THE New Zealand model is not comparable with the local system, lawyers said yesterday. Section four of the New Zealand Bill of Rights says the court should not repeal, revoke or refuse to apply any legislative provisions found to be inconsistent with the Bill. Section seven says the Attorney-General has to report to Parliament any provision that appears to be in conflict with the act. Hong Kong University senior law lecturer Dr Nihal Jayawickrama said New Zealand had no written constitution, which allowed the Bill to override others. But Hong Kong has had a written constitution for the past 155 years and one for the next 50 years and the Bill of Rights derived the over-riding status from the Letters Patent and, in future, the Basic Law. Dr Jayawickrama says the comparison is inappropriate because New Zealand has a Human Rights Commission and allows its people to complain to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The Associate Professor of City University's Professional Legal Education, Dr Richard Cullen, said the New Zealand Prime Minister originally wanted to introduce a stronger Bill of Rights but met strong political opposition, which believed the Bill gave too much power to the court. Though the Bill was weaker than the local version, judges were keener to use it, which had become a powerful instrument. Last year, the New Zealand appeal court decided that a police raid on a wrong address had infringed human rights and ruled remedy be made available. Section six of the New Zealand Bill of Rights also says that interpretations consistent with the Bill are always the preferred meaning of any laws. Dr Cullen says the local context is also different. Hong Kong does not have a completely representative democracy and changes are lurking as 1997 approaches. The Bill of Rights has a symbolic function of reassurance and, on the practical side, it energises the review of colonial laws, of which some are draconian. Pressure group Human Rights Monitor said the New Zealand model would be totally ineffective in Hong Kong. Hong Kong does not have full democracy and the executive-led government can veto any bill.
