Taxpayer-Funded Legal Dispute: Is it Worth the Cost?

1️⃣The white tangy tribunal is not a court, and the government argues that it should not have the power to call ministers for accountability.

2️⃣The government believes that section 7aa is discriminatory and wants to remove it to treat all children equally.

3️⃣Critics argue that the government is avoiding accountability and that public participation in policy-making is vital.

4️⃣The tribunal's role is to address disparities in state care for Māori children and ensure their well-being.

5️⃣The legal dispute raises questions about the balance between government decision-making and external checks and balances.

Why is the government taking this case to the high court?

—The government is defending its right to make policies without interference from the white tangy tribunal.

What is section 7aa?

—Section 7aa addresses disparities in state care for Māori children and requires reporting on these disparities.

What are the key arguments in this dispute?

—The government argues for its right to govern without external intervention, while critics emphasize the importance of accountability and public participation.

Why is section 7aa considered discriminatory?

—Critics argue that section 7aa treats children differently based on their race, which goes against the principle of equality.

What is the role of the white tangy tribunal?

—The white tangy tribunal addresses disparities in state care for Māori children and ensures their well-being.

00:00Taxpayer-funded legal dispute between the white tangy tribunal and Children's Minister Karen Chur.

02:20Government argues for its right to make policies without interference from the tribunal.

05:32Section 7aa aims to address disparities in state care for Māori children.

06:26Critics emphasize the importance of accountability and public participation in policy-making.

07:46Discussion on the government's use of taxpayer resources in the legal dispute.