This is a transcript of Audrey Young’s politics newsletter. To sign up for this newsletter or Friday’s subscriber-only Premium Politics Briefing, click here, choose your preferences and save. For a step-by-step guide, click here.
The inquiry is into her plans to remove section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, which sets out the duties of the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. The section says, among other things, that the chief executive must ensure: “The policies, practices and services of the department have regard to mana tamaiti (tamariki) and the whakapapa of Māori children and young persons and the whanaungatanga [kinship] responsibilities of their whānau, hapū and iwi.” It also provides for partnerships between Oranga Tamariki and iwi.
The judge said he would rather invite the minister to give the evidence (either by affidavit or in person) than summons her, and set out the questions he wanted answers for, including reasons for the decision and consultation carried out.
But the Government’s lawyers, Crown Law, say she won’t be appearing or giving written evidence. Its lawyers have argued that the move contravenes constitutional principles and that the repeal was a political decision not based on empirical evidence.
The Crown has said it would take any summons to the High Court for review. It gave the tribunal part of a Cabinet paper and the regulatory impact statement on the plan.
The judge said: “Crown counsel say that the Government’s decision to repeal section 7AA is not based on an empirical public policy case and the minister’s concerns, expressed in the Cabinet paper regarding a conflict of duties between the section 7AA duties and the best interest of a child, reflect a political or philosophical viewpoint [and] are not reducible to empirical analysis. We see it differently and are of the view that we are entitled to ask the minister for information.”
Judge Doogan has given a deadline of April 26 for a response.
The tribunal is a commission of inquiry and, as such, it has the power to “issue a summons requiring any person to attend at the time and place specified in the summons, to give evidence and to produce any papers, documents, records or things in that person’s possession or under that person’s control that are relevant to the subject of the inquiry”.
The tribunal itself is in the sights of the Government, with the coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First setting out plans for a review of the tribunal’s work.
It seems rather unusual that the minister could not have furnished the tribunal with a written statement.
“To be the best New Zealander I can be, I have to be the best Māori I can be” - Tama Potaka, Minister of Māori Development and Conservation, on Moana (Whakaata Maori).
Goes to Luke Somerville, spokesman for Renters United, for his wholly negative response to the pet bonds policy to encourage landlords to let tenants to have pets: “Every renter has a story about their landlord trying to charge them hundreds of dollars in rent for a mark on the wall. What’s to say we are not going to see more of that now?” (RNZ). Hey Luke, how about talking on behalf of the tenants who want pets?
Bouquet
Pet Refuge founder Julie Chapman. Photo / Kathryn Nobbs
Goes to Julie Chapman from Pet Refuge, who welcomes the pet bond policy, saying many women delay leaving violent homes for fear they won’t be able to find rental accommodation that will accept their pet.
Quiz answer: Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines.
Audrey Young is the New Zealand Herald’s senior political correspondent. She was named Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards in 2023, 2020 and 2018.
For more political news and views, listen to On the Tiles, the Herald’s politics podcast.
