bennelong, LP 32 Beecroft Road, Epping NSW 2121 Tel: (02) 6277 4804 NSW (PO Box 872, Epping NSW 2121) Fax: (02) 6277 8581 Tel : (02) 9869 4288, Fax : (02) 9869 4833 E-mail: [email protected] 3. Allen, Dr Katie Jane Higgins, LP 1/1343 Malvern Road, Malvern VIC 3144 Tel: (02) 6277 4100 VIC Tel : (03) 9822 4422 Fax: (02) 6277 8408 E-mail: [email protected] 4. Aly, Dr Anne Cowan, ALP Shop 3, Kingsway Shopping Centre, 168 Tel: (02) 6277 4876 WA Wanneroo Road, Madeley WA 6065 Fax: (02) 6277 8526 (PO Box 219, Kingsway WA 6065) Tel : (08) 9409 4517, Fax : (08) 9409 9361 E-mail: [email protected] 5. Andrews, The Hon Karen Lesley McPherson, LNP Ground Floor The Point 47 Watts Drive, Varsity Tel: (02) 6277 7070 Minister for Industry, Science and Technology QLD Lakes QLD 4227 Fax: (02) N/A (PO Box 409, Varsity Lakes QLD 4227) Tel : (07) 5580 9111, Fax : (07) 5580 9700 E-mail: [email protected] 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Education NSW 2016-2017 Annual Report I Have Fond Memories of the Friendly, Knowledgeable Giraffe
    Life Education NSW 2016-2017 Annual Report I have fond memories of the friendly, knowledgeable giraffe. Harold takes you on a magical journey exploring and learning about healthy eating, our body - how it works and ways we can be active in order to stay happy and healthy. It gives me such joy to see how excited my daughter is to visit Harold and know that it will be an experience that will stay with her too. Melanie, parent, Turramurra Public School What’s inside Who we are 03 Our year Life Education is the nation’s largest not-for-profit provider of childhood preventative drug and health education. For 06 Our programs almost 40 years, we have taken our mobile learning centres and famous mascot – ‘Healthy Harold’, the giraffe – to 13 Our community schools, teaching students about healthy choices in the areas of drugs and alcohol, cybersafety, nutrition, lifestyle 25 Our people and respectful relationships. 32 Our financials OUR MISSION Empowering our children and young people to make safer and healthier choices through education. OUR VISION Generations of healthy young Australians living to their full potential. LIFE EDUCATION NSW 2016-2017 Annual Report Our year: Thank you for being part of Life Education NSW Together we worked to empower more children in NSW As a charity, we’re grateful for the generous support of the NSW Ministry of Health, and the additional funds provided by our corporate and community partners and donors. We thank you for helping us to empower more children in NSW this year to make good life choices.
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    SOWCmech2 12/9/99 5:29 PM Page 1 THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CHILDREN 2000 e yne THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CHILDREN 2000 The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) © The Library of Congress has catalogued this serial publication as follows: Any part of THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CHILDREN 2000 The state of the world’s children 2000 may be freely reproduced with the appropriate acknowledgement. UNICEF, UNICEF House, 3 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017, USA. ISBN 92-806-3532-8 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.unicef.org UNICEF, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland Cover photo UNICEF/92-702/Lemoyne Back cover photo UNICEF/91-0906/Lemoyne THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CHILDREN 2000 Carol Bellamy, Executive Director, United Nations Children’s Fund Contents Foreword by Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations 4 The State of the World’s Children 2000 Reporting on the lives of children at the end of the 20th century, The State of the World’s Children 5 2000 calls on the international community to undertake the urgent actions that are necessary to realize the rights of every child, everywhere – without exception. An urgent call to leadership: This section of The State of the World’s Children 2000 appeals to 7 governments, agencies of the United Nations system, civil society, the private sector and children and families to come together in a new international coalition on behalf of children. It summarizes the progress made over the last decade in meeting the goals established at the 1990 World Summit for Children and in keeping faith with the ideals of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
    [Show full text]
  • Inching Towards an Australian Bill of Rights 171
    2010 Inching Towards an Australian Bill of Rights 171 INCHING TOWARDS AN AUSTRALIAN BILL OF RIGHTS: COUSINLY COMMENTS ON THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CONSULTATION REPORT A T H SMITH I INTRODUCTION Comparative insights offered by those not well versed in the history, spirit and traditions of the legal systems and constitutional structures upon which they presume to comment run the risk of appearing misinformed at best and at worst inept. 1 I have nevertheless accepted an invitation to contribute to the current review, not least because the protection of human rights through the judicial process is an area in which I have had a longstanding interest in relation to both the United Kingdom (‘UK’) 2 and New Zealand, 3 two of the comparators adopted Pro Vice Chancellor (Government Relations) and Dean, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; Director, New Zealand Centre for Public Law. Editor’s Note: The following article was written before the release of the Australian Government’s response to the National Human Rights Consultation Report: see Australian Government, Australia’s Human Rights Framework (2010); Robert McClelland, ‘Launch of Australia’s Human Rights Framework’ (Speech delivered at the National Press Club of Australia, Canberra, 21 April 2010). 1 It is potentially hazardous for an outsider, even perhaps for a commentator whose country of origin is identified in the Australian Constitution as being a constituent part of Australia, to seek to reflect upon the terra incognita that is for him the Australian Constitution . 2 See A T H Smith, ‘The Human Rights Act 1998 and the Criminal Lawyer: The Constitutional Context’ [1999] Criminal Law Review 251; A T H Smith, ‘The Human Rights Act 1998 : The Constitutional Context’ in University of Cambridge Centre for Public Law, The Human Rights Act and the Criminal Justice and Regulatory Process (Hart Publishing, 1999) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineer and Water Commissioner, Was Born on 17 June 1899 At
    E EAST, SIR LEWIS RONALD the other commissioner’s health broke down, (RON) (1899–1994), engineer and water leaving East as the sole member. In October commissioner, was born on 17 June 1899 at he was appointed chairman, a position he Auburn, Melbourne, second of three children held until his retirement on 31 January 1965 of Lewis Findlay East, civil servant and later (believed at the time to be the longest tenure as secretary of the Commonwealth Marine head of a government department or authority Branch, and his wife Annie Eleanor, née in Australia). An outstanding engineer, Burchett, both Victorian born. Ronald was inspiring leader, efficient administrator, educated at Ringwood and Tooronga Road and astute political operator, he dominated State schools before winning a scholarship successive water ministers with his forceful to Scotch College, Hawthorn, which he personality and unmatched knowledge of attended from 1913 to 1916, in his final year Victoria’s water issues. He also served as a River winning a government senior scholarship to Murray commissioner (1936–65), in which the University of Melbourne (BEng, 1922; role he exerted great influence on water policy MEng, 1924). throughout south-east Australia. Among many Interrupting his university studies after one examples, he argued successfully for a large year, East enlisted in the Australian Imperial increase in the capacity of the Hume Reservoir. Force on 17 January 1918 for service in World Possibly the most famous photograph used to War I. He arrived in England in May as a 2nd illustrate Australia’s water problems shows East class air mechanic and began flying training in in 1923 literally standing astride the Murray October.
    [Show full text]
  • Corona GOVERNANCE
    CORONA STIMULUS & RECOVERY © SERIES REPORT # 2 N A T I O N A L G O V E R N A N C E E F F E C T I V E N E S S in line with ACCEPTED BUDGETTING, PLANNING & ENGAGEMENT PROTOCOLS ROBERT GIBBONS 18 NOVEMBER 2020 © see copyright statement on last page INTRODUCTION Bubonic Plague hit Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne in 1900 and the Sydney response was the world’s most famous, the “social laboratory of the world”. Governance was key to that response, medicine was supportive. 120 years later the Novel Coronavirus thence COVID-19 was mayhem, warnings had been ignored and Australia was sliding backwards economically. There is supposed to be a self-correcting mechanism called “budget repair” when a government finds it mismanaged bushfires and rorts so that the next one would be better planned and organised. The opposite happened, repair (MYEFO) was cancelled, delays became critical, mistakes abounded as the “Canberra Bubble” did not know how to prepare a “plan” as I had done in 2 days when BHP announced the closure of steelmaking in Newcastle in 1997. The States pushed PM Morrison into setting up a cooperative National Cabinet on 13 March 2020. It emerged from the Canberra Bubble without any explanation of logic, objectives, modus operandi or budget, and this analyst predicted it would fail as soon as a member’s self-interest clashed with the collective view – and that was a safe bet as NSW’s Premier, Glady Berejiklian, is an habitual renegade and regularly attacks her peers. It has been under the control of the PM’s department head who has a NSW reputation for negative practices (he used to report to Berejiklian).
    [Show full text]
  • Making Australian Citizenship Mean More
    MAKING AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP MEAN MORE Katharine Betts and Bob Birrell After over 30 years of increasingly easy access, Australian citizenship is becoming harder to acquire. Permanent residents must now wait for four years before applying (instead of two), and the Government intends to introduce a formal citizenship test. This latter change is the subject of heated debate. The emotion surrounding this debate can be best understood as an instance of the clash of two competing views about what citizenship ought to mean: the procedural and the patriotic. INTRODUCTION atively arduous (for non-British subjects).2 This paper outlines changes in the rules Applicants had to have lived in Australia governing access to Australian citizenship for at least five years. They also had to: have over the last 34 years. It shows how these ‘adequate’ English,3 show that they were rules became increasingly relaxed up until loyal and of good character, produce three 2002. In 2005 the pattern began to change references, declare an intention to natural- and the Howard Government is now putting ise two years before the application,4 and a regime in place where applicants will have place an advertisement in the newspapers to wait much longer before they can apply, notifying others of this intention. This was and will need to pass a test on their knowl- to give members of the public time to lodge edge of English and the Australian way of confidential objections to their application.5 life before their application is accepted. Two The last 34 years have, however, seen a questions lie behind our analysis of this his- steady dilution in these demands.
    [Show full text]
  • Timbuckleyieefa DIRTY POWER BIG COAL's NETWORK of INFLUENCE OVER the COALITION GOVERNMENT CONTENTS
    ICAC investigation: Lobbying, Access and Influence (Op Eclipse) Submission 2 From: Tim Buckley To: Lobbying Subject: THE REGULATION OF LOBBYING, ACCESS AND INFLUENCE IN NSW: A CHANCE TO HAVE YOUR SAY Date: Thursday, 16 May 2019 2:01:39 PM Attachments: Mav2019-GPAP-Dirtv-Power-Report.Ddf Good afternoon I am delighted that the NSW ICAC is looking again into the issue of lobbying and undue access by lobbyists representing self-serving, private special interest groups, and the associated lack of transparency. This is most needed when it relates to the private (often private, foreign tax haven based entities with zero transparency or accountability), use of public assets. IEEFA works in the public interest analysis relating to the energy-fmance-climate space, and so we regularly see the impact of the fossil fuel sector in particular as one that thrives on the ability to privatise the gains for utilising one-time use public assets and in doing so, externalising the costs onto the NSW community. This process is constantly repeated. The community costs, be they in relation to air, particulate and carbon pollution, plus the use of public water, and failure to rehabilitate sites post mining, brings a lasting community cost, particularly in the area of public health costs. The cost-benefit analysis presented to the IPC is prepared by the proponent, who has an ability to present biased self-serving analysis that understates the costs and overstates the benefits. To my understanding, the revolving door of regulators, politicians, fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists is corrosive to our democracy, undermining integrity and fairness.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights in New Zealand
    Acknowledgements: The New Zealand Law Foundation funded the three year research project and we are enormously grateful for their financial and moral support. We would like to thank the stakeholders who contributed to the research and to those experts who read individual chapters and provided feedback. We appreciate the work of Kyle Stutter of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission and Kirsty Whitby in the School of Social Sciences and Public Policy at AUT for money matters. Millie Wall patiently formatted the report and designed the cover. Heidi Jones and Anne-Marie Laure provided valuable research in the early stages of the project. Sir Geoffrey Palmer undertook the overall peer review and John Harvey proof read the report several times. Any errors of fact or grammatical imperfections are ours alone and will be corrected in web-based versions of the report. Contact details: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 1 Contents Summary of recommendations ............................................................................................. 9 Chapter One Human Rights ........................................................................................ 11 1 Introduction to human rights .................................................................................................. 11 1.1 A short history of the evolution and development of human rights in New Zealand. ... 12 1.1.1 1948 to 1968 – Period of inaction .................................................................................. 13 1.1.2 1968
    [Show full text]