This paper examines whether indeed, as claimed by supporters of the pending regime changes, New Zealand law does not provide for judicial review on legislation. We conclude that this claim is mistaken and misleading for the following reasons:
1. Courts in New Zealand have the authority to strike down legislation that infringes upon the right to vote and the right to be elected, unless that legislation is enacted by a super-majority, namely the votes of three quarters of parliament members, or has been approved in a national referendum where a majority vote is required both generally and of the Maori minority specifically.
2. New Zealand case law provides that courts have the authority to strike down legislation that severely undermines the independence of the judiciary or infringes upon fundamental human rights. These judicial decisions have a restraining effect on legislators.
3. Additionally, courts are authorized to declare that legislation is incompatible with human rights law. When they do, the New Zealand parliament tends to amend the law.