1. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
Unlike Australia, the New Zealand Constitution does not reside in a single document with supreme legal authority. New Zealand's constitutional arrangements have come about as a result of legislation in both the British and New Zealand parliaments over the space of more than 150 years.
The structural protection of rights is based entirely on a combination of parliamentary legislation, common law and legal convention.
The Constitution Act 1986 sets out the structure of New Zealand’s system of government, allowing for democratic, representative and responsible government through structures such as:

2. There is separation of powers through the legislative, executive and judicial arms of government.
A unicameral parliament, the House of Representatives, is elected through a universal adult suffrage. The parliament includes a number of seats set aside specifically for Maori members, although Maoris can vote and stand for any seat. No more than three years can elapse between elections.
There is no mandated division of powers between different levels of government. New Zealand is not a federation, so there are no state or provincial parliaments. Regional councils have a similar role to that of local municipal councils in Australia, but have their powers delegated to them by the central parliament.
Executive power is in the hands of the Governor-General, as the representative of the British monarch.
The prime minister and Cabinet are members of parliament. They are drawn from the majority party in the House of Representatives and so are responsible to the parliament.
There is an independent judiciary, which includes the Supreme Court of New Zealand as the highest court in the land.

3. The Supreme Court of New Zealand
The Supreme Court was established in 2003, as the highest appellate court in the land
Unlike the High Court in Australia, the New Zealand Supreme Court has no overriding constitutional jurisdiction.
It cannot declare legislation invalid because of any apparent unconstitutional actions on the part of the government, so does not provide the same sorts of safeguards that can be provided by the High Court of Australia.

4. Changing the Constitution
As New Zealand has no supreme Constitutional document, parliament effectively has the power to change any part of the Constitution through the normal legislative process There is no binding requirement of a referendum process except under s.268 of Electoral Act When referenda have been conducted, it has been to gage public opinion, the results are not binding

5. New Zealand’s Bill of Rights Act 1990
New Zealand has attempted to protect the civil and democratic rights of its citizens through the development of a Bill of Rights. This is a statutory Bill rather than an entrenched Bill, and so can be changed by Parliament.
New Zealand does not have an entrenched Constitution as supreme source of its legal and governmental systems like Australia and America, so therefore it is impossible for it to entrench a Bill of Rights
In New Zealand, with its Constitution based on a combination of legislation, common law and legal convention, a statutory Bill of Rights is consistent with the rest of its constitutional arrangements.

6. The Bill of Right’s Act 1990 came into force in September 1990
It was based on the Canadian Charter in terms of the rights protected, but without the entrenched constitutional status of Canada's Charter. The purpose of the Act is:
to affirm, protect and promote human rights and other fundamental freedoms in New Zealand
to affirm New Zealand's commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Amended by the Human Rights Act 1993

7. Structural protections
Representative Government: expressly provided in s.12 of BORA and regular elections for the House of Representatives in the New Zealand Constitution Act 1986 so that a government that does not represent the views of the people is likely to be voted out at election
Responsible Government: operates in New Zealand, where the government can remain in power only while it has the support or confidence of the majority of the House of Representatives
Ministers are responsible to parliament, both individually for performance of their portfolio, and collectively for the actions of the government.
The Separation of Powers: is expressly provided for in the Constitution, but there is some overlap between executive and legislative functions (as in Australia) with ministers of the crown being members of parliament
However there are checks in place on the three arms
Judiciary remains independent

8. What rights are protected?

9. Types of Rights Protected
Examples
Life and security of the person
Right not to be deprived of life
Right not to be subject to torture
Democratic and civil rights
Electoral rights: those 18 years and over have a right to vote and become a member of parliament
Freedom of expression
Freedom of religion
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of movement
Non-discrimination and minority rights
Freedom from discrimination as set out in the Human Rights Act 1993
Search, arrest and detention
Right not to be subject to unreasonable search
Right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained
Rights when charged with an offence
Right to consult lawyer
Informed of the nature and cause of charge
Fair trial
The right to a fair and public hearing by an impartial court
Everyone has a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
Double jeopardy (concept that you should only be tried once for the same offence)
Person acquitted, convicted or pardoned of an offence cannot be tried or punished again for the same offence
Types of Rights Protected

10. Enforcement and interpretation by the courts
The Bill of Rights Act 1990 provides that the courts should interpret legislation in a way that is consistent with the Bill of Rights Act.
Where a law cannot be given an interpretation that is consistent with the Act, the Court can declare that law/laws to be inconsistent
The Bill of Rights Act cannot override a law
A declaration that a law is inconsistent does not mean that the law is automatically invalid
This has been seen as a significant weakness of the Bill of Rights Act

11. Are rights limited? There is a limitation clause
The Bill of Rights Act 1990 allows for “justified limitations”
The rights guaranteed by the Act are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
The Bill of Rights also requires the Attorney-General to report to parliament if any proposed law appears inconsistent with the Act
The Bill of Rights Act 1990 applies only to Acts created by the legislative, executive and judicial arms of government, not to actions of private citizens.

12. Remedies available
The BORA protects the rights of individuals as well as ‘non- natural persons’ including companies and incorporated societies
If the court believes that a right has been infringed it may:
Interpret the law in a way that is consistent with the Bill of Rights
Declare the law to be inconsistent
In some cases provide relief, such as excluding evidence obtained contrary to the rights in the Bill, or ordering compensation
If a law is declared inconsistent, it is returned to parliament to either amend the legislation so that it is consistent with the Bill or recognise the infringement of rights

13. Can BORA be changed?
As it is an ordinary Act of parliament, it can be changed by the same process as any other Act

14. Case study: Hopkinson v. Police (2004)
In this case, a Wellington schoolteacher, Paul Hopkinson, burned the New Zealand flag outside parliament to protest against the New Zealand Government hosting the prime minister of Australia and Australia's support for the war in Iraq. Flag burning that is done with intent to dishonour the flag is illegal and Hopkinson was convicted. The appeal court overturned the conviction, stating that Hopkinson had not acted with the intention of dishonouring the flag and he had a right to freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights Act. In this case the court agreed that the legislation and the Bill of Rights Act did not contravene each other and that flag burning with the intention of dishonouring the flag of New Zealand was still illegal.

15. Strengths and weaknesses of NZ approach to protection of rights through the BORA
It provides a reasonably comprehensive list of civil and democratic rights that should be protected
Rights could be removed by an unscrupulous government because the Bill of Rights Act can be easily changed
As a statutory bill, additional rights can be added at any time and amendments made to improve the rights protected
The courts have no power to rule on the validity of legislation that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights
Pre-legislative scrutiny of other proposed legislation gives the Parliament power to ensure all new legislation is consistent with the Bill of Rights Act
There is no overriding requirement that all legislation be consistent with the Bill of Rights

16. Comparison with Australia: similarities
New Zealand
Some similar rights are protected, such as trial by jury
Certain rights mentioned in the BORA are similar to Australian entrenched rights within our Constitution
No specific remedies are mentioned in the Constitution if it is found that a right has been infringed
The BORA does not expressly state the remedies that might apply if rights are infringed
The structural protection of rights (responsible government, representative government, separation of powers) operates in a similar way to in NZ
NZ’s structural protection of rights includes representative government, responsible government and the separation of powers also, with similar overlap between legislative and executive functions

17. Comparison: differences
Australia
New Zealand
Rights in Constitution are entrenched and cannot be changed without parliament approval and referenda
The Bill of Rights Act is a Statutory bill of Rights and can be amended at any time by an Act of parliament
Very few rights are expressly stated in Constitution
Extensive civil and political rights are mentioned in BORA
No pre-legislative scrutiny exists as far as checking if any legislation conflicts with the rights contained in the Constitution
Proposed laws are scrutinised to detect any inconsistencies with the BORA
The High Court may declare legislation invalid
The courts do not have the power to declare legislation invalid
The Constitution has ‘the last say’ and if an Act of Parliament contravenes (conflicts with) the Constitution it will be declared invalid
The courts must endeavor to interpret the meaning of an Act to be consistent with rights and freedoms contained in the BORA