Talk:New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

message: Do we have an Article about the HRC? Brian | (Talk) 02:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, can't find one. The HRC doesn't really relate to the Bill of Rights however; the're mainly concerned with breaches of the Human Rights Act --Lholden 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would, but most of my law books are packed away now :-). Perhaps over the summer break I will... --Lholden 04:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: An anon changed part of the article as follows:
:This wikipedia article did read:
:"Under section 4, the application of the Act grants the Courts the power to rule any  provision of an enactment to be "impliedly repealed or revoked", or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or decline to apply any provision of this enactment by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights."
:In fact, section 4 of the Act has exactly the OPPOSITE effect, stating that:
:"No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights),—
:(a)Hold any provision of the enactment to be impliedly repealed or revoked, or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or
:(b)Decline to apply any provision of the enactment—
:by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights."
Since it certainly looks to my untrained eye like they are correct, I've removed the self-reference and left the quoting of the act. This could be tidied up.-gadfium 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon is correct - the mistake was my fault for not reading the section correctly. Duh! I'll edit the article. --Lholden 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect section?

message: Is it accurate to say this statute sets out "rights and fundamental freedoms" when it doesn't have status over any other laws?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robomc (talk • contribs) 00:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: fundamental?

message: This link is defunct, does anyone have an active link to the legislation? Thecrystalcicero (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it, assuming you're talking about the first link under "External links".-gadfium 20:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to the legislation

message: The original opening statement has "fundamental freedoms of the citizens of ...". This is incorrect. The term "everyone" (except voting rights) was explicitly used to include anyone citizen or not who is subject to New Zealand law. This includes refugees, visitors, temporary residents, ipso "Everyone" (and "No one" in the negative). 
Gtroyal2012 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Summary Everyone vs Citizens

message: How can this legislation be only applied to the workings of the government when down a bit further of the article the laws are "guarenteed" to protect everyone in New Zealand from any violations full stop?  Maybe make it clear that it will only hold government responsible because in its present form it is an incorrect generalisation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.185.133 (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction