The Attorney General’s Obligation to Report Breaches of Rights in Proposed Legislation: How the Canadian and New Zealand Reporting Cultures Differ

• Main Author: Rendell, Julia
• Other Authors: Roach, Kent
• Language: en_ca
• Published: 2011
• Subjects: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; Attorney General; Human Rights; Legislation; Parliament; Constitutional law; Bill of rights; 0398
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/31405

This paper examines the Attorney General’s obligation, in Canada and New Zealand, to report on inconsistencies in proposed legislation with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Although the obligations are similar, the Canadian and New Zealand Attorneys General have developed very different reporting cultures. The Canadian Attorney General has never issued a report; the New Zealand Attorney General has issued many. This paper’s thesis is that the different reporting cultures are attributable to the different constitutional structure in each jurisdiction and different understandings of the independence of the Attorney General. Under this analysis, the usefulness of comparative analysis between the two jurisdictions is limited: constitutional differences cannot be ignored. The paper evaluates proposed changes to the reporting obligation in each jurisdiction in light of this analysis.