overstate the distinction between indications of inconsistency as part of the court’s reasoning process and a formal declaration. [27] The Human Rights Commission submits that the making of a formal declaration is part and parcel of the scheme and intent of the Bill of Rights. Further, counsel argues the jurisdiction to make a declaration if viewed in the context of New Zealand’s constitutional setting is consistent with judicial function.26 [28] We address these submissions after first discussing briefly the position taken in the key authorities prior to the present case. The approach to date [29] From the outset, the authorities have made it clear that in order for the Bill of Rights to be effective, the courts had to provide remedies for breaches of the Bill of Rights. The following observation from one of the earlier Bill of Rights cases captures the position that has been taken:27 A statement of fundamental human rights would be a hollow shell and the enactment of a Bill of Rights an elaborate charade if remedies were not available for breach. On the contrary the premise underlying the Act is that the Courts will affirmatively protect those fundamental rights and freedoms by recourse to appropriate remedies within their jurisdiction. [30] As foreshadowed by this excerpt, it is also well-established that in order to ensure any remedy is an effective one, the courts can draw on the usual array of remedies, of which declaratory relief is a part. Cooke P in Simpson v Attorney-General (Baigent’s Case) stated:28 Subject to ss 4 and 5, the rights and freedoms in Part II have been affirmed as part of the fabric of New Zealand law. The ordinary range of remedies will be available for their enforcement and protection. Secondly, the long title shows that, in affirming the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights, the Act requires development of the law when necessary. Such a 26 27 28 Mr Taylor supported the Commission’s approach in his submissions. R v Goodwin [1993] 2 NZLR 153 (CA) at 191 per Richardson J. See also: Geoffrey Palmer “A Bill of Rights for New Zealand: A White Paper” [1984–1985] I AJHR A6 [the White Paper] at [3.8]–[3.12]. Simpson v Attorney-General [1994] 3 NZLR 667 (CA) [Baigent] at 676. See also Attorney-General v Chapman [2011] NZSC 110, [2012] 1 NZLR 462 at [1]–[2] per Elias CJ and [203] per McGrath and William Young JJ; and Taunoa v Attorney-General [2007] NZSC 70, [2008] 1 NZLR 429 at [258] per Blanchard J and [300] per Tipping J.