2.1 Application of International Human Rights Framework to New Zealand instruments may constitute a human rights breach in the context of this MPS.”52 While Parliament holds the ultimate power to legislate in New Zealand, the Government must take into account the impact of international law on domestic legislation as a result of its international treaty obligations and the principles of customary international law.47 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties48 provides that treaty obligations are binding on a State party and its territory and that domestic law may not be used as a justification for its failure to perform a treaty obligation.49 Furthermore, the New Zealand Courts have affirmed that they can be expected to interpret legislation in a manner consistent with international treaty obligations53 and that it is not to be assumed that Parliament intentionally passed legislation contrary to those treaty obligations.54 In addition, the reference to the ICCPR in the Long Title of The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 indicates a legislative desire to achieve compliance with international rights obligations.55 Accordingly, the Cabinet Office Manual and the ancillary Legislation Design and Advisory Committee Guidelines50 direct the Government and public servants to ensure that proposed legislation and policy conforms with international obligations.51 The Courts have also applied non-binding international human rights documents, such as UN Minimum Standards passed by the General Assembly, as persuasive interpretative aides when considering the application of a human rights obligation under an international treaty.56 The High Court has stated that “subject to express or implied contrary provisions in domestic legislation, New Zealand Courts will pay regard to internationally accepted human rights norms in the exercise of judicial discretion”57. The Government’s approach to applying human rights treaty obligations to legislation and policy development has been somewhat uneven to date. However, it is notable that the recent reforms to New Zealand’s intelligence and security jurisdiction, which had considerable implications for the right to privacy, gave careful scrutiny to international human rights standards. This resulted in human rights considerations being elevated amongst the new legislative principles and decision-making criteria that the reforms have introduced. This focus on international human rights obligations has been further reflected in related policy developments in the sector. In 2017, a Ministerial Policy Statement (MPS) regarding functions of the intelligence and security agencies when cooperating with overseas public authorities listed the ICCPR and seven other ratified UN human rights treaties as being among New Zealand’s “core human rights obligations.” The MPS noted that “actions or activities that run contrary to the obligations within those 47 Philip A Joseph, Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, 4th ed., pg 563 48 Ratified by New Zealand on 4 August 1971 49 Articles 26, 27 & 29. 50 http://www.ldac.org.nz/guidelines/lac-revised-guidelines/chapter-8/. 51 Cabinet Office, Cabinet Manual 2017, [7.65 (d)-7.66]. Jurisprudence arising from the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union on the application of the right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 52 Hon Christopher Finlayson, Ministerial Policy Statement: Cooperation of New Zealand intelligence and security agencies (GCSB and NZIS) with overseas public authorities, Appendix One, p 15, September 2017 available: https://www.nzic.govt.nz/assets/MPSs/Ministerial-Policy-Statement-Cooperation-with-overseas-public-authorities.pdf. 53 Ye v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104 at [24]; DP v R [2015] NZCA 476, [2016] 2 NZLR 306 at [11], citing New Zealand Airline Pilots Association Inc v Attorney-General [1997] 2 NZLR 269 (CA) at 289 and Yuen Kwok-Fung v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China [2001] 3 NZLR 463 (CA) at [16]. 54 DP v R, at [11], citing inter alia Terranova Homes and Care Ltd v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc [2014] NZCA 516, [2015] 2 NZLR 437 at [227]; Ye v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104 at [24] and [32]; and Zaoui v Attorney-General (No 2) [2005] NZSC 38, [2006] 1 NZLR 289. 55 Although not referred to in the Long Title of BORA, international conventions other than the ICCPR have been referred to on a number of occasions and can inform the analysis. See for example, Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] 3 NZLR 456 (CA) at [42]. 56 See para 11 of Winkelmann J’s judgment in TV3 v N (name suppression) (unreported, HC Auckland, 7 July 2006) where she finds at paras 10 and 11 that public interest factors as to reporting of evidence must be balanced with “the State’s particular obligations to young offenders, and in particular Article 8 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the administration of juvenile justice (“the Beijing Rules”). 57 R v Rawiri & Ors (Unreported, HC Auckland 19 June 2002), Fisher J. 16