Footnotes

1. To view a text of the international human rights instruments, visit the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, http://www.unhchr.ch/. Most of New Zealand 's human rights obligations are summarised in the Handbook on International Human Rights (2nd ed.) by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade (2003). [Return to chapter]

2. The differences between formal and substantive equality are widely recognised in sociological and legal writing internationally; for examples, see: General Recommendation No. 25, on Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women, on temporary special measures, paras 4-9; and Hepple (2000).[Return to chapter]

3. Common law principle - discussed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. There are two components of natural justice: the duty to hear both sides of a dispute before making a decision, and a prohibition on bias (Rishworth, Huscroft, Optican & Mahoney, 2003, p.754). [Return to chapter]

4. Hosking & Hosking v Runting & Pacific Magazines [unreported decision of the Court of Appeal], 101/03. (CA March 25, 2004 ). [Return to chapter]

5. Briefing to Incoming Ministers, Ministry of Justice, 2002a. [Return to chapter]

6. See further Chapter 6: Democratic rights. [Return to chapter]

7. Including the Human Rights Review Tribunal, which hears cases involving claims of discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993, as well as cases involving privacy issues under the Privacy Act 1993, and some cases involving health and disability issues. [Return to chapter]

8. Hosking & Hosking v Runting & Ors , above. [Return to chapter]

9. Though declarations of inconsistency with some human rights standards may be made by the courts at common law: Drew v Attorney-General [2002] 1 NZLR 58 and under Part 1A of the Human Rights Act 1993. [Return to chapter]

10. Drew v Attorney-General, above. [Return to chapter]

11. Reports include: Law Commission Preliminary Paper 51 (2002), Law Commission Preliminary Paper 52 (2002), Law Commission Report 53 (2002), Law Commission Study Paper 1 (1999). [Return to chapter]

12. The latter point is dealt with in the Judicial Conduct and Judicial Panel Act 2004. [Return to chapter]

13. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill is currently being considered by a Parliamentary Select Committee.[Return to chapter]

14. Cabinet Committee on Government Expenditure and Administration, EXG Min (03) 6/5, 13 June 2003. [Return to chapter]

15. Not all reviews have been completed or fully implemented. [Return to chapter]

16. However, the High Court in Coburn v Human Rights Commission [1994] 3 NZLR 323, 333 noted 'the special character of human rights legislation.' The Court of Appeal in Director of Human Rights Proceedings v NZ Thoroughbred Racing , [2002] 3 NZLR 333,339 described the Human Rights Act as having 'special status'. [Return to chapter]

17. The Court of Appeal, however, has said it is implicit that effective remedies should be available to any person whose Bill of Rights guarantees are alleged to have been violated, including exclusion of evidence or monetary compensation, Simpson v A-G (Baigent's case), [1994] 3 NZLR 667. [Return to chapter]

18. Ministry of Justice website, http://www.justice.govt.nz/ , retrieved April 2004 [Return to chapter]

19. Ministry of Justice website, http://www.justice.govt.nz/ , retrieved April 2004. [Return to chapter]

20. Report of the New Zealand Judiciary, 2000b. [Return to chapter]

Top