‘Prejudice and bigotry’ over Bill of Rights

Press, 8 February 1986, Page 8

‘Prejudice and bigotry’ over Bill of Rights

Many Fundamental Christian critics of the proposed Bill of Rights were accused of intellectual dishonesty, prejudice, ignorance and bigotry by the Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, yesterday. Mr Palmer said the only “popular” debate on the bill had been stimulated by Fundamentalist Christians and the League of Rights. Frequently their arguments obscured the bill’s real issues, he said. The bill had been accused by such critics as being “right out of Animal Farm," communist and totalitarian, and a denial

of New Zealand’s Christian heritage. “People who make statements like that should be grateful that the proposed Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech. It is protection they will need.” Mr Palmer also said such statements reeked of intellectual dishonesty. "The matter is one which ought not be determined by prejudice, ignorance and bigotry. It needs to be addressed by a careful balancing of the arguments." Serious discussion of the bill had taken place at a number of legal

seminars, but, Mr Palmer said, the “prolonged public debate” he had hoped for had not yet amounted to much. Mr Palmer delivered ' his fourth progress report on the bill to the Canterbury District Law Society yesterday. The White Paper on the bill is now before Parliament’s Justice and Law Reform Committee. More than 500 submissions had been received and hearings would begin soon, said Mr Palmer. No date had been fixed for the bill’s introduction to the House, because it was essential first to allow thorough discussion, he said. Many people had the mistaken idea that the bill was a written constitution or was concerned with relationships between individuals. The bill did not amount to Government rules telling people “how the community will be run or how to bring up their children. “It is a guarantee of our fundamental rights and freedoms. It protects those ... by" imposing limits on the powers of Government. “If rights are not incorporated in the law, the law cannot recognise them or apply them. They are at the mercy of a political majority,” said Mr Palmer. ; The present electoral system could effectively ensure the rule of the majority, but was not very effective in achieving toleration and respect for the freedom of minorities and individuals. / Judges would acquire

new powers under the bill, Mr Palmer said. He rejected criticisms .that’ judges were ill-equipped •’ for their new role or that *-• a radical shift in constitutional power would occur. ’ l / Judges already ’ per- ’ ; formed tasks similar to- 1 ’ those required by the law, ■' and would not have to make decisions on social and political rights, s as these were not included in' the bill.- 1 V nM?*! Judges in the United’ ! States and Canada already u had the right to strike out legislation, but this right had been used most spar- ' ingly. ■ ’ Mr Palmer said ; that / only fundamental rights" "■ for which there was a ’’ general consensus could be included in the bill. 7 For this reason the bill 1 , had adopted a neutral stance on such 'contentious matters as abortion and compulsory unionism. - ■' It would be up, to the • Courts to decide how -- abortion ’iapplled to the / article in the bill dealing with the deprivation of human life, he said. “ ’ ; Mr Palmer. also; said that the bill. .would be, incomplete without any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. Not only,did the treaty; have a-special sig- b. nificance for the Maori people, it was also the basic authority for government in New Zealand.- > The proposals inthedraft bill concerning. the v treaty were still being dis-./' cussed by the Maori people. Until these discussions were completed the Government would not. make any final decision;./ on Its. inclusion, said Mr Palmer. .' •• • •_?.)