[lcpriest]

I don't think the NZ bill of rights is applied the same way as other countries.

> Section 4 specifically denies the Act any supremacy over other legislation. The section states that Courts looking at cases under the Act cannot implicitly repeal or revoke, or make invalid or ineffective, or decline to apply any provision of any statute made by parliament, whether before or after the Act was passed because it is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Bill_of_Rights_Act...

[AmericanChopper]

The Bill of Rights Act in New Zealand is mostly irrelevant. It is an ordinary piece of legislation, and it places no restrictions whatsoever on what future legislation may or may not contain.

Their early lockdowns were unlawful, but they fixed that in a few days with new legislation. A court actually ruled they were initially unlawful, but said that was OK because the government had good intentions.

[aunty_helen]

The way the legislation that gives the govt powers to enforce MIQ is written, is with respect to of the NZ bill of rights. That is, the legislation doesn't override the bill of rights but tries to work with it.

So given that it hasn't worked out as planned and they have directly violated freedom of movement etc, they have some pretty major issues.

This was how it was orignally written. I think they've tried to change it to install a CEO of MIQ which is the fall guy and absolves the govt now.

However, this will all be sorted out when the lawsuit goes ahead next year from the Grounded Kiwis (mentioned in the article) and hopefully a win for justice here. Given every legal challenge so far has been lost by the govt or backed out of at the last minute, there's a fairly good chance if someone or a group persues it to the final ruling, there will be a case set for a class action follow up.

[inter_netuser]

why would they include something like that?

whats the point of such bill of rights, if it has no supremacy?

[strontium_90]

New Zealand’s unicameral parliament, has supremacy over all other parts of government [1] and cannot be overruled or contradicted by any prior parliament’s legislation … the bill of right’s drafting reflects this. As a consequence of New Zealand’s somewhat atypical political history (as a former British colony without a federation treaty or other founding constitutional document), it’s not really possible to entrench any legislation so it can’t be overruled by a normal majority of a subsequent parliament.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty

[TMWNN]

As AmericanChopper said, it's mostly irrelevant in the legal sense.

The most important part of stromtium_90's reply is the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the idea that no legislature can do something that a future legislature cannot undo. Every legislature, including the US Congress, follows this principle ... with the exception of the constitution/founding treaty/etc., which is the only thing that is superior to that legislature's power. New Zealand does not have such a document. Neither does the UK. So, theoretically, both countries' parliaments can do anything as long as the action complies with any treaties signed with other nations ... and, of course, the parliaments can always use whatever exit option the treaties provide, if necessary.