You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Reports >>
2010 >>
[2010] NZBORARp 21
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Head of State Referenda Bill (Inconsistent) (Section 19(1)) [2010] NZBORARp 21 (21 April 2010)
Last Updated: 16 June 2019
J.4
![2010_2100.jpg](2010_2100.jpg)
Report of the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Head of State Referenda
Bill
Presented to the House of Representatives pursuant to
Section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Standing Order 261
of
the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives
- I
have considered whether the Head of State Referenda Bill (“the
Bill”) is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act 1990
(“the Bill of Rights Act”). I have concluded that the Bill appears
to be inconsistent with s 19(1) of the Bill
of Rights Act, which affirms the
freedom from discrimination, and that the inconsistency cannot be justified
under s 5 of that Act.
As required by s 7 of the Bill of Rights Act and
Standing Order 261, I draw this to the attention of the House of
Representatives.
Purpose of the Bill
- The
Bill provides for two referenda to decide the method for selecting the head of
state of New Zealand. The first referendum would
be held in conjunction with a
general election and would ask whether to continue with the Sovereign as the
head of state or whether
to change to a head of state either: a) appointed by a
vote of at least 75% of the House of Representatives; or b) elected by a
majority
of voters. If the majority of votes in the first referendum are in
favour of one option, that option is carried, and the second referendum
will not
be held.
- If
no option receives a majority of votes, the two options receiving the highest
number of votes would be subject to a second referendum
within 12 months of the
first referendum. That referendum would be conducted by postal ballot under the
Referenda (Postal Voting)
Act 2000 and would be binding. If a majority of voters
at the second referendum vote for a change of the head of state, the Governor-
General becomes the head of state until a replacement is appointed or
elected.
- The
Bill provides for an appointed or elected head of state to serve for a term of
five years. If the head of state is to be elected
by a majority of voters, the
first election must be held no more than six months after the second referendum.
Elections of the head
of state would be conducted by postal ballot using the
single transferable vote electoral system.
Inconsistency with s 19(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
- Any
person who is entitled to vote in a general election is entitled to vote in the
first referendum;1 however, cl 32 of the Bill
states:
The referendum roll used for the second referendum must be
the same as that used for the first referendum, without any updating or
modification.
- Clause
32 would require precisely the same roll of voters to be used for both
referenda. Any person who qualifies to be on the electoral
roll between the
first and second referenda would not be eligible to vote in the second
referendum.
- Section
19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act affirms that everyone has the right to freedom
from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination
set out in the Human Rights
Act 1993.
1 Clause 4 defines elector as a person
registered as an elector for an electoral district constituted under the
Electoral Act 1993.
That Act entitles any New Zealand citizen or permanent
resident who is over 18 years of age to vote in general elections (subject
to
some disqualifying criteria).
- The
key questions in assessing whether a provision gives rise to discrimination
under s 19 are:
does the provision draw a
distinction based on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination; and
does the distinction involve disadvantage of the
type prohibited by the legislation to one or more classes of individuals?
Does the Bill draw a distinction on the prohibited grounds?
- The
prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in s 21 of the Human Rights Act
include age (commencing at 16).
- Clause
32 would prevent a person who turns 18 after the first referendum but before the
second referendum from voting in the second
referendum. In comparison, a person
who was 18 before the first referendum would be able to participate in the
second referendum.
The Bill, therefore, appears to draw a distinction on the
basis of age.
Does the distinction lead to disadvantage?
- The
referendum asks voters to decide whether New Zealand should remain a monarchy or
become a republic and, if so, how the head of
state should be selected. This is
a question of significant constitutional importance. Excluding some young people
from participating
in that decision must be considered a disadvantage. This view
is supported by article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political
Rights, which affirms the importance of participating in public affairs. The
distinction drawn by cl 32 of the Bill therefore
gives rise to disadvantage for
the purposes of s 19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act.
Possible justifications under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act
- Section
5 of the Bill of Rights Act states that the rights and freedoms contained in the
Bill of Rights Act may be subject only to
such reasonable limits prescribed by
law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. A
limitation on a right
or freedom might be justified where:
the provision serves an important and significant objective;
and
there is a rational and proportionate connection
between the provision and that objective.
Significant and important objective
- It
is not clear what purpose cl 32 is designed to achieve. I am not aware of any
instances of the roll being closed for a two-stage
referendum. In general,
electoral law focuses on accommodating those who become eligible to vote.
However, roll closing does occur
in presidential systems overseas when there is
a “run-off” election between the highest polling candidates. In such
systems,
it is a common practice to close the roll prior to the first round of
voting. The run-off election is therefore decided by the same
voters as were
eligible for the first round of voting. For example, s 20 of the Finnish
Election Act 1998 states that “In the
Presidential
election, the same voting register shall be used in the first and the second
round of the Presidential election”.
- I
do not consider these overseas examples of “run-off” elections to be
analogous to the two referenda proposed in the
Bill. In the
“run-off” elections, the first and second rounds of voting are
closer together. It is possible that the
rolls are closed because it is
impractical to update them within a short period of time. Under the Bill, the
two referenda could
take place up to a year apart during which time a
significant number of people would qualify to vote.
- The
fact that a person was ineligible to vote in the first referendum does not
prevent that person from making an informed decision
in the second referendum. I
see no reason to exclude them from participating. I have, therefore, concluded
that cl 32 does not serve
a significant and important objective.
Rational and Proportionate Connection
- Even
if cl 32 did serve a significant and important objective, and in my opinion it
does not, I do not consider the provision to be
rationally and proportionately
connected to the objective. First, as noted above, there is no reason to assume
that it would promote
better decision-making. Secondly, people who were
eligible but chose not to participate in the first referendum are still able to
vote in the second referendum. Clause 32 therefore does not ensure that the
individuals voting in the second referendum have truly
engaged in the decision
at the first stage. Thirdly, the disadvantageous effect of cl 32 is substantive
and, in my view, outweighs
any possible benefit.
Alternative interpretations of cl 32
- Section
6 of the Bill of Rights Act provides that, wherever an enactment can be given a
meaning that is consistent with the rights
and freedoms contained in the Bill of
Rights Act, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.
- I
have considered whether cl 32 can be given an interpretation that would avoid
the discriminatory effect outlined above. If cl 32
could be interpreted to allow
basic maintenance of the roll (removing individuals who no longer qualify and
including those who do)
it would not discriminate on the prohibited grounds.
However, the words “without any updating or modification” make it
clear that no changes can be made to the roll in the intervening period,
including the addition of newly qualified voters. I am unable
to give those
words any interpretation other than that meaning.
Conclusion
- For
these reasons, I have concluded that the Bill appears to be inconsistent with s
19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act and that the inconsistency
cannot be justified
under s 5 of that Act.
![2010_2102.jpg](2010_2102.jpg)
Hon Christopher Finlayson
Attorney-General
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZBORARp/2010/21.html