enhance systematic Parliamentary oversight and strengthen accountability24. It would provide human rights scrutiny of proposed legislation and have the power to carry out thematic inquiries. The Commission considers that a recommendation by the Committee requiring the AttorneyGeneral to report on every bill that is introduced together with the establishment of a Human Rights Select Committee would improve compliance with Article 2 of the Covenant. Presumption of Innocence (Article 14(2)) In 2009, in the context of New Zealand’s report on implementing the ICCPR, the Committee indicated that it wished to hear what the Government was proposing to do to ensure full respect for the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty following the Supreme Court’s decision in R v. Hansen25. The Committee also asked for information on the results of the Parliamentary review of the Misuse of Drugs Act.26 In 2010, the Government responded that the Law Commission had released an issues paper on the control and regulation of drugs which addressed (among other things) the problems of proof that the presumption of supply seeks to remedy. The Government stated that it intended to respond when the Law Commission released its final report later this year while stressing that a rewrite of the Misuse of Drugs Act was not a priority.27 The Committee found the response unconvincing, and reiterated in its final recommendations that New Zealand should: …expedite the adoption of amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, with a view to ensuring compatibility with articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant and ensure the right to be presumed innocent28. Under section 25(c) of the NZBoRA, everyone charged with an offence has “the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. While the right can be limited in some situations the Supreme Court in Hansen held that such situations will not be a common occurrence29. In Hansen the majority held that although the control of illegal drugs was a significant objective, the fact that the reverse onus was triggered by possession of an arbitrary amount, it was not rationally connected with the objective and could not be justified in a free and democratic society. In the wake of Hansen, the Attorney-General has twice found that the reverse onus of proof in proposed legislation could not be justified under s.5 NZBoRA30 but the legislation has been passed despite the inconsistency. More recently a bill to strengthen the bail laws has been introduced that includes a reverse onus of proof which will require defendants charged with murder and serious Class A drug offences to show why they should be released on bail rather than the prosecution showing they should not be released (as is the case at present ). General Comment No. 32 (2007) states in relation to article 14(2) ICCPR that: ...everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. The presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt See also Geiringer, C “Declarations of Inconsistency dodged again” [2009] NZLJ 235 who considers that the absence of a dedicated select committee to consider the rights implications of legislation ...severely impoverishes the quality of rights-based scrutiny within the New Zealand House of Representatives. 25 [2007] NZSC 7 26 CCPR/C/NZL/Q/5 at para 19 1 27 Minister Simon Power, Response to questions of Human Rights Committee (16/3/10) at 3 28 CCPR/C/NZL/CO/5 at para 17 29 The Chief Justice considered whether justification of the presumption of innocence could ever be limited as it denies the right entirely 30 Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Act 2008 and the present Bill 24 Page 10 of 35