Law Society questions proposed school zoning change

The New Zealand Law Society has questioned whether a proposed change to the law on school zoning to give priority to children of former pupils is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The Society today presented its submission on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) to Parliament’s Education and Science Select Committee. It asked the Committee to reconsider a proposal to give priority to out-of-zone children of former students of the school.

Changes to the existing law would mean children of former students would be accorded some priority, as would be children of current school board members. Children of former students would have priority after siblings of former students and before children of current staff or board members, and children of current board members would have priority after children of former students and on a par with children of current staff members. Applicants with no priority would be behind all these.

Society spokesperson Kristina Muller says the law change would limit the right to freedom from discrimination based on family status, which is affirmed by section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

“Children with a parent who is a former pupil of the school are advantaged over children from a family where neither parent was a former pupil,” Ms Muller says.

“This brings a provision of the Human Rights Act 1993 into play, which makes being a relative of a particular person a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

Ms Muller says the Ministry of Justice also takes this view, but has advised the Select Committee that it considers the disadvantage placed upon those children who were demoted in the ballot priority is a justified limitation on that right.

“The Law Society believes this view is contestable,” she says. “The factors which could justify giving preference to siblings of present or even past students or to children of staff or board members do not apply where the only qualifying factor is that of being the child of a fomer student of the school.”

“When it comes to competing for a limited public resource, it is difficult to see why the children of past pupils should be elevated over the children of non-past pupils, let along over the children of current staff and board members.”

While the position might be different for private schools depending on financial support from families with an inter-generational connection, it does not seem right to suggest that maintaining a “family connection” and “support” for a child’s education at a State school turns on preferring the children of former pupils over others, Ms Muller says.

“Engagement and support are a proper expectation of all parents.”

The Law Society has told the Select Committee that it should reconsider the fact that any priority is accorded to the children of past students. Alternatively, it should reconsider the according of priority to the children of past students above the priority given to children of current staff and board members.

The Society’s submission was prepared with the input of its Law Reform and Public and Administrative Law Committees and presented by Ms Muller.

ENDS

© Scoop Media