Aly joined Franks Ogilvie in 2024 as a Senior Solicitor. After graduating from Victoria University and completing her professional studies, she worked in general private practice gaining experience across a wide range of matters.
In her first two years of practice Aly appeared in the Employment Relations Authority, District Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and the Court Martial of New Zealand. She was involved in numerous mediations and negotiations, and in multiple successful judicial review challenges to Government decisions.
Aly is particularly interested in Government decision making processes and the evolution of New Zealand’s uncodified constitution. She takes satisfaction in problem solving and in providing both legal and practical advice that is comprehensive, concise and easy to understand.
In her personal time she enjoys being out in nature, going tothe driving range or tennis court, and being creative.
The government is constantly examining policies, conducting investigations, and holding inquiries of various kinds. Some are small, happening within departments and rarely becoming public knowledge. Others deal with significant public policy issues or questions of ethical behaviour by officials.
What is a Commission of Inquiry?
At the apex of the varying types of Inquiries, sit Commissions of Inquiry. These are independent investigative bodies appointed by the government to look into issues of public importance. Statutory Commissions of Inquiry were introduced in 1867 to enable thorough, credible investigations to be undertaken.
Today, Commissions of Inquiry are regulated by the Inquiries Act 2013 (“Act”).
The Act applies to three types of Inquiries:
1. Royal Commissions;
2. Public Inquiries; and
3. Government Inquiries.
All three types of Inquiries can be used to investigate and report on “any matter of public importance”.
Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries hold the same wide-ranging powers and are both appointed by the Governor-General. According to the Cabinet Manual, Royal Commissions are typically reserved for the most serious and complex issues. Government Inquiries, established by Ministers, typically focus on narrower, more specific issues requiring a timely, independent response. They have more limited powers.
Powers and Scope
Inquiries must have Terms of Reference. The Act does not mandate what must be included in these but suggest it may set out any matters relevant to the scope and purpose of the Inquiry, procedural matters, and a reporting date or process for determining a reporting date. Terms of Reference often contain specific questions the Inquiry is tasked with answering.
Members of an Inquiry and an Inquiry itself, must act independently, impartially, and fairly. Inquiries are focused on fact-finding, and do not determine fault. However, their findings can inform other proceedings, and they can make recommendations to assess liability if required.
Inquiries can regulate their own procedure, and have powers to compel the production of documents and evidence, summon witnesses, and take evidence on oath (or affirmation). Protections applying to witnesses in Court proceedings, extend to Inquiries under the Act. Inquiries do not have powers of search and seizure.
Reporting
Every Inquiry under the Act requires the preparation and presentation of a final report. The final report must set out the findings and any recommendations. For Public Inquiries and Royal Commissions of Inquiry, the final report is to be presented by the appropriate Minister to Parliament.
There is no statutory requirement for Parliament to debate the report, but it is a matter of public record and typically the Government will make public statements outlining an initial position or intentions.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Statutory Inquiries build public trust in findings and recommendations with powers to compel evidence, rules around impartiality and independence, as well as the requirement that findings are published.
However, statutory Inquiries can be expensive and take time (sometimes years) to complete. There are some limits on their powers, findings are not binding, and they are often used as a political tool due to the fact they are initiated by the government.
Effectiveness of an inquiry largely rests on the design of the Terms of Reference (which define the scope and focus of the inquiry), resourcing (ensuring the inquiry has sufficient staff, expertise, and time to conduct a thorough investigation), and genuine government engagement with findings (demonstrating a commitment to considering and acting on the inquiry's recommendations).
Examples
Recent examples of Royal Commissions of Inquiry include the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions (established 2018), which is the largest inquiry ever undertaken in New Zealand, and the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned, launched in 2022 and continuing into 2026.
In 2018 there was a Public Inquiry into the Earthquake Commission following the Canterbury earthquakes, and the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction which had 38 of its 40 recommendations accepted in principle or for further consideration.
Other Inquiries
It is worth noting that there are many types of Inquiries that are not regulated by the Inquiries Act 2013, including:
To understand more about Inquiries, please contact Director Brigitte Morten.
Summary
The Court of Appeal addressed whether split shifts constitute a single "work period" under the Employment Relations Act 2000 when determining bus drivers' rest and meal break entitlements, finding that it depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the employment arrangement.
Background
Tranzurban Hutt Valley Ltd ("Tranzurban") operates bus services in the Hutt Valley under contract with the Greater Wellington Regional Council, utilizing "split shifts" where drivers work morning and afternoon periods separated by a midday break. The New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees’ Union Wellington Branch Inc ("Union") challenged Tranzurban's practice of treating split shifts with breaks of two hours or more as two separate work periods for the purposes of s 69ZC of the Act, arguing that this reduced drivers' entitlement to rest and meal breaks. The Union contended that the entire split shift should be considered one continuous work period, resulting in more breaks for drivers. In practice, the difference between the two approaches was that the Union's approach would have resulted in three paid rest breaks and two unpaid meal breaks, while Tranzurban's resulted in two paid rest breaks and one unpaid meal break.
The Employment Relations Authority initially sided with the Union, finding that a split shift constituted a single work period from the beginning to the end of the driver's workday.
However, the Employment Court overturned this decision, holding that the Act did not prevent parties from agreeing to multiple work periods within a workday. The Employment Court determined that the classification of a split shift as one or more work periods was a factual question depending on the hours worked, the nature of breaks, and the agreed terms of employment.
The Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the Employment Court's interpretation of s 69ZC, finding that it was correct in its approach. It emphasized that the terms and conditions of employment, as reflected in the Collective Agreement, were a key factor. The Court found that the Collective Agreement was permissive, not prescriptive, and did not mandate that all split shifts be treated as single work periods.
The Court then assessed whether Tranzurban's approach was consistent with the purpose of the Act, which is to ensure employees have adequate time to rest and refresh. The Court considered that drivers were free to use the two-hour break as they wished, and there was no evidence Tranzurban was structuring shifts to avoid providing breaks. The Court acknowledged that a rested, refreshed, and nourished driver promotes a productive employment relationship. The fact that Tranzurban designed the shifts around bus routes and demand was also relevant.
Result
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Union's appeal, finding that Tranzurban's approach to split shifts was consistent with the Collective Agreement and the overall purpose of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
This case provides guidance on determining rest break entitlements in the context of split shifts. It highlights the importance of examining the specific terms and conditions of employment and the practical realities of the work arrangement on a case-by-case basis.
For further information on this case or similar issues, please contact Director Brigitte Morten.
Hon Simon Watts, Minister for Local Government, introduced the Local Government (System Improvements)Amendment Bill aimed at reducing pressure on council rates.
The Bill will amend the Local Government Act 2022 to:
· refocus the purpose of local government;
· better measure and publicise council performance;
· prioritise core services in council spending;
· strengthen council accountability and transparency; and
· provide regulatory relief to councils.
Refocusing the purpose of Local Government
This Bill is part of the Coalition Government’s reforms to local government announced in August 2024 which focus on reduced local government spending and delivery of core services.
Currently, section 10(1) of the LGA states the purpose of local government is to:
a) enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and
b) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.
The second component of this purpose, known as the “four wellbeings”, has attracted controversy. The four wellbeings was removed from the LGA by the National Government in 2012, and reintroduced by Labour in 2019.In December 2024, the Government announced it would again remove them, with Simeon Brown (the then Minister for local government) stated they had led “to about a two percent higher rates growth each year”. Labour leader Chris Hipkins’ responded that this was “a complete fabrication”.
The Bill proposes to replace the four wellbeings with two alternative purposes:
a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and
b) To meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses; and
c) to support local economic growth and development by fulfilling the purpose set out in paragraph (b).
This change means local authorities are required to take actions or implement measures that realise the purpose of local government.
Whilst reference to the specific four wellbeings has been removed, local authorities will still be required to consider the interests of current and future communities generally.
Another key change proposed by the Bill, is for local authorities to have particular regard to “core services” in serving its communities. The core services include; network infrastructure, public transport services, waste management, civil defence emergency management, and recreational facilities such as libraries and museums.
Measuring and publicising council performance
The explanatory note in the Bill outlines the intention of the Government to establish a council performance measurement framework similar to that established in New South Wales, with this Bill laying the “foundation” for it. Such a framework would involve the Department of Internal Affairs routinely publishing local authority performance information so that members of the public can more easily access information about the performance of their local authority.
Bill also prescribes further regulations that the Minister for Local Government is able to recommend, including for the purpose of specifying groups of activities that local authorities must plan for and report on, and for the setting of benchmarks in areas of local authority activity (that is beyond financial performance and asset management).
Prioritising core services in council spending
Under the LGA, a local authority must manage its revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities, investments, and general financial dealings in a manner that promotes the current and future interests of the community.
The Bill proposes to add an additional requirement that when a local authority is determining its approach to financial management, it must have “particular regard” to the purpose of local government and the core services.
Strengthening council accountability and transparency
Amendments are proposed to promote public expectations of local authorities and to support elected members to effectively represent their communities.
A proposed change is the enabling of the Secretary for Local Government (who is the Secretary for Internal Affairs), to issue a code of conduct and set of standing orders that are binding on local authorities. Currently, the LGA prescribes that local authorities must adopt standing orders, it does not prescribe the content of them.
The Bill also introduces an entitlement of members of local authorities to have access to documents held by it that are reasonablynecessary to enable the member to effectively perform their duties, imparting anew responsibility on local authority Chief Executives to ensure that membershave access to such documents.
Amendments to the local authority governance principles are also outlined, so as to insert new clauses regarding the fostering of “free exchange of information and expression of opinions by elected members” and “the responsibility of its elected members to work collaboratively”.
If the Bill is passed, information on how a local authority is acting in accordance with the governance principles would need to be included in local governance statements (which are required to be made publicly available following the triennial election).
Providing regulatory relief to councils
Amendments to reduce or clarify regulatory requirements on local authorities in the pursuit of greater efficiency are included in the Bill, such as the extension of the maximum length of a chief executive’s second term (from 2 years to 5 years).
One amendment that may be considered controversial, is the removal of the requirement that local authorities must consider the relevance of tikanga Māori knowledge when appointing council-controlled organisation directors.
Next steps
The Bill is likely to be sent to Select Committee in July2025 and public submissions will be called for.
If you would like further information on the Bill, please contact Director Brigitte Morten.
