The government's top lawyer, Attorney-General Chris Bishop, has found that a proposed "no body, no parole" law would breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He says the bill would break the right to be free from arbitrary detention — meaning being locked up without a proper legal reason. (RNZ)

The bill was put forward by National MP Tom Rutherford. It would deny parole — early release from prison under conditions — to murderers who refuse to say where their victim's remains are. It reached Parliament's agenda earlier in the year, with proceedings touching on the bill during a broader legislative debate on 20 May 2026. (Hansard)

Bishop, a National Party MP, described the finding as "a line-ball call." His report sets out the core concern: once a prisoner has served their minimum non-parole period — the shortest time they must spend in prison before release can even be considered — keeping them inside should be about whether they are a risk to the public, not about punishing them further. The bill, as written, could result in detention beyond what is necessary for the purposes of parole and imprisonment, engaging the protection against arbitrary detention in section 22 of the Bill of Rights Act.

He was clear that the issue is a technical one about parole eligibility, not about convictions or punishments. Bishop said he had no concerns about miscarriages of justice resulting from the bill. The finding turns on how the parole system works and the point at which continued imprisonment must be justified by risk rather than retribution.

A Section 7 report does not stop a bill. It puts the Attorney-General's view on the record that the legislation cannot be justified in a free and democratic society. Parliament then proceeds with that assessment noted. The bill now sits with, or will go to, a select committee — a group of MPs from different parties who look at a bill in detail and hear from the public. Bishop indicated there may be ways the committee can adjust the bill to address the rights concerns he identified.

The broader context here is the tension between wanting justice for victims and the rights rules that govern parole. "No body, no parole" provisions appeal to a straightforward sense of justice: families of murdered victims deserve to recover remains, and offenders who refuse should face consequences. The difficulty is that parole, under New Zealand law, is not an extension of a prison sentence but a system based on risk. Once the minimum term is served, the Parole Board's job is to assess whether release can be managed safely, not to punish further.

Attaching a blanket condition that overrides that risk assessment introduces a different reason for keeping someone in prison. That is how the bill engages arbitrary detention: it detains a person on grounds not tied to public safety but to a refusal to provide information, however morally indefensible that refusal may be.

The select committee process is now the key point of pressure. Options that could narrow the rights breach might include making the refusal to disclose one factor the Parole Board weighs, rather than an automatic bar, or building in a way for a court to review the decision. Whether the committee takes that path, and whether Rutherford and the bill's supporters accept changes, will shape whether the legislation survives in a form the Attorney-General can live with.

Bishop's candour in calling the decision a line-ball call is notable. Section 7 reports on a government member's bill are not routine, and a government Attorney-General flagging his own side's bill adds weight to the committee's work. The bill's prospects are not foreclosed, but the rights analysis is now firmly on the parliamentary record.