Lawmaxxer

New Zealand · Year 2 · Public Law

BORA, Treaty & Emergency Powers

More NZ public law.

1/7

Space flip · ← → navigate · S save

Show all 7 questions and answers in this book

  1. 1.NZBORA ss 4, 5, 6 and 7?

    s 4: courts cannot invalidate inconsistent legislation. s 5: rights are subject to justified reasonable limits. s 6: a rights-consistent meaning is preferred. s 7: the Attorney-General must report apparent inconsistencies in Bills.

    New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 4–7

  2. 2.Hansen v R (2007) — significance?

    Set the method for applying ss 4–6 of NZBORA, including assessing whether a limit is justified under s 5 before choosing a consistent meaning.

    [2007] NZSC 7

  3. 3.Attorney-General v Taylor (2018) — held?

    Senior courts can make declarations that legislation is inconsistent with NZBORA (here the prisoner voting ban).

    [2018] NZSC 104

  4. 4.Make It 16 Inc v Attorney-General (2022) — held?

    The voting age of 18 is inconsistent with the freedom from age discrimination in NZBORA and is not justified.

    [2022] NZSC 134

  5. 5.Borrowdale v Director-General of Health (2020) — held?

    The first nine days of the COVID-19 lockdown requirements were not prescribed by law, though the response was otherwise lawful.

    [2020] NZHC 2090

  6. 6.Ngati Apa v Attorney-General (2003) — held and what followed?

    The Māori Land Court could investigate customary title to foreshore and seabed; Parliament responded with the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, later replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

    [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA)

  7. 7.Trans-Tasman Resources v Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board (2021) — held?

    A seabed mining consent was quashed; Treaty principles and tikanga were relevant considerations under the EEZ legislation.

    [2021] NZSC 127