By Thomas Cranmer

In December last year the Human Rights Commission attracted some criticism when it appointed Julia Whaipooti as a “shared leader” to work alongside Meg de Ronde who was the other “shared leader/Chief Executive”.

At the time the Commission described this as “part of the Commission’s commitment to fostering a treaty-based partnership”. It described this as an “innovative leadership model”.

De Ronde said “If we can shift the discourse and the understanding of what this looks like for a Crown entity, then I think it’s really important and powerful in terms of how we envision Aotearoa in the future.”

Criticism from politicians at the time focused on the cost of hiring another “shared leader/CE” – something that the Commission rebutted by pointing out that they had previously had a deputy CE which they had disestablished to fund this new role. But is there a more fundamental problem with this appointment?

The Human Rights Act sets out that the General Manager of the Commission is the chief executive of the Commission for the purposes of the Crown Entities Act, and indeed the Commission is an independent Crown Entity under that Act.

The Crown Entities Act describes that its purpose is to “provide a consistent framework for the establishment, governance and operation of crown entities and to clarify their accountability relationships ..”

But neither the Human Rights Act nor the Crown Entities Act contemplate having more than one chief executive, and certainly not multiple chief executives operating on a “shared leadership” basis.

Neither Act permits or contemplates “innovative leadership models”.

And insofar as Treaty obligations are concerned, the only requirement set out in the Human Rights Act is “to promote by research, education and discussion a better understanding of the human rights dimensions of the Treaty of Waitangi and their relationship with domestic and international law.”