You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Reports >>
2017 >>
[2017] NZBORARp 11
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Youth Employment Training and Education Bill (Consistent) (Section 19) [2017] NZBORARp 11 (16 March 2017)
Last Updated: 6 January 2019
16 March 2017
Hon Christopher Finlayson QC, Attorney-General
LEGAL ADVICE
LPA 01 01 21
Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Youth Employment
Training and Education Bill
Purpose
- We
have considered whether the Youth Employment Training and Education Bill
(‘the Bill’), a member’s Bill in the
name of Darroch Ball MP,
is consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act 1990 (‘the
Bill of Rights Act’).
- 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 19 (freedom from
discrimination). Our analysis is set out
below.
The Bill
- The
Bill has the purpose of creating an alternative education/employment opportunity
through the New Zealand Defence Force for youth
aged 15 to 17 who are
disengaging from the formal education system. The Bill amends the Defence Act
1990 and the Education Act 1989
to achieve its
purpose.
Consistency of the Bill with the Bill of Rights Act
Section 19(1) – Freedom from discrimination
- Section
19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act affirms the right to be free from discrimination
on the prohibited grounds set out in the
Human Rights Act 1993 (‘the Human
Rights Act’).
- The
key questions determining whether legislation limits the freedom from
discrimination are:1
- does
the legislation draw a distinction on one of the prohibited grounds of
discrimination under the Human Rights Act?
- if
so, does the distinction involve disadvantage to one or more classes of
individuals?
- A
distinction will arise if the legislation treats two comparable groups of people
differently on one or more of the prohibited grounds
of discrimination. Whether
disadvantage arises is a factual determination.2
1 See, for example, Atkinson v Minister
of Health and others [2010] NZHRRT 1; McAlister v Air New Zealand
[2009] NZSC 78; and Child Poverty Action Group v Attorney-General
[2008] NZHRRT 31.
- Section
21(i) of the Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age for
persons over the age of 16. By conferring an
advantage on 16 and 17 year olds
only, the Bill could be seen as unlawfully discriminating against those aged 18
and over. Participants
in the programme are not regular forces or civil staff
for the purposes of the Defence Act 1990. There is no comparable programme
for
those aged 18 or over, as they would need to enlist to receive comparable
training from the army.
- To
the extent that the Bill creates a material disadvantage to those aged 18 and
over, we consider it is justifiable. The objective
of the Bill is to provide an
alternative education/employment programme to youth who are disengaging from the
formal education system.
It would be unreasonable to conclude that the Bill
unlawfully discriminates because it fails to deal with every case of
disadvantage
at the same time, effectively inhibiting government from taking
steps to alleviate disadvantage of some without doing it for all.
- We
therefore consider that the Bill appears to be consistent with the right to
freedom from discrimination affirmed in s 19(1) of
the Bill of Rights
Act.
Conclusion
- We
have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the rights and
freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act.
Jeff Orr
Chief Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel
2 See, for example, Child
Poverty Action Group v Attorney-General above n 2 at [179]; and McAlister
v Air New Zealand above n 2 at [40] per Elias CJ, Blanchard and Wilson
JJ.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZBORARp/2017/11.html