Judicial and political review as limited insurance: the functioning of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in ‘hard’ cases
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article adapts Ginsburg's model of ‘judicial review as insurance policy’ to understand the functioning of the statutory New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) 1990 – a ‘parliamentary’ bill of rights that is principally insured through political rights review and marginally through judicial review. Arguing that judicial and political rights review has proven to be a less-than-adequate check on the introduction of incompatible legislation by the Cabinet in the context of the Crimes Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act, this article suggests that the NZBORA functions as an ‘under-insured’ bill of rights in the criminal law context. This is the result of the limited political cost paid by the Cabinet for introducing incompatible legislation in the criminal law context, structural factors within the NZBORA that limit judicial review as a substantive check on executive conduct, and finally, the limited value of political rights review mechanisms such as the reporting duty of the Attorney General under Section 7 of the NZBORA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it