Search Results

1. BORA Ngāti Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...those heard according to law in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals. However, both cll 22(3) and 75(2) affect the substantive law. Accordingly, in my view they do not fall within the ambit of s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights, which protects procedural rights. Whether s 19 at issue. 9. As noted, the Bill provides for the transfer of various assets to claimants and for claimants (and other Maori) to have rights which are not conferred on other people. For example claimants...

2. BORA Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill [pdf, 18 KB]

   ...of Rights Act 1990 Our Ref: ATT114/1197 (1) 1. We have considered the above Bill ("the Bill") for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ("BORA") and have concluded that the Bill is consistent with the rights protected by that Act. In reaching that conclusion, two issues of prima facie inconsistency arose in respect of the Bill that we wish to draw to your attention. Age restrictions (s 19(1) BORA) 2. First, there were two provisions that raised...

3. BORA Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...recipients of the entitlements under the Bill. No differential treatment for the purpose of s 19 therefore arises by excluding others from the entitlements conferred under the Bill. 5.Clauses 150, 332, 535 and 745 reserve a special right of access to protected sites on certain licensed land transferred to the respective iwi. This right of access applies to Maori for whom the protected sites are of special spiritual, cultural or historical significance. It is conceivable that this c...

4. BORA Nga Punawai o Te Tokotoru Claims Settlement Bill (Ngati Rangiteaorere) [pdf, 278 KB]

   ...no other person could be said to be in comparable circumstances to those who are to receive entitlements under the Bill. 4. In respect of both Tapuika (clause 287A) and Ngati Rangiwewehi (clause 162A) the Bill reserves a special right of access to protected sites on Crown forest land transferred to iwi as part of the settlement. This right of access applies to Māori for whom the protected site is of special cultural, historical, or spiritual significance. It is conceivable that this cl...

5. BORA Kaikoura (Te Tai ō Marokura) Marine Management Bill [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...conclusion, we have considered the consistency of the Bill with s 25(c) (right to be presumed innocent). Our analysis is set out below. The Bill 3.The Bill establishes a management regime for the coast and sea around Kaikoura (Te Tai ō Marokura) to protect the marine species, submarine canyon and other natural marine habitats in Kaikoura (Te Tai ō Marokura). 4.The Bill establishes: a)a marine reserve (Hikurangi Marine Reserve); b)a whale sanctuary (Te Rohe o Te Whanau Pua – K...

6. BORA Ngati Awa Claim Settlement Bill [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...would be a justified limit in terms of s 5. My conclusion that there is no breach of s 27(2) is based on the wording of that section. 6. Section 27(2) of the Bill of Rights provides that: "Every person whose rights, obligations or interest protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination." 7. There are two reasons why there is...

7. BORA Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...in respect of culturally significant matters are provided to Ngāti Mākino by the Bill. These include making part of Lake Rotoma Scenic Reserve subject to a whenua rahui requiring it to be administered having regard to Ngāti Mākino values and protection principles agreed by Ngāti Mākino, and providing for participation in resource management and related decision-making affecting other areas with which Ngāti Mākino have a special association. Issues under sections 20 and 27(2) 3...

8. [2024] NZEmpC 212 Kavallaris v Inframax Construction Ltd [pdf, 295 KB]

   ...Mr Kavallaris accepts that he had discussed with Ms Greenwood raising his concerns with the Council, as the owners of Inframax. He confirmed that Ms Greenwood had: … a blanket instruction from me to raise matters of concern pursuant to the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 … as she considered appropriate. [18] Mr Kavallaris confirms in his evidence that he is aware Ms Greenwood referred the concerns raised in his complaint to the Inframax board o...

9. FR v US LCRO 249 / 2010 (17 November 2011) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...Practitioner). The Standards Committee resolved to take no further action on the complaint and the Applicant seeks a review of that decision. Background [2] This matter arises out of the involvement of the Practitioner with proceedings under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1998 (PPPR Act) with regard to the Applicant‟s aged father. [3] The Applicant is the only child of his father and his father‟s first wife who died some thirty years ago. The father l...

10. LCRO 166/2014 RD v TS (4 August 2017) [pdf, 145 KB]

    ...and need to express our displeasure of his conduct in this occasion [12] The Standards Committee “was satisfied that the wording of the undertaking clearly set out the obligation on Mr RD”6 and referred to rule 10 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules.7 [13] The Committee was also concerned “Mr RD’s response to the complaint, in reference to the obligations of the Police officers involved, showed a lack of insight”.8 [14] It determined that Mr RD’s conduct amounted to un...