Parliamentary Bills of Rights
The Experiences of New Zealand and the United Kingdom
Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law Series

Both New Zealand and the United Kingdom challenge assumptions about how a bill of rights functions. Their parliamentary bills of rights constrain judicial review and also look to parliament to play a rights-protecting role. This arises from the requirement to inform parliament if legislative bills are not compatible with rights. But are these bills of rights operating in this proactive manner? Are governments encountering significantly stronger pressures to ensure legislation complies with rights? Are these bills of rights resulting in more reasoned deliberations in parliament about the justification of legislation from a rights perspective? Through extensive interviews with public officials and analysis of parliamentary debates where questions of compliance with rights arise (prisoner voting, parole and sentencing policy, counter-terrorism legislation, and same-sex marriage), this book argues that a serious gap exists between the promise of these bills of rights and the institutional variables that influence how these parliaments function.

1. Introduction; Part I. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: 2. Political origins of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; 3. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and MMP; 4. Parliamentary review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975; 5. Parliamentary select committees and Section 7 reports; Part II. The United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998: 6. Political origins of the Human Rights Act; 7. Pre-legislative compatibility assessments under the HRA; 8. Parliamentary review of national security issues; 9. Parliamentary review: equality and democratic issues; 10. Conclusion.

Janet L. Hiebert is a professor in the Department of Political Studies at Queen's University, Ontario.
James B. Kelly is a professor in the Department of Political Science at Concordia University, Montréal.