Fitzgerald v Muldoon

Last updated

Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Wellington Supreme Court
Decided11 June 1976
Citation(s)[1976] 2 NZLR 615
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingChief Justice Richard Wild
Keywords
Bill of Rights 1688, separation of powers, Parliamentary supremacy, Constitutional law

Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others is a 1976 New Zealand Supreme Court [lower-alpha 1] case concerning whether press statements by Robert Muldoon had breached section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688. In its decision, the court ruled "That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal". [1] The case has since become one of New Zealand's most important constitutional law decisions.

Contents

Background

The Third Labour Government had passed the New Zealand Superannuation Act 1974 requiring employees and employers to make matching compulsory contributions to a superannuation fund from 1 April 1975. This was to be administered by the Superannuation Board. [2]

As David Williams noted, "The National Party, then in opposition, used all possible parliamentary devices to oppose this legislation and promised to repeal it immediately the Party gained office again. The general election campaign in 1975 had featured an acrimonious debate over the merits of the rival Labour and National superannuation policies." [3] The National Party had suggested in its election campaign, and specifically in the Dancing Cossacks advertisement, that the superannuation scheme would have the effect of leading to Soviet-style communism. [4]

A general election was held on 29 November 1975, at which the Labour Party was voted out of government and on 12 December 1975 the Third National Government was formed with Robert Muldoon sworn in as prime minister. [5] On 15 December, the Prime Minister, who was also minister of finance, issued a press statement declaring,

The Prime Minister, Hon R D Muldoon, today issued a statement on the future of the New Zealand Superannuation scheme. This was to give effect to National's election policy to abolish the scheme and refund all contributions to employees.

Mr Muldoon said that early in the next Parliamentary session legislation would be introduced to carry out the government's election promises relating to the New Zealand Superannuation Scheme. In particular the compulsory element in the law would be removed with retrospective effect.

The compulsory requirement for employee deductions to the New Zealand scheme will cease for pay periods ending after this date. Mr Muldoon said that he recognised that because of arrangements made for payment of wages and salaries in advance through computer systems or by other means, deductions would in some cases continue for limited periods. All deductions and contributions, including any which may be made from now until 31 March 1976, will be returned to employees through the income tax refund system or could be transferred to another scheme.

Similarly the compulsory requirement for employer contributions will cease as from today in respect of salaries or wages paid from now on.

—  Robert Muldoon, Press statement on 15 December 1975 [6]
Robert Muldoon, pictured in 1969. Muldoon 26 June 1969.jpg
Robert Muldoon, pictured in 1969.

On 23 December, Prime Minister Muldoon issued another press release,

Regardless of what any union groups might represent or how some employers might see the position, no employees would receive the benefit of employer contributions made to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund after December 15, said the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Mr Muldoon, today. Mr Muldoon said the government had already made it clear that the superannuation scheme finished on December 15 and the compulsory requirement for employee deductions and employer contributions ceased for pay periods ending after that date. Empowering legislation, with retrospective effect, would be introduced early in the 1976 Parliamentary session.

—  Robert Muldoon, Press statement on 23 December 1975 [7]

The plaintiff, FitzGerald, had worked as a public servant since 3 June 1975 and he stated in his affidavit that he had since the beginning of his employment with the Crown, contributed at a rate of one percent of his earnings, amounting to $2.08 a fortnight. He further deposed that the Crown had been deducting this from his gross earnings and transferring this into the fund along with their contribution, until the pay period ending on 24 December 1975. [8]

FitzGerald sued the Prime Minister, as first defendant, and named the chairman and eight other members of the Superannuation Board as second defendant, the Attorney-General (in respect of the Treasury and Department of Education) as third defendant and the Controller and Auditor-General as fourth defendant. [9]

Chief Justice Richard Wild summarised FitzGerald's case as being that the Prime Minister had, in contravention of the Bill of Rights 1688, section 1, made an announcement that constituted exercising a pretended power to suspend a properly made law, the Superannuation Act 1974. [10] FitzGerald sought a declaration that the announcement and instructions issued by the Prime Minister on 15 December 1975 amounted to a breach of section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688 and also injunctions requiring the withdrawal of the instruction and restraining the Prime Minister from further instructions to the Superannuation Board. A range of other declarations and injunctions was sought against the other defendants for their participation in the suspension of the superannuation scheme. [11]

Evidence

In his judgment Wild surveyed the evidence of four public officials: Sir Arnold Nordmeyer, Chairman of the Superannuation Board; a Mr Kelly, assistant commissioner of the State Services Commission; the chief accountant of the Inland Revenue Department; and the general manager of the Superannuation Corporation. [12]

Judgment

Wild decided in favour of the plaintiff on one issue, that the Prime Minister's purported suspension of the operation of the New Zealand Superannuation Act 1975, "was illegal as being in breach of s 1 of the Bill of Rights, and that the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration to that effect". [13]

The first sentence of the third paragraph, however, and the fourth paragraph [of the 15 December statement], amount together to an unequivocal pronouncement that the compulsory requirement for employee deductions and employer contributions were to cease as stated. That was reiterated in unmistakable terms in the second paragraph of the statement made on 23 December. The Act of Parliament in force required that those deductions and contributions must be made, yet here was the Prime Minister announcing that they need not be made. I am bound to hold that in so doing he was purporting to suspend the law without consent of Parliament. Parliament had made the law. Therefore the law could be amended or suspended only by Parliament or with the authority of Parliament.

—  Wild CJ, Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [14]

Wild also held that whether the meaning of "by regal authority" included the Prime Minister's statement was

to be determined by reference to the powers of the Prime Minister and the position occupied by him, which are of fundamental importance in our system of government. He is the Prime Minister, the leader of the government elected to office, the chief of the executive government. He had lately received his commission by royal authority, taken the oaths of office, and entered on his duties. In my opinion his public announcement of 15 December, made as it was in the course of his official duties as Prime Minister, must therefore be regarded as made "by regal authority" within the meaning of s 1.

— Chief Justice Richard Wild, Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [15]

Wild found against the plaintiff that the evidence disclosed that there had been no instructions by the Prime Minister to any members of the Superannuation Board, any government department or arm of state services. [16]

Because there was a high probability that the New Zealand Superannuation Act 1974 would be repealed and the scheme dismantled in the months following the hearing, Wild adjourned all other matters for six months, satisfied that, "In my opinion, the law and the authority of Parliament will be vindicated by the making of the declaration I have indicated". [17]

Notes

  1. ↑ Until 1980, the Supreme Court of New Zealand was the name used for what is now the High Court of New Zealand.

Related Research Articles

In the United States, a 401(k) plan is an employer-sponsored, defined-contribution, personal pension (savings) account, as defined in subsection 401(k) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Periodic employee contributions come directly out of their paychecks, and may be matched by the employer. This legal option is what makes 401(k) plans attractive to employees, and many employers offer this option to their (full-time) workers. 401(k) payable is a general ledger account that contains the amount of 401(k) plan pension payments that an employer has an obligation to remit to a pension plan administrator. This account is classified as a payroll liability, since the amount owed should be paid within one year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pension</span> Retirement fund

A pension is a fund into which amounts are paid regularly during an individual's working career, and from which periodic payments are made to support the person's retirement from work. A pension may be:

A pension fund, also known as a superannuation fund in some countries, is any program, fund, or scheme which provides retirement income.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Muldoon</span> Prime Minister of New Zealand 1975 to 1984

Sir Robert David Muldoon was a New Zealand politician who served as the 31st prime minister of New Zealand, from 1975 to 1984, while leader of the National Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roger Douglas</span> New Zealand politician

Sir Roger Owen Douglas is a retired New Zealand politician who served as a minister in two Labour governments. He became best known for his prominent role in New Zealand's radical economic restructuring in the 1980s, when the Fourth Labour Government's economic policy became known as "Rogernomics".

A pay-as-you-earn tax (PAYE), or pay-as-you-go (PAYG) in Australia, is a withholding of taxes on income payments to employees. Amounts withheld are treated as advance payments of income tax due. They are refundable to the extent they exceed tax as determined on tax returns. PAYE may include withholding the employee portion of insurance contributions or similar social benefit taxes. In most countries, they are determined by employers but subject to government review. PAYE is deducted from each paycheck by the employer and must be remitted promptly to the government. Most countries refer to income tax withholding by other terms, including pay-as-you-go tax.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1975 New Zealand general election</span> General election in New Zealand

The 1975 New Zealand general election was held on 29 November to elect MPs to the 38th session of the New Zealand Parliament. It was the first general election in New Zealand where 18- to 20-year-olds and all permanent residents of New Zealand were eligible to vote, although only citizens were able to be elected.

Pensions in the United Kingdom, whereby United Kingdom tax payers have some of their wages deducted to save for retirement, can be categorised into three major divisions - state, occupational and personal pensions.

Superannuation in Australia or "super" is a savings system for workplace pensions in retirement. It involves money earned by an employee being placed into an investment fund to be made legally available to fund members upon retirement. Employers make compulsory payments to these funds at a proportion of their employee's wages. From July 2023, the mandatory minimum "guarantee" contribution is 11%, rising to 12% from 2025. The superannuation guarantee was introduced by the Hawke government to promote self-funded retirement savings, reducing reliance on a publicly funded pension system. Legislation to support the introduction of the superannuation guarantee was passed by the Keating Government in 1992.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">KiwiSaver</span> New Zealand savings scheme

KiwiSaver is a New Zealand savings scheme which has been operating since 2 July 2007. Participants can normally access their KiwiSaver funds only after the age of 65, but can withdraw them earlier in certain limited circumstances, for example if undergoing significant financial hardship or to use a deposit for a first home.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Welfare in New Zealand</span> Overview of welfare in New Zealand

Social welfare has long been an important part of New Zealand society and a significant political issue. It is concerned with the provision by the state of benefits and services. Together with fiscal welfare and occupational welfare, it makes up the social policy of New Zealand. Social welfare is mostly funded through general taxation. Since the 1980s welfare has been provided on the basis of need; the exception is universal superannuation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Third National Government of New Zealand</span> New Zealand government led by Robert Muldoon from 1975 to 1984

The Third National Government of New Zealand was the government of New Zealand from 1975 to 1984. It was an economically conservative government that aimed to preserve the Keynesian economic system established by the First Labour government and was also socially conservative. Throughout its three terms it was led by Robert Muldoon, a populist but antagonistic politician who was sometimes described as the National Party's best asset and worst liability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Third Labour Government of New Zealand</span> Government of New Zealand, 1972–1975

The Third Labour Government of New Zealand was the government of New Zealand from 1972 to 1975. During its time in office, it carried out a wide range of reforms in areas such as overseas trade, farming, public works, energy generation, local government, health, the arts, sport and recreation, regional development, environmental protection, education, housing, and social welfare. Māori also benefited from revisions to the laws relating to land, together with a significant increase in a Māori and Island Affairs building programme. In addition, the government encouraged biculturalism and a sense of New Zealand identity. However, the government damaged relations between Pākehā and Pasifika New Zealanders by instituting the Dawn Raids on alleged overstayers from the Pacific Islands; the raids have been described as "the most blatantly racist attack on Pacific peoples by the New Zealand government in New Zealand’s history". The government lasted for one term before being defeated a year after the death of its popular leader, Norman Kirk.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Second Labour Government of New Zealand</span> Government of New Zealand, 1957–1960

The Second Labour Government of New Zealand was the government of New Zealand from 1957 to 1960. It was most notable for raising taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and petrol, a move which was probably responsible for the government lasting for only one term. It was headed by the Prime Minister Walter Nash.

A Personal Retirement Savings Account (PRSA) is a type of savings account introduced to the Irish market in 2003. In an attempt to increase pension coverage, the Pensions Board introduced a retirement savings account, that would entice the lower paid and self-employed to start making some pension provision. The intention was for PRSAs to supplement any State Retirement Benefits that would be payable in years to come.

The Fifth National Government of New Zealand was the government of New Zealand for three parliamentary terms from 19 November 2008 to 26 October 2017. John Key served as National Leader and Prime Minister until December 2016, after which Bill English assumed the premiership until the National Government's defeat following the October 2017 government-forming negotiations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wage theft</span> Denial of wages or employee benefits rightfully owed to an employee

Wage theft is the failing to pay wages or provide employee benefits owed to an employee by contract or law. It can be conducted by employers in various ways, among them failing to pay overtime; violating minimum-wage laws; the misclassification of employees as independent contractors; illegal deductions in pay; forcing employees to work "off the clock", not paying annual leave or holiday entitlements, or simply not paying an employee at all.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dancing Cossacks advertisement</span>

The "Dancing Cossacks" was a 1975 electoral television advertisement for the New Zealand National Party, produced by advertising agency Colenso. The first half of the advertisement was animated by Hanna-Barbera, with the second half featuring National Party leader Robert Muldoon. The advert was produced to be highly critical of the governing New Zealand Labour Party's recently introduced compulsory superannuation scheme, implying the scheme would eventually turn New Zealand into a Soviet-style communist state, and urged people to vote for National in the upcoming general election.

Indian tax forms are used to document information in compliance with the Income Tax Act of 1961 and in accordance with the Income Tax Rules, which govern the process of filing income tax returns in India.

Rex Elliott Jones is a New Zealand trade unionist.

References

  1. ↑ Bill of Rights 1688, section 1.
  2. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 616.
  3. ↑ Williams, David (June 1977). "TO REMIND PEOPLE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1688" (PDF). Monash University Law Review.
  4. ↑ "Dancing Cossacks political TV ad". NZ History. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. 10 June 2014. Retrieved 7 April 2015.
  5. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 616.
  6. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 616-7.
  7. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 617.
  8. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 618.
  9. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 618.
  10. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 618.
  11. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 619.
  12. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 619.
  13. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 623.
  14. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 622.
  15. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 622.
  16. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 622.
  17. ↑ Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 623.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.