Post by Kiwi Frontline on May 15, 2024 7:17:10 GMT 12
Gary Judd KC: SEQUAL TO REAL REASON WAITANGI TRIBUNAL COULD NOT SUMMONS CHHOUR.
In this case, the Tribunal has summoned to give evidence one of those whom the Tribunal exists to assist — the responsible Cabinet Minister.
By forcing her to appear and give evidence it is adopting an adversarial position in conflict with its statutory position of adviser to her and the Cabinet of which she is a part. As this is inconsistent with its functions of making recommendations to the Crown, the summons must be invalid.
Secondly, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is where “any Maori claims that he or she, or any group of Maoris of which he or she is a member, is or is likely to be prejudicially affected” (in this case) by a policy adopted by or on behalf of the Crown.
If claimants claim to be prejudicially affected by a proposal the Minister has recommended to Cabinet, they don’t need the Minister – the person they are advising – to prove their claim. They, not the Minister, claim to be prejudicially affected. They, not the Minister, must know why they are prejudicially affected. They want the Tribunal to make recommendations to the Minister explaining why they are prejudicially affected.
If the Minister wants to give evidence to demonstrate that the claimants are wrong and that there is no prejudice, that would be her entitlement. There can be no genuine reason to summon her to prove their claim.
So, it is obvious there can only be improper, politically motivated purposes.
For these reasons, the summons ought to have been held to be invalid, but these arguments were not advanced on the Minister’s behalf. Instead, the Crown lawyers advanced arguments which elevated the Tribunal’s status. This is consistent with the public service attitude that advancement of Treaty matters is a wholly desirable activity but does not serve the government and the general public in the way it and they should be served.....
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/05/gary-judd-kc-sequal-to-real-reason.html
In this case, the Tribunal has summoned to give evidence one of those whom the Tribunal exists to assist — the responsible Cabinet Minister.
By forcing her to appear and give evidence it is adopting an adversarial position in conflict with its statutory position of adviser to her and the Cabinet of which she is a part. As this is inconsistent with its functions of making recommendations to the Crown, the summons must be invalid.
Secondly, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is where “any Maori claims that he or she, or any group of Maoris of which he or she is a member, is or is likely to be prejudicially affected” (in this case) by a policy adopted by or on behalf of the Crown.
If claimants claim to be prejudicially affected by a proposal the Minister has recommended to Cabinet, they don’t need the Minister – the person they are advising – to prove their claim. They, not the Minister, claim to be prejudicially affected. They, not the Minister, must know why they are prejudicially affected. They want the Tribunal to make recommendations to the Minister explaining why they are prejudicially affected.
If the Minister wants to give evidence to demonstrate that the claimants are wrong and that there is no prejudice, that would be her entitlement. There can be no genuine reason to summon her to prove their claim.
So, it is obvious there can only be improper, politically motivated purposes.
For these reasons, the summons ought to have been held to be invalid, but these arguments were not advanced on the Minister’s behalf. Instead, the Crown lawyers advanced arguments which elevated the Tribunal’s status. This is consistent with the public service attitude that advancement of Treaty matters is a wholly desirable activity but does not serve the government and the general public in the way it and they should be served.....
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/05/gary-judd-kc-sequal-to-real-reason.html