New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Māori: Te Ture Pire o ngā Tika o Aotearoa 1990), sometimes known by the acronym NZBORA or simply BORA, is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand and part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution. The Act sets out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a bill of rights.

New Zealand's uncodified constitution heavily relies on parliamentary sovereignty with a unicameral parliament with little checks and balances due to the majority in parliament belonging to the government of the day. Following the national government led by Robert Muldoon, New Zealand's constitutional arrangements became a major political issue and was a significant motivator for a Bill of Rights. As a result, the Bill of Rights was introduced in 1985 by Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer, originating from A Bill of Rights for New Zealand: A White Paper. It was originally proposed to be entrenched and supreme law, but following widespread controversy due to it granting the courts the ability to invalidate acts of parliament and contradicting parliamentary sovereignty, it was ultimately passed in 1990 as an ordinary act of parliament.

The Act applies to all acts done by the three branches of government, the executive, legislature and judiciary, and any other entity that is performing a public function. The rights guaranteed by the Act are also subject to "justified limitations", with limitations being consistent with the bill of rights if they can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". This limitation clause was included in the White Paper, with it recognising that "rights cannot be absolute". The Act also imposes a legal requirement on the attorney-general to provide a report to parliament whenever a bill is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. There are many rights guaranteed by the Act across several different categories, which are: life and security of the person, democratic and civil rights, non-discrimination and the rights of minorities, search, arrest and detention, criminal procedure, fair trial, and double jeopardy and natural justice.

The Act does not provide a list of explicit legal remedies; as a result, remedies for breaches of rights within the Act have been developed by the courts since it was passed into law. Remedies developed by the courts include the exclusion of evidence, reduction in sentence, costs, damages and a declaration of inconsistency

In present-day New Zealand, the Act is part of the public lexicon and has been used by many campaigns to initiate legal challenges, such as the Make It 16 campaign and on prisoners' voting rights. In 2013, a Constitutional Advisory Panel received submissions with concerns over the ineffectiveness of the Act and it allowing parliament to pass legislation that is inconsistent with the rights guaranteed by the Act. However, others also made submissions that they believed that the act was working satisfactorily and should be left as it is. It is an ongoing conversation amongst legal academics in New Zealand as to whether there should be an entrenched constitutional Bill of Rights that gives the court the power to strike down inconsistent legislation. The UN Human Rights Committee has also criticised New Zealand for the lack of the court's power to provide a remedy by striking down legislation inconsistent with the Act, equating this lack of power with a lack of human rights protection.