Ka mau te wehi! Excellent work and a great relief. Will read the decision with interest.

Sadly, I think you are right. I just can’t see this Government allowing this outcome to stand given their demonstrated hostility to people enjoying the fruits of successful litigation if it a) has financial implications for the Crown, and/or b) does not accord with their worldview.

Absolutely - s 9 withholding grounds don’t lend themselves to blanket rules, which this effectively has been for ages. And, TBH, most public bodies treat legal privilege as if it were a conclusive ground to withhold information.

Also, not me screaming at Andrea Vance coming off the top rope early with “… Edwards - a prolific political commentator with a modest academic footprint…” 🤣🤣🤣

We’ve been fortunate that Attorneys-General have pretty consistently taken the section 7 obligation seriously and (mostly) not let their political views override the legal analysis.

Utterly predictable given the people involved at the top. Feel terrible for the staff.

I suspect Judith Collins likes it just fine. As Attorney-General she has a statutory obligation to issue a report if a Bill appears to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act - which was not really up for debate in this case. But she did - and will continue to - happily vote for it.

The statement “… no changes could be made to the bill that would both give effect to Cabinet decisions about prisoner voting and be consistent with NZBORA” is telling. Specifically, about how the majority sees its role (i.e. toadying to the Executive rather than exercising effective oversight).

I’m not at all sure I agree with your assessment, but given we (I think) share similar underlying concerns I’ll keep stewing on it.

Still, I do wonder if a complaint to the Regulations Review Committee might be worthwhile. But you will no doubt be considering options and taking better advice (your own included) than I can offer!

I suspect you are correct. And, while I think that ought to fail the requirement, I also (sadly) suspect the majority would not see it that way.

He has secured an enormous amount of influence over regulation-making. But not to the exclusion of either the Regulations Review Committee or the courts. At least not yet.

The Regulatory Standards Act is a ludicrous, wasteful and objectionable law, but it doesn’t give Seymour that level of control.

Meaning, if the Regulations Review Committee did receive/consider a complaint, they could recommend it be disallowed. Other grounds might also apply (e.g. trespassing unduly on personal rights, unusual or unexpected use of power) but possibly a less cut-and-dry breach.

If there’s been no consultation “… with such organisations or bodies as appear to the Minister to be representative of persons likely to be substantially affected by the regulations…” that would seem on its face to be inconsistent with the regulation-making power in s 105 of the Medicines Act.

There will have been a Cabinet Legislation Committee (LEG) paper accompanying the regulations, which requires an indication as to BORA consistency. But no separate vet by Justice or Crown Law, no.

Congratulations on the nomination. Great to have two strong candidates in Rongotai (as ‘twas) and I hope you have list placings that would mean you’d both sit in Parliament regardless of who wins the electorate vote.