Abstract:
Legal action as a pressure group strategy for altering government policy has attracted minimal attention in New Zealand, especially in the area of social policy. This thesis rectifies this gap in the political science literature by beginning to examine the place of legal action in pressure group politics.
Three hypotheses concerning a pressure group's choice of legal action are proposed. The first is that an insider group will be less likely to use legal action than an outsider group. An insider group does not have the same need given that it has access to other pressure points, nor does it have the desire given that legal action is inherently antagonistic and may jeopardise the pressure group's insider position. Second, legal action will not be a significant strategy because New Zealand is not a particularly litigious society. Furthermore, as past practice determines a group's choice of strategies and legal action is not frequently used, legal action is unlikely to be adopted quickly. Third, a group's resources will affect its choice of action, with a group requiring a minimum level of resources before it is able to commence and sustain legal action.
Using a case study approach, five pressure groups are examined to determine whether or not these hypotheses are indeed correct. The selected groups comprise three welfare groups (Auckland Peoples Centre, Downtown Community Ministry, Combined Beneficiaries Union); and two other contrasting pressure groups (Federated Farmers, Same Sex Marriage). The pressure groups are spread across the insider/outsider continuum in order to provide the greatest depth of findings. The findings suggest that insider groups are less likely to use the courts than outsider groups, although this appears to be more the result of their attitudes to legal action rather than their positioning on the insider/ outsider continuum. Legal action is clearly viewed as a legitimate pressure group strategy by all the groups examined, and past experience has not prevented the groups from using legal action. Indeed, their failure to access alternative pressure points may have led these groups into using legal action. A group's resources probably will impact on its choice of strategies, although clear findings were not evident from the data of this study.
This study clearly demonstrates that the courts have become an accepted pressure point for pressure groups in New Zealand. A full understanding of the nature of democracy in New Zealand requires that the significance of the role of the courts is clearly understood.
