You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Reports >>
2023 >>
[2023] NZBORARp 41
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill (Consistent) (Section 19) [2023] NZBORARp 41 (15 August 2023)
Last Updated: 30 September 2023
Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill -
Consistency
with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
- Given
the high degree of public interest in developments relating to the voting age
following the Supreme Court’s declaration
in Make It 16 Inc v
Attorney-General l in November 2022, I have decided
to set out my view on whether the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local
Elections and Polls) Legislation
Bill (the Bill) is consistent with the rights
and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA).
- I
have concluded that the Bill is not inconsistent with BORA because any limits on
the right to freedom from discrimination protected
by s 19 BORA are demonstrably
justified under s 5 of that Act.
SUMMARY
- The
Bill is an omnibus Bill amending the Local Electoral Act and various other Acts
in order to implement a single broad policy: namely,
to reduce the voting age in
local elections and polls from 18 to 16 years of age. Amendments to the Local
Electoral Act 2001 create
a regime for persons aged 16 and 17 to register as
‘youth electors’ (as distinct from ‘parliamentary
electors’)
and participate in elections or polls held under that Act.
- The
Bill does not engage the electoral rights affirmed in s 12 BORA because those
rights are expressly limited to general elections,
and have no implications for
local elections and polls. The Bill does, however, engage the right to be free
from discrimination affirmed
by s 19(1) BORA, in three respects:
- 4.1 First, the
Bill retains 18 years as the minimum age for participating as an elector in
electoral processes governed by the Sale
and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. This
includes voting to elect or appoint trustees of an alcohol licensing trust or
community trust,
and standing as a candidate to be elected or appointed to those
roles.
Make It 16 Inc v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC
134.
4.2 Secondly, the Bill disqualifies youth offenders serving sentences of
imprisonment of three years or more from registering to
vote in those elections
or polls.
4.3 Thirdly, the Bill retains New Zealand citizenship as a criterion for
qualifying as a candidate in local elections.
- In
my opinion, the Bill does not appear to be inconsistent with the rights and
freedoms in BORA. To the extent that any of these provisions
limit the rights in
s 19 BORA, those limits are capable of justification under s 5 BORA.
OVERVIEW OF THE BILL
- Clause
5 of the Bill establishes a new regime for ’youth electors’ aged 16
or 17 years to participate in elections and
polls conducted under the Local
Electoral Act. It does this by introducing a new Part 1B into that Act (new ss
19ZJ to 19ZZL).
- New
s 19ZK aligns the criteria for qualification as a youth elector under the Local
Electoral Act to the criteria for qualification
as a general elector (except for
age) under s 74 of the Electoral Act. It also incorporates those criteria for
disqualification set
out in s 80 of the Electoral Act that may be applicable to
persons aged 16 or 17 years, with the effect that youth offenders serving
sentences of imprisonment in a youth justice residence or prison for a term of 3
years or more are disqualified from registering as youth
electors. 2
- In
short, if a person aged 16 or 17 years would be qualified to register as an
elector under the Electoral Act, were it not for their
age, they will be
qualified to register as a youth elector under the Local Electoral Act.
- Registration
as a youth elector qualifies a person aged 16 or 17 years to participate in
elections and polls held under the Local
Electoral Act as follows:
- See
cl 5, new s 19ZK(2). Under the Electoral Act 1993, s 80(1)(d)(ii), persons
serving sentences of preventive detention are also
disqualified from registering
as electors; this is not carried across into new s 19ZK(2) of the Local
Electoral Act 2001 because
persons aged 16 and 17 years are not eligible to be
sentenced to preventive detention (Sentencing Act 2002, s
87(2)(b)).
- 9.1 Youth
electors will qualify as residential electors or ratepayer electors under the
Local Electoral Act if they meet the criteria
in ss 23 and 24, as amended by cls
6 and 7 of the Bill, respectively. This means they will have the right to vote
in elections and
polls under the Act in accordance with s 20 of the Act (except
for elections and polls under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol
Act
2012, as amended by the Bill, which will
retain a minimum age of 18 years).3
9.2 A youth elector who is a New Zealand citizen is qualified to be a candidate
at elections held under the Local Electoral Act,
with the following exceptions:
4
- 9.2.1 They are
not qualified to be elected as a member of a licensing trust that is held under
that Act pursuant to s 313 of the Sale
and Supply of Alcohol Act.
- 9.2.2 They are
not qualified to be elected as a trustee of a community trust that is held under
the Local Electoral Act pursuant to
s 372 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol
Act.
9.3 Youth electors will also be eligible to participate in referenda under a
number of enactments
The Bill also lowers to 16 years the minimum age for appointment
as a scrutineer under the Local Electoral
Act,6 and contains consequential amendments to
various
other enactments to provide that youth electors are eligible to stand as
candidates in local elections under those enactments.7
It amends the Electoral Act to provide a
^ See Part 2, Subpart 11 of the Bill. The Bill expressly provides that only
those residential and ratepayer electors that are of
or over the age of 18 years
are qualified to vote in elections under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.
° Clause 10 of the Bill, amending s 25 of the Local Electoral Act. See
also Part 2, Subpart 11 of the Bill.
* See cls 40 (amending Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Act
2019, s 7), 52 (amending Local Government Act 2002, s
132),73 (amending South
Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act 2014, s 7).
^ See cl 15.
See cls 18 (amending Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency
Empowering) Act 2001, s 10), 23 (amending Christchurch District
Drainage Act
1951, s 8), 43 (amending Greytown District Trust Lands Act 1970, s 4A), 50
(amending Land Drainage Act 1908, s 9), 55
(amending Masterton Trust Lands Act
2003, s 24), 70 (amending Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941, s
53).
process for youth electors to be registered as electors under that Act once
they turn 18, automatically and without them having to
apply for
registration.^
ANALYSIS
- The
Bill does not engage the electoral rights affirmed in s 12 BORA, because s 12
only applies to elections of members of the House
of Representatives. This Bill
is concerned only with participation in local elections and polls and does not
have any effect on the
eligibility criteria for participation in general
elections.
- I
have considered whether the Bill engages s 19 BORA. Section 19 provides:
Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the
grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993.
- Discrimination
involves treating persons or groups in comparable or analogous situations
differently on the basis of one of the prohibited
grounds in the Human Rights
Act, in circumstances where this differential treatment gives rise to a
‘material disadvantage’.1
- The
amendments in the Bill that lower the minimum age for participating in local
elections, polls and referenda from 18 years to 16
years are consistent with s
19 BORA. Where the Bill treats all persons aged 16 years and older in the same
way, there is no discrimination
on grounds of age, because s 21(1)(i)(iii) of
the Human Rights Act defines ’age’ in this context as ‘any
age
commencing with the age of 16 years’. That is, persons under the age
of 16 years do not have a right to be free from discrimination
on grounds of age
that is recognised in BORA or the Human Rights Act.
- However,
as noted above, the Bill potentially engages s 19 by retaining the minimum age
of 18 years for voting and standing as a candidate
in Sale and Supply of Alcohol
Act elections, by disqualifying some youth offenders from registering as
youth
See cl 31.
![2023_4100.jpg](2023_4100.jpg)
![2023_4101.jpg](2023_4101.jpg)
Section 12 BORA provides: “Every New Zealand citizen who is of or over
the age of 18 years— (a) has the right to vote
in genuine periodic
elections of members of the House of Representatives, which elections shall be
by equal suffrage and by secret
ballot; and (b) is qualified for membership of
the House of Representatives.”
10 Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] NZCA
184, [2012] 3 NZLR 456.
electors, and by retaining New Zealand citizenship as a criterion for
candidacy in local elections.
- In
each case I have concluded that there is no unjustified limitation on BORA
rights. I explain my rationale briefly below.
Minimum age of 18 years for elections under the Sale and
Supply of Alcohol Act
- The
key voting decisions under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act are for the
election of members of a licensing trust under s 312,
and members of a community
trust
under s 371. There are other decisions under the Act that
qualified electors may influence, for example by
participating in polls on competition proposals 1 yr
on
whether a licensing trust should be converted to a
community trust,12 and requesting the Minister
to recommend that a licensing trust be established in their residential
area.\3
- The
functions of a licensing trust are primarily to sell and supply alcohol, and to
establish and operate premises for the sale and
supply of alcohol, the provision
of accommodation to travellers, and the sale and supply of food and
refreshments.*4
Licensing
trusts are to spend their profits on philanthropic
purposes.15 (By contrast,
community trusts may (but are not required to) hold one or more licences
under the Act and carry on the business of selling or supplying
(or selling and
supplying) aIcohol,*6 and may retain part of their net
profits for the purposes of their activities.'7)
1* Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s
349.
*2 Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s
356.
** Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s 301.
*^ Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s 305(1).
** Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s 307.
*6 Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s
364.
*7 Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s
365.
- Provisions
in the Bill that set a minimum age of 18 years for qualifying as an
‘elector’* and for participating in elections
and other processes
under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act'
9 do not amend the existing law, but rather, retain the status
quo.
- Nonetheless,
these provisions of the Bill engage the right to be free from discrimination on
grounds of age under s 19 BORA and s
21(1)(i)(iii) of the Human Rights Act
because they create an age-based distinction for eligibility to participate in
certain electoral
processes.
- On
the first limb of the test from Atkinson referenced at [12] above, there
is differential treatment on the basis of age, because 16- and 17-year-olds are
excluded from voting
or standing as candidates in licensing trust and community
trust elections, and from participating in other processes involving
‘electors’
under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, whereas persons
aged 18 or over are not so restricted.
- Persons
over the age of 18 years are legally permitted to purchase alcohol under the
Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, however, whereas
persons aged 16 and 17 years
are considered ‘minors’ and below the purchase age when it comes to
the sale and supply of
alcohol.2* That differential
treatment on grounds of age has been justified by the objective of protecting
young persons from alcohol-related
harm.2'
There is empirical evidence that younger persons are
physically and mentally liable to be more impaired by alcohol and are more
likely to
engage in harmful use of alcohol than older
people.*2
- Simply
put, the two age groups are not in comparable positions in respect of the
regulation of alcohol, and the outcomes of electoral
processes under the Act
will affect them in different ways. As such I do not consider the Bill imposes
differential treatment that
falls within the scope of the first limb of the
discrimination test.
Clause 59, amending s 5(1) of the Sale and Supply of
Alcohol Act 2012.
19 Clauses 60, 61,63, 64, 65, and 67.
- Sale
and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s 5(1) defines a minor as a person under the age
of 18 years, and defines the purchase age, in
relation to the sale or purchase
of alcohol on licensed premises, as the age of 18 years..
- Report
of the Attorney-General under s 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
on the Alcohol Reform Bill, 8 November 2010,
available at
BORA-Alcohol-Reform-Bill.pdf (iustice.eovt.nz), at
[48]-[50].
22 Ibid, at [48].
- Even
if there is differential treatment between groups in comparable situations here,
I do not consider this differential treatment
gives rise to material
disadvantage, so as to render those provisions of the Bill inconsistent with
BORA.
- I
acknowledge that on an individual level, some 16- and 17-year-olds might see
their continued inability to participate in Sale and
Supply of Alcohol Act
elections as a disadvantage, but I do not consider any such disadvantage is
material when viewed in the context
of overall electoral participation.
- If
the Bill is passed, persons aged 18 years and over (who otherwise qualify) will
maintain eligibility to participate in all local
elections and polls covered by
the Bill, whereas persons aged 16 and 17 years (who otherwise qualify) will be
able to participate
in all local elections and polls covered by the Bill except
for the electoral processes noted at [161 that are governed by the
Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. In my view, any disadvantage that 16- and
17-year-olds might experience as
a result of that limited exclusion from
participation in local elections is minimal.
- As
I have concluded there is no differential treatment giving rise to material
disadvantage, there is no inconsistency with s 19 BORA
in the provisions of the
Bill that retain the existing age of 18 years for Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act
elections.
27. In any event, given the legal age for purchase of alcohol is 18
years, and that is not inconsistent with BORA, I believe an age
of eligibility
of 18 years for licensing trust elections is justifiable and not inconsistent
with BORA.
Disqualification of youth offenders
- The
prohibited grounds of discrimination that may be implicated by the provisions in
the Bill disqualifying youth offenders serving
custodial sentences of three
years or more from registering as youth electors are age (being any age
commencing with the
age of 16 years),23
race,24 and disabiliyt 25
*^ Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(i)(iii).
*^ Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(f).
*^ Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(h).
Is there differential treatment giving rise to material
disadvantage...?
.. on grounds of age?
- The
disqualification of youth offenders in clause 5 of the Bill (new s 19ZK(2)(b) of
the Local Electoral Act) aligns with the existing
disqualification in s 80(1)(d)
of the Electoral Act of persons who are detained in prison, serving terms of
imprisonment
of three years or more. Those prisoners are not
eligible to enrol to vote under the Electoral Act26
yr the Local Electoral
Act.27
- If
the Bill is enacted, all persons aged 16 years and over who are serving
custodial sentences of three years or more will be treated
the same way with
respect to their participation in elections and polls under the Local Electoral
Act. Consequently, the disqualification
of youth offenders does not raise any
question of age discrimination. There is no differential treatment and no
material disadvantage
on grounds of age.
.. on grounds of race?
- On
its face the Bill makes no distinctions on the basis of race: all youth
offenders serving the requisite sentences are disqualified.
Nonetheless, I have
considered whether disqualifying youth offenders as a group has the effect of
indirectly discriminating against
Maori on the grounds of race, which is
prohibited by s 21(1)(I).
- The
Crown Law Office addressed very similar considerations in its vetting advice on
the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners)
Amendment Bill (22565/5.0)
dated 14 February 2020. That Bill removed the blanket ban on prisoner voting
that was introduced in 2010,
and restored the pre-2010 position in which only
those prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment of three or more years, or
sentences
of preventive detention, are disqualified. In short:
- 32.1 In
Ngaronoa v Attorney-General 28 the Court of
Appeal found that the blanket disqualification of all sentenced prisoners from
electoral registration did not give rise
to indirect racial discrimination,
because the law applied
26 Electoral Act 1993, s
80(1)(d).
- See
Local Electoral Act, ss 23 and 24 which link qualification as a residential or
ratepayer elector for the purposes of that Act
to qualification as a
parliamentary elector under the Electoral
Act.
2B Ngaronoa v Attorney-General
(2017] NZCA 351, (2017] 3 NZLR 643.
equally to prisoners of all races, and affected Mgori and non-Méori
prisoners in the same way. The fact that Méori prisoners
lost the right
to enrol and vote in a Méori electoral district did not mean that they
suffered any greater material disadvantage
than non-Méori
prisoners.2 Applying that approach to this Bill leads
to the same answer: there is no differential treatment giving rise to material
disadvantage
because all youth offenders serving the requisite sentences are
disqualified from voting, regardless of race.
32.2 The analysis looks a little different if a different comparator group is
chosen.3 If the comparison is between
the M3ori population as a group on
the one hand, and the
non-Méori population as a group on the other, it is arguable the Bill
would have a proportionally greater
impact on the wider M3ori potential voting
pool than on the non-M3ori voting pool.
32.3 While the importance of M3ori political participation cannot be disputed,
the absolute numbers of Méori youth offenders
affected by the
disqualification in the Bill are likely to be very small. This is because
general sentencing principles, their application
to persons who are under the
age of 18 years at the time of their offending, and the youth justice system
generally should operate
to minimise the total numbers of youth
offenders
serving sentences of imprisonment of three years or
more at any given timeing
32.3.1 In the year prior to May 2022, for instance, there were no more than five
children or young persons serving sentences of
imprisonment in
youth justice residences under s 34A of the Corrections Act
2004.32
!* Ngaronoa v Attorney-General, above n 28, at [143]-[146].
^^ McAlister v Air New Zealand [2009] NZSC 78; Ngaronoa v Attorney
General, above n 28, at [147].
3 ' See e.g. Sentencing Act 2002, ss 8(g), 8(h),
9(2), 10A, 15, 16, 18; Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 272, 283, 284, 285, 289;
Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 6.
*' See Oranga Tamariki Options Paper, Children and young people sentenced
to imprisonment in the adult jurisdiction and detained in Oranga Tamariki
residences, available at
Options-summary-Adult-Criminal-Jurisdiction.pdf
loranoatamariki.govt.nz1. at page 2.
32.3.2 The precise number of 16- and 17-year-olds serving sentences in prison is
unknown but does not exceed 100 individuals at present,
and could well be much
lower, because that figure covers all
sentenced and remand
prisoners under the age of 20.33
32.3.3 Even if every one of those 100 imprisoned individuals was a 16-
or
17-year-old serving a sentence of three years or more,
statistically we might expect 52 of them to be M3ori
34
32.4 Applying the analysis in Crown Law’s 2020 advice, it seems very
unlikely that any indirect differential treatment arising
from this aspect of
the Bill would give rise to any material disadvantage to Mäori as a whole,
if material disadvantage in this
context is understood as meaning significant,
potential electoral impact.
- On
balance, I conclude that the disqualification of youth offenders from
registering to vote in local elections does not amount to
indirect
discrimination against M3ori on grounds of race, because any disproportionate
impact on the M3ori voting population at large
will likely fall short of
material disadvantage.
. on grounds of disability?
- I
have also considered whether the disqualification of youth offenders from
registering to vote as youth electors, if they are serving
sentences of
imprisonment of three years or more, amounts to indirect discrimination on
grounds of disability. The question arises
because it is known that persons with
disabilities, in particular neuro-developmental disorders, are overrepresented
in the youth
justice system as
^^ As at 31 March 2023, there were a total of 8,736 people in
prison in New Zealand (with around half of those being sentenced prisoners),
of
which 1.2% or around 104 individuals were under 20 years of age. Precise figures
for prisoners aged 16 or 17 years serving sentences
of imprisonment, or the
lengths of those sentences, are not given. See Prison facts and statistics -
March 2023, available at Prison facts and statistics - March 2023 1
Department of Corrections.
*^ See Prison facts and statistics - March 2023, available at
Prison facts and statistics - March 2023 ) Department of
Corrections.
compared to the general
population.35 The United Nations Committee on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities has noted this as a concern for New
Zealand.36
- In
my view, the same considerations just addressed in the context of racial
discrimination lead to the conclusion that there is no
discrimination here:
- 35.1 The Bill
does not make any distinction on its face between youth offenders with
disabilities and those without; all youth offenders
whose sentences meet the
requisite criteria are disqualified.
- 35.2 If there
is differential treatment between persons with disabilities covered by the
prohibited ground of discrimination in s
21(1)(h) of the Human Rights Act, on
the one hand, and persons without such disabilities on the other, it arises
indirectly as a
result of the statistical overrepresentation of persons with
disabilities among the youth offender cohort.
- 35.3 Any such
differential treatment is unlikely to give rise to material disadvantage against
persons with disabilities as an electoral
group, if such a group is the
appropriate ‘victim’ of discrimination, because the numbers involved
will again be very
small. As noted above, I do not have access to data on the
absolute numbers of youth offenders aged 16 or 17 years who are currently
serving sentences of three or more years of imprisonment, or what proportion of
those offenders might have neuro-developmental disorders
or other disabilities,
but the total number of persons under 20 years of age currently in prison
is only around 100 individuals.
- I
conclude that the disqualification of youth offenders serving custodial
sentences of three years or more from registering as youth
electors does not
cause material disadvantage to persons with disabilities.
^^ See the discussion in “The Youth Courts of New Zealand in
Ten Years Time: Crystal Ball Gazing or Some Realistic Goals for
the
Future?“, Paper delivered by His Honour Judge Andrew Becroft, Principal
Youth Court Judge, at the National Youth Advocates/Lay
Advocates Conference,
Auckland, 13-14 July 2015, available at Youth-Court-The-Youth-Courts-
of-New-Zealand-in-10-vears.pdf (vouthcourt.eovt.nz).
^6 Committee on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities, Concluding observations on the combined second and third
periodic reports of
New Zealand, CRPD/C/NZL/CO/2-3, 5 September 2022, available
here.
Conclusion
- As
I have concluded there is no differential treatment that imposes a material
disadvantage on any group, I consider those provisions
of the Bill that
disqualify some youth offenders from voting are not inconsistent with BORA.
Citizenship as a criterion for qualifying as a candidate
- The
Bill retains the existing requirement in s 25 of the Local Electoral Act
that
candidates for elections under that Act must be New Zealand
citizens.37 Amendments to other Acts lowering the age
for candidacy under those Acts otherwise retain the same or similar requirements
they currently
contain, including
citizenship 38
- The
amendments to candidacy provisions are necessary to incorporate references to
youth electors and, in two cases, to update references
to repealed legislation.
3 It is arguable that the references to citizenship in
these provisions are incidental in nature, and do not warrant BORA scrutiny,
given they continue the status quo and fall outside of the policy intent of the
Bill, which is to lower the voting age for local
elections. For completeness,
however, I address them briefly here because the provisions in question make
express reference to citizenship
as a qualifying criterion.
- On
their face, then, those provisions of the Bill appear to be inconsistent with
the right to be free from discrimination on grounds
of citizenship, which is
prohibited under s 19 BORA and s 21(1)(g) of the Human Rights Act. New Zealand
citizens may stand for election
while citizens of other countries may not. In
Atkinson terms, this differential treatment gives rise to a material
disadvantage by excluding the latter group from serving in those representative
roles for all local elections and polls covered by the Local Electoral Act.
37 Clause 10 (new s 25(1)).
- See
cls 23 and 24 (amending the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951, s 8(1C) and
8A(a)); cls 43 and 45 (amending the Greytown
District Trust Lands Act 1979, ss
4A and 8(a)); cl 55 (amending the Masterton Trust Lands Act 2003, s 24); and cl
70 (amending the
Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941, s
53).
*" See cls 24 and 45, which remove references to the repealed
Local Elections and Polls Act 1976 in the Christchurch District Drainage
Act
1951 and Greytown District Trust Lands Act 1979 respectively.
4L The question is whether or not this limitation on rights can be justified
in terms of s 5 BORA. I am comfortable that this restriction
is demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society.
- The
citizenship requirement for candidates in local elections is consistent with the
requirement that candidates in general elections
must be New Zealand citizens
(Electoral Act, s 47(3)).
- It
is clear from the human rights framework in New Zealand and internationally that
it is generally accepted as legitimate to limit
electoral rights by reference to
citizenship. 4' Other rights may be limited in this
way, too: for example, only New Zealand citizens have the right to enter New
Zealand (BORA,
s 18(2)).4'
- The
right to be free from discrimination in s 19 is not one of the rights limited by
reference to citizenship; s 19 provides that
“everyone“ has the
right to be free from discrimination on the prohibited grounds in the Human
Rights Act. The latter
Act itself, however, carves out a significant exception
from the discrimination regime in respect of differential treatment as between
New Zealand citizens and others. Section 153(3)(b) provides:
Nothing in this Act shall affect any enactment or rule of law, or
any policy or administrative practice of the Government of New Zealand,
that ...
distinguishes between New Zealand citizens and other persons, or between British
subjects or Commonwealth citizens and aliens.
- The
effect of s 153(3)(b) is that none of the Human Rights Act procedures and
remedies for breach of the discrimination provisions
in the Act (including
mediation, and proceedings brought in the Human Rights Review Tribunal) are
available in respect of an enactment
or policy that distinguishes between New
Zealand citizens and others.
- See
BORA, s 12; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, Article
25 (Every citizen shall have the right and the
opportunity, without any of the
distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a)
To take part in the
conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections
which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret
ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of
the electors; (c) To
have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his
country).
- The
corresponding provision in the ICCPR, Article 12(4), provides “No one
shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter
his own
country.“
- Whether
the effect of s 153(3)(b) on the Human Rights Act carries over into the
interpretation of s 19 BORA or whether it goes to
justification under s 5 BORA,
it contributes to the argument that distinguishing between citizens and
non-citizens — especially
in the electoral context — can be
reasonably justified in a free and democratic society. It is certainly the case
that this
sort of distinction is intrinsic to immigration status.
- I
conclude that the provisions of the Bill that require candidates for local
elections to be New Zealand citizens are not inconsistent
with s 19 BORA because
any limitation on the right to be free from discrimination on grounds of
citizenship can be justified by reference
to domestic and international human
rights law.
Conclusion
![2023_4102.jpg](2023_4102.jpg)
I have concluded that the Bill does not appear to be inconsistent with
BORA.
Hon David Parker Attorney-General
/ /2023
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZBORARp/2023/41.html