You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Reports >>
2022 >>
[2022] NZBORARp 75
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Mâori Fisheries Amendment Bill (Consistent) (Section 14) [2022] NZBORARp 75 (30 November 2022)
Last Updated: 2 February 2023
![2022_7500.jpg](2022_7500.jpg)
30 November 2022
LEGAL ADVICE
LPA 01 01 24
Hon David Parker, Attorney-General
Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Māori
Fisheries
Amendment Bill
Purpose
![2022_7501.jpg](2022_7501.jpg)
- We
have considered whether the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill (the
Bill) is consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the Bill of Rights Act).
- We
have not yet received a final version of the Bill. This advice has been prepared
in relation to the latest version of the Bill
(PCO 21120/1.44). We will provide
you with further advice if the final version includes amendments that affect the
conclusions in
this advice.
- 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 14 (freedom of expression).
Our analysis is set out below.
The Bill
![2022_7501.jpg](2022_7501.jpg)
- The
Bill amends the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 (the principal Act), which sets
out a framework for the allocation and transfer of fisheries settlement assets
to iwi, institutional requirements, and
a governance framework comprised of four
Māori fisheries governance entities for managing those settlement assets
for current
and future generations of iwi and
Māori.1
- The
principal Act requires entities established under that Act to be periodically
reviewed by an independent reviewer. The first review
of the Act was completed
in 2015. It recommended significant changes to the governance structures of the
entities and simplified
processes for trading assets, intended to bring iwi
closer to their entities, in order to assert a greater degree of rangatiratanga
over their assets. Some of these recommendations require legislative
change.
- The
Bill provides for several amendments to be made to the principal Act, together
with consequential amendments to other legislation,
to give effect to review
recommendations. These are intended to:
- move
iwi towards a greater degree of rangatiratanga over the Fisheries Settlement
entities;
- improve
the ability of the entities to deliver benefits to all Māori;
- The
four entities are Te Ohu Kaimoana, Aotearoa Fisheries Limited (Moana New
Zealand), Te Pūtea Whakatupu Trust, and Te Wai Māori
Trust, which play
different roles in the governance framework.
- improve
the operational efficiency of the entities; and
- better
achieve the purposes of the principal Act.
Consistency of the Bill with the Bill of Rights Act
![2022_7501.jpg](2022_7501.jpg)
Section 14 – Freedom of expression
- Section
14 of the Bill of Rights Act affirms the right to freedom of expression,
including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart
information and opinions of
any kind in any form. The right to freedom of expression has also been
interpreted as including the right
not to be compelled to say certain things or
to provide certain information.2
- There
are a several provisions in the Bill which prima facie engage the right
to freedom of expression. These provisions can be broadly split into the
following categories:
- Requirement
to provide certain information to support transparency and accountability:
The Bill requires Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Limited to provide certain
information to support the overall governance of the 1992
Fisheries Settlement
assets to some or all of the following: mandated iwi organisations, recognised
iwi organisations, and representative
Māori
organisations.3 For example, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee
Limited must provide a draft of its annual plan to mandated, recognised, and
representative
Māori organisations (clause 36); provide a strategic plan to
mandated and recognised iwi organisations for approval (clause
36A); and provide
an annual report to mandated, recognised, and representative iwi organisations,
to assess the performance of Te
Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Limited against its annual
and strategic plans (clause 38).
- Requirement
to receive certain information: The Bill requires mandated iwi
organisations, recognised iwi organisations, and/or representative Māori
organisations to receive
certain information from Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee
Limited. For example, a draft of its annual plan (clause 36) and the strategic
plan for approval (clause 36A).
- Miscellaneous
provisions to support the administration of Fisheries Settlement assets: The
Bill also contains various provisions throughout that are related to, or that
contribute in some way to, the objectives of the
Bill. For example, requirements
regarding notification, information-sharing, and reporting.
- Where
a provision is found to limit a particular right or freedom, it may nevertheless
be consistent with the Bill of Rights Act if
it can be considered a reasonable
limit that is demonstrably justified in terms of section 5 of that Act.
- See,
for example, Slaight Communications v Davidson 59 DLR (4th) 416;
Wooley v Maynard [1977] USSC 59; 430 US 705 (1977).
- Te
Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Limited is a registered company and the sole trustee of Te
Ohu Kai Moana – a charitable trust established
to administer the 1992
Fisheries Settlement assets and advance the interests of iwi, primarily in the
development of fisheries, fishing,
and fisheries-related activities. Mandated
and recognised iwi organisations act as the shareholders of Te Ohu Kai Moana
Trustee Limited.
- The
section 5 inquiry asks whether the objective of the provision is sufficiently
important to justify some limitation on the freedom
of expression and, if so,
whether the limitation is rationally connected and proportionate to that
objective and limits the freedom
of expression no more than reasonably necessary
to achieve that objective.4
- We
consider that any limits on the freedom of expression contained within the Bill
are justified under section 5 of the Bill of Rights
Act because:
- the
Bill seeks to, amongst other things, better achieve the purposes of the
principal Act, which is sufficiently important to justify
some limitation on
section 14;
- the
requirements imposed on entities to provide, or receive, certain information in
specific circumstances are rationally connected
to this objective. Ensuring that
relevant information is provided in the prescribed manner to all necessary
parties is fundamental
for the overall function and efficiency of the
administration of Fisheries Settlement assets; and
- these
provisions impair section 14 no more than reasonably necessary and are in due
proportion to the importance of the Bill’s
objective. We note that the
requirements for what type of information needs to be captured, notified,
written or shared is largely
factual by nature and contains limited expressive
value. Accordingly, any limits to section 14 for these entities are justified
under
section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act.
Conclusion
![2022_7501.jpg](2022_7501.jpg)
- We
have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the rights and
freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act.
![2022_7502.jpg](2022_7502.jpg)
Edrick Child
Acting Chief Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel
4 Hansen v R [2007]
NZSC 7, [2007] 3 NZLR 1.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZBORARp/2022/75.html