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.
Welcome to the Politics Briefing. The Government needs to have a Plan B when it comes to Karen Chhour’s summons to appear before the Waitangi Tribunal. If the judge rules tomorrow that the summons was lawful and that it stands, the minister cannot ignore it without being liable for a criminal conviction and a fine of up to $1000.
Of course, she would not be so daft as to ignore such a ruling because that would go against legal advice and, presumably, political advice from the Prime Minister and her Act Party leader. Ministers, after all, are required to uphold the law, even if they disagree with it.
If Chhour loses and the summons stands, the most obvious thing to do would be to negotiate a way for the minister to address the tribunal through a written statement – which is what she should have done at the outset and which many ministers have done previously. Crown Law argued in the High Court that the summons was unlawful because it breached comity – the principle of mutual respect and restraint – and that it was not necessary or relevant because the Cabinet papers and other evidence given to the tribunal answered its questions.
If Crown Law wins, and the summons is set aside, it would still be appropriate for Chhour to send a written statement to the tribunal. To restore comity, triumphalism should be avoided. If Crown Law loses, it could also go to the Court of Appeal and, no doubt, the tribunal’s powers will be reviewed before long as part of the overall review of the tribunal this term. Its willingness to confront the Government could result in the loss of such powers in the future.
By the way, several mentions were made in yesterday’s hearings about the criticism NZ First’s Shane Jones and Act leader David Seymour had levelled at the Waitangi Tribunal when they called it a “star chamber” and suggested it should be abolished, respectively. Crown Law concluded its case by saying that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had “corrected” the breach of comity in describing such comments as “ill-considered”. Moments later, Newshub ran a story that Seymour was standing by his comments.
Meanwhile, Act’s Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee and Luxon announced that the Cabinet had given the go-ahead to introduce a revised Three Strikes bill. The plan outlined by McKee will be a much more reasonable law than the previous one, with the threshold changed in terms of qualifying sentences, mental health considerations and more discretion and guidelines given to judges. The infamous Fitzgerald case would not have qualified under the proposed new regime.
Quote unquote
“I can tell you she had twinkling eyes and behind them is a huge amount of intelligence. She was no-nonsense and very impressive” – Finance Minister Nicola Willis on meeting US Treasury Secretary and former Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen. (Newstalk ZB)
Micro quiz
The Solicitor-General led the Crown’s case in the High Court’s judicial review of the Waitangi Tribunal summons to Karen Chhour. Who is the Solicitor-General – and, for 10 more points, who was the previous one? (Answers below.)
Stay with us at nzherald.co.nz for breaking news, analysis and in-depth features. We also have extensive coverage of Anzac Day on Thursday.
Quiz answer: Una Jagose is the Solicitor-General and she replaced Michael Heron.
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.