Ngaronoa v Attorney-General

This appeal concerns the disqualification of prisoners from registration as electors and therefore from voting or qualifying as a candidate for election as a Member of Parliament. The appellants, Ngaronoa and others, challenged the validity of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010, arguing that it was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and that it was invalid because it was not passed by a 75 per cent super-majority of the House of Representatives as required for certain "reserved" provisions. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand.

The court was required to decide whether the appellants had standing to challenge the validity of the 2010 Act, whether the appellants were disqualified from registration as electors, and whether the 2010 Act was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights or invalid because it was not passed by a 75 per cent super-majority. The court also needed to consider whether the doctrine of implied repeal applied to the 2010 Act.

The court found that the appellants had standing to challenge the validity of the 2010 Act as they were directly affected by it. However, the court held that the appellants were disqualified from registration as electors under s 80 of the 1993 Act, which provides that certain prisoners are disqualified from registration. The court rejected the appellants' argument that s 268(1)(e) of the 1993 Act reserved the entire s 74, which sets out the prerequisites for registration, and therefore required the 2010 Act to be passed by a 75 per cent super-majority. The court held that s 268(1)(e) only referred to the adult prerequisite in s 74(1)(a), and not to the disqualifications from registration in s 80. The court also held that the 2010 Act was not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

The court dismissed the appeal and held that the 2010 Act was valid and enforceable. The court found that the appellants were disqualified from registration as electors and therefore could not vote or qualify as a candidate for election as a Member of Parliament. The court held that the 2010 Act was not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and that it was validly enacted. The court rejected the appellants' argument that the doctrine of implied repeal applied to the 2010 Act.