You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Reports >>
2004 >>
[2004] NZBORARp 41
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Education Amendment Bill (Consistent) (Sections 21, 25(c)) [2004] NZBORARp 41 (24 November 2004)
Last Updated: 23 March 2021
Education Amendment Bill
24 November 2004
Attorney-General
LEGAL ADVICE
CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT
1990:
Education Amendment Bill:
- We
have considered whether the Education Amendment Bill (the "Bill") (PCO6105cy/10)
is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act 1990 (the "Bill of Rights
Act"). We understand that the Bill will be considered by the Cabinet Business
Committee at its meeting
on Wednesday, 24 November 2004.
- We
have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the Bill of Rights
Act. In reaching this conclusion, we considered potential
issues of
inconsistency with sections 21 and 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act. Our analysis
of these potential issues is set out below.
- The
Bill is the first stage of a reform of education legislation. The two major
policy changes proposed by this Bill are:
- the introduction
of a new regulatory regime in the early childhood education sector; and
- the extension of
the use of the National Student Number to compulsory and early childhood
sectors.
In addition, the Bill is intended to update the
education system through several amendments to the Education Acts 1989 and 1964,
the
State Sector Act 1988, the Education Lands Act 1949, and the School Trustees
Act 1989.
ISSUES OF INCONSISTENCY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS ACT
Section 21: right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure
- Section
21 of the Bill of Rights Act provides the right to be secure against
unreasonable search and seizure. There are two limbs
to the section 21 right.
First, section 21 is applicable only in respect of those activities that
constitute a "search or seizure".
Second, where certain actions do constitute a
search or seizure, section 21 protects only against those searches or seizures
that
are "unreasonable" in the circumstances.
- The
Bill amends the Education Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) to give powers of entry and
inspection to authorised persons to ensure that
early childhood centres comply
with the relevant legal requirements. Clause 43 - new section 319B (Powers of
entry and inspection
without warrant) enables an authorised person without a
warrant to inspect an early childhood centre, to audit the centre, or assess
whether it is complying with: the 1989 Act, regulations made under the 1989 Act,
and the conditions of any licence, certificate,
or grant. These powers
constitute search and seizure powers in terms of section 21 of the Bill of
Rights Act, and have been considered
for consistency with the Bill of Rights
Act.
- In
determining whether the powers are consistent with section 21, we noted and
considered the following limiting factors contained
in the Bill:
(a) The purposes of the inspection and seizure powers are
explicitly set out (e.g: perform an audit, and assess compliance with the
relevant legal requirements);
(b) The manner in which the powers can be exercised is concisely stated and
limited, (e.g: the following have been specified: the
authorisation of
inspectors, the requirement to produce authorisation and evidence of identity,
the types of premises that may be
searched, and the form the inspection can
take); and
(c) Safeguards are included to provide protection for the parties in
question, (e.g: an authorised person can only enter at a reasonable
time, and
when documents are removed from the premises a list of the documents must be
made and the copies must be returned as soon
as is practicable).
- Overall,
we have formed the view that the entry, inspection, and seizure powers, in light
of the restrictions and safeguards outlined
above, are reasonable and,
therefore, not inconsistent with section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act.
Section 25(c): right to be presumed innocent until proved
guilty
- Section
25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act affirms the right to be presumed innocent until
proved guilty. This means that an individual
must not be convicted where
reasonable doubt as to his or her guilt exists; therefore, the prosecution in
criminal proceedings must
prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is
guilty. We have identified several strict liability offences in the Bill. These
offences give rise to a prima facie issue of inconsistency with section
25(c) because the accused is required to prove (on the balance of probabilities)
a defence to
avoid liability; whereas, in other criminal proceedings an accused
must merely raise a defence in an effort to create reasonable doubt. This
means where the accused is unable to prove the defence, then he or she could
be
convicted even though reasonable doubt exists as to his or her guilt.
- We
have identified the following offences as being strict liability offences.
Clause 26 (Section 139AZ amended) - Offences related to
witnesses
- This
clause makes it an offence for a person to breach, without lawful excuse, a
Disciplinary Tribunal’s order that:
(a) provides for a hearing
to be held in private; or
(b) provides for evidence at a hearing to be given in private; or
(c) imposes restrictions on the publication of any information relating to a
particular hearing.
- This
is a strict liability offence by virtue of the phrase "without lawful excuse"
and section 67(8) of the Summary Proceedings Act
1957 which places a burden of
proof for the lawful excuse on the accused.
- The
objective underlying the offence is to ensure that witnesses, particularly
children, can give evidence before the Disciplinary
Tribunal without worrying
that their identity and evidence will be made public despite an order by the
Disciplinary Tribunal. The
offence aims to:
(a) prevent the
disclosure of names or identities of children who are witnesses who may be
vulnerable to subsequent emotional damage
if their testimony is revealed; and
(b) to reduce any unwillingness of people to testify if they know that there
is a possibility that their testimony may be made public;
and
(c) avoid prejudicing a fair hearing for the accused teacher by preventing
the potential for outside influence on Tribunal processes.
The effectiveness of such an order would be undermined if it is easily
breached, and there is no recourse for that breach. As it is
the defendant who
makes the decision to contravene the order, the reason he or she breached the
order is particularly within his
or her realm of knowledge. It is also relevant
that it is a public welfare regulatory offence.
Clause 44 - New section 346: Offences
- New
section 346 creates two associated offences for the misuse of a National Student
Number (NSN). New section 346(2) creates a strict
liability offence by making it
an offence for a non-authorised user to, without reasonable excuse, keep a
record, or require the
disclosure, of a person’s NSN. By virtue of the
application of section 67(8) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, any reasonable
excuse must be proven by the defendant.
- The
provisions around the NSN in the Bill extends the government’s and an
authorised agent’s ability to gather and hold
information about all
children and young people. These amendments are proposed in order to improve the
reliability of information
collected, create longitudinal records to gain
knowledge about student outcomes based on an individual or different
populations,
and reduce inefficiencies in current data collection. If this power
to collect and use information, and the information were misused
the integrity
of the NSN would be undermined, and would result in reduced trust by society.
Therefore, the offences proposed in new
section 346, including that in new
section 346(2), are designed to reflect the seriousness with which the misuse of
such information
is viewed, and to act as a deterrent for such behaviour. This
is a public welfare regulatory offence.
Conclusion
- In
our view the limits these strict liability offences place on section 25(c) of
the Bill of Rights Act are justified in terms of
section 5 of the Bill of Rights
Act.
CONCLUSION
- We
have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the Bill of Rights
Act.
- In
accordance with your instructions, we attach a copy of this opinion for referral
to the Minister of Justice. A copy is also attached
for referral to the Minister
of Education, if you
agree.
Allison Bennett Principal Adviser Office of Legal Counsel
|
Boris van Beusekom Senior Legal Adviser Bill of Rights/Human Rights
Team
|
cc
Minister of Justice
Minister of Education
In addition to the general disclaimer for all documents on this website,
please note the following: This advice was prepared to assist
the
Attorney-General to determine whether a report should be made to Parliament
under s 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
in relation to the
Education Amendment Bill. It should not be used or acted upon for any other
purpose. The advice does no more than
assess whether the Bill complies with the
minimum guarantees contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The release
of this
advice should not be taken to indicate that the Attorney-General agrees
with all aspects of it, nor does its release constitute a
general waiver of
legal professional privilege in respect of this or any other matter. Whilst care
has been taken to ensure that
this document is an accurate reproduction of the
advice provided to the Attorney-General, neither the Ministry of Justice nor the
Crown Law Office accepts any liability for any errors or omissions.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZBORARp/2004/41.html