than crime.  The Bill could be left to do its work in this regard without any change at all. Conclusion 37 New Zealand’s constitutional traditions are conservative.  The immediate prospect of either repealing the Bill of Rights Act or advancing it in the ways discussed here,  do  not  appear  to  be  high.  These  issues  are  not  on  any  political  or  policy agenda so far as I am aware.   It is perhaps not unsurpising that I retain a lingering affection for a superior law Bill of Rights.  It may occur in the fullness of time.     38 After fifteen years my own conclusion is that what we have now is certainly better than not having a Bill of Rights at all.  It has been “a set of navigation lights for the whole process of government to observe,”³² and governance in this country has been more principled  because  of  it.   39 New  Zealand  has  always  prided  itself  on  respecting  fundamental  human  rights.   Prior to the enactment of this measure, however, the rhetorical political tendency was to say that New Zealand always honoured fundamental human rights without looking to see whether the claim was valid.  Too often it was not.  Administrative convenience,  a  tendency  to  trust  the  state  and  the  use  of  its  powers,  and  a homogenous political culture with a unicameral legislature made New Zealand in historical terms rather self satisfied and uncritical about rights.    40 Our world is altogether different now.  New Zealand is a highly pluralist society with  many  diverse  sets  of  values  shared  among  its  inhabitants.    This  pluralism places pressures on fundamental rights.  But it also provides the essential need for their protection.  It is not too much to say that the Bill of Rights has changed New Zealand’s legal culture and widened its horizons.  Analysis has replaced rhetoric.                                                     32   Ministry of Justice “A Bill of Rights for New Zealand:  A White Paper” [1984-85] I AJHR A 6 6. 14