You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Reports >>
2017 >>
[2017] NZBORARp 47
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill (Consistent) (Section 19(1)) [2017] NZBORARp 47 (9 August 2017)
Last Updated: 8 January 2019
9 August 2017
Hon Christopher Finlayson QC, Attorney-General
LEGAL ADVICE
LPA 01 01 22
Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Thames-Coromandel
District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove
Management Bill
Purpose
- We
have considered whether the Thames-Coromandel District Council and Hauraki
District Council Mangrove Management Bill (‘the
Bill’), a local Bill
in the name of Scott Simpson MP, is consistent with the rights and freedoms
affirmed in the New Zealand
Bill of Rights Act 1990 (‘the Bill of Rights
Act’).
- We
have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the rights and
freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act. In reaching
that conclusion, we
have considered the consistency of the Bill with s 19(1) (freedom from
discrimination). Our analysis is set
out below.
The Bill
- The
Bill empowers the Thames–Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District
Council to prepare a draft mangrove management
plan for the coastal area of
their districts to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of mangrove vegetation
in order to restore,
protect, and enhance any amenity values or ecosystems of
the coastal area. The Bill provides that the draft plan can be approved
through
the special consultative procedure under s 83 of the Local Government Act 2002
and then implemented.
Consistency of the Bill with the Bill of Rights Act
Section 19(1) – Freedom from discrimination
- Section
19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act affirms the right to be free from
discrimination, including on the grounds of race.
- Clause
6 of the Bill includes a requirement that the committee, established to prepare
and implement the mangrove management plan,
must include at least one iwi
representative.
- Arguably,
this requirement draws a distinction on the basis of race. This is because it
distinguishes between representatives of groups
that are predominately
Māori and those that include non-Māori. Nevertheless, in our view, the
provision does not give
rise to discrimination because it does not create any
substantive disadvantage for non- Māori. The Bill does not give iwi
representatives
any more authority than other members of the committee and does
not place any limits on the number of members on the committee.
- We
therefore conclude that the Bill appears to be consistent with the freedom from
discrimination affirmed in s 19(1) of the Bill
of Rights
Act.
Conclusion
- We
have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the rights and
freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act.
Jeff Orr
Chief Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZBORARp/2017/47.html