Edwards v Onehunga High School Board [1974] 2 NZLR 238 (CA); New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 14; Battison v Melloy [2014] NZHC 1462
The law here isn’t clear. There are definite exceptions for students who can show that they have a genuine reason not to follow the uniform code. For example, hair length has religious significance for Sikhs and cultural significance for Rastafarians. But personal preference would not be treated as an acceptable reason.
In the 1970s, the Court of Appeal upheld a school’s right to enforce rules about hair generally. However, that decision is now more than 40 years old, and it was made before the Bill of Rights was passed (which protects the right of freedom of expression).
In a 2014 High Court decision (Battison v Melloy), the judge found that a hair rule wasn’t legally enforceable because the rule wasn’t clear enough. So if your school has rules about hair, they need to be specific.
The judge in Battison v Melloy also said that:
Schools should carefully consider whether a proposed hair rule would breach students’ rights to autonomy and individual dignity, and their right to freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights.
It would be against the law to make a rule which gives the principal complete discretion to decide whether a student’s dress and appearance is acceptable.