The Constitutional Right to Game the System

fIaT JuStiTiA, RuAt CaElUm!

In 2015, a quiet but serious legal problem came to light: many councils around New Zealand had accidentally let their speed limit bylaws lapse. This had gone unnoticed for years. Since 2004, in fact. The upshot was that tens of thousands of speeding tickets, maybe more, had technically been issued without legal authority.

Left unaddressed, every one of those tickets could have been challenged and overturned. People who had paid fines might have been entitled to refunds. Maybe insurance premiums would have had to be recalculated.

In short, it could have opened the floodgates to litigation, administrative chaos and enormous cost to the public purse.

Parliament’s retrospective legislation, passed under urgency, cut that off. It wasn’t about denying justice, but about preventing the kind of legal absurdity where thousands of clearly guilty speeding offences became invalid not because they were wrongly punished, but because of a bureaucratic oversight.

Now imagine if urgency hadn’t been used. The moment word got out that those speed limit bylaws had expired, every traffic lawyer in the country would have rushed to court. Thousands of motorists would have lined up to challenge fines, overturn convictions, and demand refunds.

Councils would have been swamped. Police credibility undermined. The courts clogged with retroactive appeals over $80 infringements. The cost to the public purse, in time and money, could have dwarfed the fines themselves.

Worse still, while Parliament went through the motions, the legal limbo would have meant no enforceable speed limits at all in affected areas.

Technically, motorists could have sped with impunity, because there would’ve been no valid bylaw to underpin enforcement. Police would have had no lawful basis to issue tickets. Councils couldn’t have reimposed limits fast enough to close the gap@

I bring this up ten years after the fact because the government just did something similar. It used legislation, introduced and passed under urgency, to overhaul a legal framework that had become sprawling, overextended and unsustainable.

This time, it was about pay equity claims.