Replacement of use of Royal Prerogative in New Zealand Proposed

WELLINGTON, New Zealand, 10 June 2009 – The royal prerogative is now an untidy anachronism in New Zealand, according to Auckland law professor Bruce Harris.

Writing in the latest issue of the New Zealand Universities Law Review, Professor Harris proposes a comprehensive review of all sources of power for government actions, with a progressive replacement by Parliament of the remaining royal prerogative powers.

The royal prerogative is a group of common law powers originally held by the monarch which are now legally exercised by the government to carry out certain actions. These include the power to pardon convicted criminals, the power to declare war, and the power to make certain appointments such as those of the Governor-General, Cabinet ministers and ambassadors. All of these are used by the New Zealand government without the need for approval by Parliament.

Professor Harris says the royal prerogative continues in New Zealand because it has proved an easily acquired and convenient source of legal authority for many of the traditional functions of the executive.

“Although often still exercised in the name of the Monarch, the prerogative powers are now almost exclusively exercised at the discretion of the incumbent government,” he says.

“Parliaments have been left to call governments to account for their exercise of the prerogative only after the action has taken place.”

Professor Harris says while there has been no groundswell of public opinion in New Zealand for replacement of the prerogative, a modern democratic society should look to Parliament to provide the legal authority for all actions carried out by the government.

He proposes that all authority which has derived from the prerogative and is still considered to be justifiably needed by modern government, should be provided by statute.

“Parliament, the elected legislature, would give a democratic mandate to all government action in advance of it taking place, and impose such clear constraints and accountability mechanisms in respect of the action as considered appropriate at the time of enactment. Such legal authority for government action would be more democratic, more certain, more accessible and more easily understood than that provided by the prerogative.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media