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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:TORONTO/oai:tspace.library.utoronto.ca:1807/31405 |
| Date | 19 December 2011 |
| Creators | Rendell, Julia |
| Contributors | Roach, Kent |
| Source Sets | University of Toronto |
| Language | en_ca |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds