You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Reports >>
2018 >>
[2018] NZBORARp 88
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2) (Consistent) (Section 14) [2018] NZBORARp 88 (17 September 2018)
Last Updated: 5 January 2019
17 September 2018
LEGAL ADVICE
LPA 01 01 23
Hon David Parker, Attorney-General
Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Regulatory Systems
(Economic Development) Amendment Bill (No 2)
Purpose
- We
have considered whether the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment
Bill (No 2) (‘the Bill’) is consistent
with the rights and freedoms
affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (‘the Bill of Rights
Act’). The Bill
replicates the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development)
Amendment Bill, which we advised was consistent with the Bill of Rights
Act in
June 2018.
- We
have not yet received a final version of the Bill. This advice has been prepared
in relation to the latest version of the Bill
(PCO 21638/4.0). We will provide
you with further advice if the final version includes amendments that affect the
conclusions in
this advice.
- 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 14 (freedom of expression).
Our analysis is set out below.
The Bill
- The
purpose of the Bill is to improve regulatory systems by ensuring that they are
effective, efficient, and accord with best regulatory
practice.
- To
that effect, it makes minor amendments to the following Acts:
- Building
Societies Act 1965;
- Companies
Act 1993;
- Continental
Shelf Act 1964;
- Credit
Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003;
- Fair
Trading Act 1986;
- Financial
Reporting Act 2013;
- Geographical
Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006;
- Insolvency
Act 2006;
- Limited
Partnerships Act 2008;
- Personal
Properties Securities Act 1999;
- Plant
Variety Rights Act 1987;
- Takeovers
Act 1993;
- Trade
Marks Act 2002; and
- Weights
and Measures Act 1987.
Consistency of the Bill with the Bill of Rights Act
Section 14 – Freedom of Expression
- Section
14 of the Bill of Rights Act affirms that everyone has the right to freedom of
expression, including the freedom to seek,
receive, and impart information and
opinions of any kind in any form. The right has been interpreted as including
the right not to
be compelled to say certain things or to provide certain
information.1
- Clause
50 of the Bill amends the Insolvency Act 2006 and replaces s 165(1)(b) to
require a bankrupt or specified other person to produce
and surrender to the
Assignee or District Court Judge any document or information about the
bankrupt’s property, conduct or
dealings. These provisions may be seen to
limit s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act as they compel the provision of certain
information.
- Ordinarily
a provision found to limit a particular right or freedom may nevertheless be
consistent with the Bill of Rights Act if
it can be considered reasonably
justified in terms of s 5 of that Act. The s 5 inquiry asks whether the
objective of the provision
is sufficiently important to justify some limitation
on the freedom of expression; and if so, whether the limitation is rationally
connected and proportionate to that objective and limits the freedom of
expression no more than reasonably necessary to achieve that
objective.2
- We
consider that the limitations contained in the Bill are justified under s 5 of
the Bill of Rights Act because:
- the
objective of collecting information and assistance from the bankrupt or
specified other person to efficiently and effectively
administer bankruptcy and
insolvency is sufficiently important to justify some limitation on s 14;
- requiring
the people who hold that information to provide it to the Assignee or District
Court Judge is rationally connected to that
objective; and
- clause
50 impairs s 14 no more than is reasonably necessary to achieve its objective
(for example, it only requires the provision
of certain information that relates
to the bankrupt’s property, conduct, or dealings) and is proportionate to
the importance
of that objective.
- For
these reasons, we conclude that any limits to the freedom of expression imposed
by the Bill are justified under s 5 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
1 See, for example,
Slaight Communications v Davidson 59 DLR (4th) 416; Wooley v Maynard
[1977] USSC 59; 430 US 705 (1977).
2 Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7, [2007] 3 NZLR 1
at [123].
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZBORARp/2018/88.html