New Zealand Bill of Rights doesn't apply to British monarchy

Submitted by LJ Holden on 27 February, 2013 - 08:45

The Crown Law Office has published its section 7 report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The analysis is startling in its absence:

The rules that govern succession are historically and politically complex. They are inapt for detailed Bill of Rights Act scrutiny.
Blogger No Right Turn rightly describes this as cop-out. Republican Movement constitutional advisor, Dean Knight describes this as a student answering a law question with a "this hurts my brain" response (Dean must've been marking papers again!).

This is a really surprising response from Crown Law. I was expecting a "yes it's discriminatory but we're removing some of the discrimination." But that would've highlighted the fact that there's still discrimination against "Papists" (the actual term used by the Parliamentary Library in their research note on the Royal Succession Bill) - hardly what the monarchists want out there.

Comments

Rich's picture
Submitted by Rich on 27 February, 2013 - 10:00.
I'm surprised she didn't invoke the "divine right of kings"? That Canadian precedent is a bit bogus. It involves a challenge to existing legislation, and Canada's constitution incorporates the Statute of Westminster, which provides for a common succession. NZ repealed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act (BYW, does anyone have the text of this, it is nowhere online that I can see) in 1986. That 1986 Constitution Act mandates the UK succession, but it's an Act of Parliament and isn't entrenched. Therefore it can be reviewed by Parliament, is being reviewed now and should be reviewed in accordance with BORA like any other ACT. IANAL, but even I can see holes in the Crown Law argument. One would hope that a friendly MP might propose an amendment providing for no religious disability or marriage vetos, just for the lulz, so to speak.
Syndicate content