Bill Of Rights Would ‘politicise’ Judiciary (Press, 3 October 1987)

At the 1987 Law Conference in Christchurch, Dr Bill Hodge, a senior law lecturer at the University of Auckland, expressed concerns over the proposal to introduce a New Zealand Bill of Rights. He argued that such a Bill could politicise the judiciary, lead to increased litigation, and expand the legal profession unnecessarily, possibly turning significant political and moral issues into court cases. Dr Hodge asserted that New Zealand's civil and political rights were already adequately safeguarded by the current legal and political framework, which includes institutions like the Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman. He expressed his inability to support the introduction of a Bill of Rights, stating that his feelings were more of misgivings rather than outright hostility. Dr Hodge highlighted that New Zealand's democratic system allows individuals to address grievances directly with their members of Parliament, a contrast to countries like the United States, which, despite having a Bill of Rights, still maintains capital punishment in many states. He identified the pressing need for prioritising human rights within the context of social justice and economic equality, cautioning against viewing civil and political rights simply as tools to protect economic freedoms. He noted the risk that these rights could become irrelevant for families struggling to make ends meet. In contrast, Mr Justice Jeffries at the seminar argued that opposition to the proposed Bill of Rights reflected a broader reluctance for change amidst New Zealand’s long history of stable development. He suggested that complacency from over 150 years of uninterrupted peace might hinder substantial progress in strengthening personal freedoms. He pointed out that New Zealand's lack of a written constitution, unicameral legislative body, and a questionable voting system made it stand out among democratic nations, indicating a need for reform. Mr Justice Jeffries called attention to the fragility of New Zealand's democratic institutions, warning that the freedom of speech could be jeopardised without proper safeguards. He questioned why communities in New Zealand and Australia felt exempt from the global trend of adopting Bills of Rights when similar values were shared with other societies. He highlighted the Bill's potential to educate the public on the importance of prioritising legal frameworks and mentioned that the concerns about politicising the judiciary were separate from the subject of judicial review of a constitutional document. Both speakers acknowledged the importance of justice in New Zealand's future, urging citizens to have faith in the potential for moderate constitutional reforms to preserve stability and fairness in the legal system. The discussions reflected a critical consideration of how best to protect rights while fostering necessary social evolution.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand