Human Rights Forum 2026

Programme Wednesday 11 March 2026

9.30am – 10.00am – Registration

10.00am – 10.05am – Introduction – Robert Kirkness

10.05am – 10.55am – Section 3 of the Bill of Rights Act

One of the more difficult conceptual and practical problems in human rights law is determining the conduct to which it applies. Section 3 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 says that it applies “only” to acts of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the Government of New Zealand and any person or body not exercising in the performance of any public function, power or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. In this session, Andrew will consider where New Zealand jurisprudence stands on the reach of the Bill of Rights, in light of recent case law such as the Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrief-Spittle v Regional Facilities Auckland Ltd [2022] NZSC 138, and developments around the world.

Presenter: Andrew Butler KC
 

10.55am – 11.45am –  Justifying limits

New Zealand courts use proportionality to assess whether limits on rights under the Bill of Rights are justified – but their approach varies. Some cases follow structured tests; others take a more flexible path. This session explores how courts balance deference, evidence, and consistency when deciding if a rights limitation stands up to scrutiny.

Questions to be considered:

• How can the courts ensure consistency across the different approaches to proportionality?
• What does it mean for a court to “defer” to a decision-maker and when should a court do so?
• What role does evidence play as part of the justification analysis under the Bill of Rights, including in relation to the issue of whether deference is appropriate?

11.45am – 12.15pm – Break – Light refreshments provided

12.15pm – 1.05pm – The struggle for consistency

The Bill of Rights is built around the idea of rights-consistency – not just of legislation, but of all actions by executive government and those performing public functions. The only rights-inconsistency that our Bill of Rights envisages is where legislation is irredeemably inconsistent, not able to be interpreted consistently under s 6, and so prevails under s 4. But what is inconsistency, exactly? This session will explore a range of topics in these developing fields of Bill of Rights law.

Questions to be considered:

• Can a regulatory regime be deemed inconsistent if it fails to prevent infringing acts?
• Can a statute be inconsistent on account of what it doesn’t say?
• What is involved in reading statutes consistently under s 6, especially in cases involving administrative action?

Presenter: Paul Rishworth KC
 

1.05pm – 1.55pm – The potential of self-determination in Aotearoa

The right of peoples to self-determination has long been recognised as a cornerstone of international law, yet its contours remain unsettled. A recent advisory opinion of the Supreme Court of Fiji on constitutional validity held that a 75% super-majority requirement impermissibly fettered this right. In Aotearoa, these issues are especially relevant given Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This session explores how self-determination could be realised here, and the role of courts in shaping its future.

Questions to be considered:

• What is the potential for self-determination to be recognised in Aotearoa?
• Whose self-determination is guaranteed?
• How do the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Te Tiriti o Waitangi shape its scope for Māori?
• What role do the courts play in giving content to this right, particularly where international norms meet domestic law?

Presenter: Natalie Coates
 

1.55pm – 2.00pm – Summary of the Day – Robert Kirkness