Ngaronoa v Attorney-General

Case [2018] NZSC 123


FOR A COURT READY (FEE REQUIRED) VERSION PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

 
SC 102/2017

 [2018] NZSC 123
BETWEEN

HINEMANU NGARONOA, SANDRA WILDE AND ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR
Appellants

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
First Respondent

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Second Respondent
ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Third Respondent

Hearing:

26 March 2018

Court:

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan and
Ellen France JJ

Counsel:

R K Francois for Appellants Ngaronoa and Wilde
F M R Cooke QC, P A Joseph and E M Gattey for Appellant Taylor
U R Jagose QC, P T Rishworth QC and D J Perkins for First Respondent

Judgment:

14 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The appeal is dismissed.

B        There is no order for costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Para No.
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ [1]
Elias CJ [72]

WILLIAM YOUNG, GLAZEBROOK, O’REGAN AND ELLEN FRANCE JJ
(Given by Ellen France J)

Table of Contents

Para No.
Introduction [1]
The statutory scheme [5]
 The Bill of Rights [6]
The Electoral Act 1993 [8]
The judgments in the Courts below [23]
The approach of the parties [28]
The interpretation of s 268(1)(e)      [35]
  The statutory language of s 268(1) [36]
  The legislative history [49]
The purpose of entrenchment [59]
Does the Bill of Rights mandate a different interpretation? [65]
Conclusion [70]
Costs [71]

Introduction

  1. Section 268 of the Electoral Act 1993 (the Act) provides that a number of the other provisions in the Act may only be amended or repealed if passed by a majority of 75 per cent of members of the House of Representatives or carried by a majority of electors at a referendum.  The provisions protected or entrenched in this way are described as the “reserved provisions”.[1]  The issue before us is what is meant by the description of the reserved provisions in s 268(1)(e), namely: 

    section 74, and the definition of the term adult in section 3(1), and section 60(f), so far as those provisions prescribe 18 years as the minimum age for persons qualified to be registered as electors or to vote:

    [1]Electoral Act 1993, s 268(1).

  2. Section 74 sets out the qualifications for registration as an elector and as an electoral candidate.  Broadly, every adult person is qualified to be registered if he or she is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident and meets various residential requirements.  Section 3(1) defines an adult as a person of or over the age of 18 years.  Section 60(f) deals with the ability of a member of the New Zealand Defence Force outside New Zealand to vote, relevantly, if he or she is of or over the age of 18 years on polling day.

  3. The present question about the meaning of s 268(1)(e) arises out of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 (the 2010 Amendment).  The effect of the 2010 Amendment is that all persons sentenced to a term of imprisonment after the commencement of that Act…

Continue reading Ngaronoa v Attorney-General

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ngaronoa v Attorney-General [2018] NZSC 123
Case
[2018] NZSC 123
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ngaronoa v Attorney-General concerned a challenge to the validity of certain provisions of the Electoral Act 1993. The appellant, Ngaronoa, sought a declaration that the disqualification provisions in s 80 of the Act were invalid, as they were not entrenched in the manner required by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The central legal issue in the case was whether the disqualification provisions in s 80 of the Electoral Act 1993 were required to be entrenched in the manner prescribed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The court had to consider whether the entrenchment of these provisions was necessary to protect the right to vote and to be a candidate, as recommended by the Electoral Law Committee.

The court considered the purpose and effect of s 80 of the Electoral Act 1993 and the extent to which it engaged with the rights protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The court found that the disqualification provisions in s 80 did not engage with the rights protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in a way that required them to be entrenched. The court held that the provisions were not "laws that restrict rights and freedoms" within the meaning of s 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and therefore did not need to be entrenched in the manner prescribed by that Act. The court also held that the entrenchment of s 80 was not a requirement of the Electoral Law Committee's recommendations, and that the provisions were not one of the reserved provisions identified in s 268(1) of the Electoral Act 1993.

The court dismissed the appellant's claim and held that the disqualification provisions in s 80 of the Electoral Act 1993 were valid. The court's decision was based on the finding that the provisions did not engage with the rights protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in a way that required them to be entrenched, and that the entrenchment of these provisions was not a requirement of the Electoral Law Committee's recommendations. The appellant's claim for a declaration of invalidity was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

As currently in force, s 80(1) provides:80 Disqualifications for registration(1) The following persons are disqualified for registration as electors:(a)a New Zealand citizen who (subject to subsection (3)) [exempting public servants, members of the Defence Force, and others] is outside New Zealand and has not been in New Zealand within the last 3 years:(b)a permanent resident of New Zealand (not being a New Zealand citizen) who (subject to subsection (3)) is outside New Zealand and has not been in New Zealand within the last 12 months:(c)a person who is detained in a hospital under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or in a secure facility under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, and to whom one of the following applies:(i) the person has been found by a court or a Judge to be unfit to stand trial within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, or has been acquitted on account of his or her insanity, and (in either case) is detained under an order or direction under section 24 or section 31 or section 33 of that Act or under the corresponding provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 and has been so detained for a period exceeding 3 years:(ii) the person has been found by a court, on conviction of any offence, to be mentally impaired, and is detained under an order made under section 34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 or section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985, and has been so detained for a period exceeding 3 years:(iii) the person is subject to, and has for a period exceeding 3 years been subject to, a compulsory treatment order made following an application under section 45(2) of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or a compulsory care order made following an application under section 29(1) of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003:(iv)the person is detained under section 46 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, and is a person to whom paragraph (d) would otherwise apply: (d)a person who is detained in a prison pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment imposed after the commencement of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010:(e)a person whose name is on the Corrupt Practices List made out for any district. The Electoral Law Committee which considered the report of the Royal Commission recommended that “any restriction or limitation” on the right to vote and to be a candidate should be entrenched in addition to the entrenchment of the qualifications for registration recommended by the Royal Commission.[98] The entrenchment of the disqualification provision was not a recommendation made by the Royal Commission itself and it was not adopted in the 1993 Act. As explained further at [157]–[158] I think the idea of entrenching s 80 was misconceived and that it is unsurprising that the Royal Commission on the Electoral System had not thought to recommend it. But for present purposes it is sufficient to note that s 80 is not one of the reserved provisions identified in s 268(1) of the Electoral Act 1993. It was however enacted as part of the Electoral Act 1993 by unanimous vote. [98]Report of the Electoral Law Committee at [15.7.1].