finally got a reply to a letter to the minister of justice, Simon Power, to my letter dated 23 June 2010. His office's letter was dated 3 August 2010 (took five days to get here, that must be a record for the post office). Only six weeks, that's about average for a government department.
Anyway, it states clearly: "THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONSIDER THE NZ BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1990, AND THE RIGHTS RECOGNISED IN THAT ACT, TO BE IMPORTANT! PARLIAMENT IS NOT BOUND BY THE NZ BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1990!

I am now wondering what is the point of the NZ Bill of Rights Act existing at all? This does, however, clearly mean that government, or it's agents, employees or departments can "ride roughshod" over any "human rights" that it so desires.

It also means that parliament can enact any legislation it likes with no consideration whatsoever to human rights.

Do you still think that government has your best interests at heart?

We have to fight for our liberty and there is no sense relying on any of these parasites to be even a little bit honest.

I also personally agree that the government should respect the human rights and that the NZ government must have an obligation to respect the 1990 NZ Bill of Rights Act an and recognised NZ Human Rights Act.

It would be interesting to know what the letter you wrote said, and what the whole letter from Hon Simon Power's office said.

Although the letter did not put it tactfully, the truth is that the NZ Parliament is completely sovereign. As NZ has no written constitution, Parliament (made up of democratically elected representatives) is 'above the law'.
If by 'government' you mean Parliament, then yes, Parliament does not have to respect any human rights or any law whatsoever. That's our system.

Sorry Bruce, your post is meaningless without a copy of your letter and the reply

Hi- Just thought I would throw this in here- I had a job finding an online Dictionary with this interpretation for

"Honour"

While there are many meanings attributed to this "Word"- the following is possibly the least common meaning (which should be the most significant because it) applies to us all and is clearly the "Right" of any reasonable or "Right" minded person.

"ADHERANCE TO WHAT IS "RIGHT" OR TO A CONVENTIONAL STANDARD OF CONDUCT"

We have Laws which are our duty (to our ourselves, peers and descendants) to Fulfill- including issues of public safety- when an individual/group does not "Honour" the "Codes of practice"?- then it becomes a matter of "Honour" that "Law enforcement" is not apathetic and true to maintaining the (Honourable?)intention in the wordings of the Laws- Because the creation of laws is normally performed by Elected Representatives (the law makers) serving in positions of "Trust" [trust that they conduct their duties with "Adherence" to that which is "Right" or to a "conventional standard of conduct"] Ensuring there is no room for presumption that (the Laws could as easily have been written on tissues) the Laws are Less than of Honourable Intent- So Honouring the Word- So Honouring the Dictionaries possible relationship to the accuracy of the interpretation of the word -

"Honour"is therefore both a matter of a "Duty in Common", and an "Anticipated standard of Behavior/Conduct"...

Note- Ignorance of the Law is not a defense for any Crime committed


What would prompt a "Human" to ask a "Human" for "Human Rights"???

Perhaps the Minister of Justice would be interested in Honour??