Brigitte is admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court.
She has over a decade of experience working in politics across Australia and New Zealand. She has a Bachelor of Law from Victoria University, a Masters of Law from the Australian National University, and a Graduate Certificate in Counter-Terrorism from Interdisciplinary Center (Israel).
Brigitte spent three years providing political and media advice to the Embassy of Israel in Australia, whilst dealing with a number of high profile events. She worked as a Senior Advisor in state politics and worked on a number of Australian state and federal election campaigns. Brigitte was a Chief of Staff to an Australian Senator, before returning home to be the Senior Ministerial Advisor to the Minister of Education in the last National Government.
She has worked extensively with clients in the private sector to help them establish and maintain relationships with government, lobby on important issues, and drive campaigns to raise public interest. Brigitte particularly enjoys working with grassroots and member based organisations.
Brigitte has extensive knowledge of law making processes, how to best utilise the Official Information Act, and how to coordinate public interest campaigns across multiple channels. She is particularly interested and experienced in firearms law, electoral law and large scale reforms.
She is a regular commentator for RNZ, TVNZ, Newstalk ZB and a co-host of political podcast Three Gals One Beehive.
Recently media reported on advice Franks Ogilvie provided to Kaipara District Council. The following is our statement on the matter -
Franks Ogilvie was instructed by the Kaipara District Council to provide an opinion outlining the legal obligations local government have to Māori.
This advice was to be delivered to all staff and consultants to help them understand the difference between what a Council must to, and what it may choose to do.
The Council did ask for advice on several specific questions that we might not have addressed in a general outline. That increased the size and scope of the report
Whilst unusual, we welcomed peer review by Simpson Grierson. We were confident that our advice correctly interpreted the statutes and was consistent with case law, including a recent High Court decision that confirmed Councils are not Treaty “partners”, but have obligations under the Local Government Act. It was in our client’s best interests to gain confidence from peer review in the orthodoxy of our advice. We also looked forward to discussion with fellow lawyers.
We saw little point in arguing over suggestions that did not alter the conclusions of the advice. We largely incorporated their additional points into the opinion. Where their views were unclear, we pursued (with the Council’s permission)discussion with Simpson Grierson. We received only written feedback reinforcing their original points.
In the few areas where we disagreed we chose the cautious approach that would ensure our mutual client was not provided conflicting advice. For example, in regard to the Long Term Plan we had advised that “as part of community outcomes the local authority must show how it plans to deliver for particular groups and “this would include Māori, iwi and hapū””. Simpson Grierson did not agree with this express reference. We maintained our original advice that the Long Term Plan is a significant document for local government and Māori as a local community should be included in its consideration.
Following our update of our opinion to reflect the Simpson Grierson feedback, the Council requested comment on several additional points. We were not involved indecisions on whether Simpson Grierson should review that additional advice. Given that the original peer review advice had shown no reason to doubt the orthodoxy and quality of our opinion in this area, we would have supported a Council view that it need not incur the further expense of more peer review. We doubt that the additional material would justify in any way a Simpson Grierson decision to deny “endorsement” of our advice to the mutual client
We were surprised by Simpson Grierson’s public comments, trying to resile from their confirmatory peer review, with the peculiar denial of endorsement. The Simpson Grierson attempt to distance themselves from their advice after it became a matter of political denunciation, has contributed to public criticism of Kaipara District Council.
We were not advised that Simpson Grierson were making a statement before they did so. No media outlet reporting on this opinion has sought our comment.
Director Brigitte Morten appeared on RNZ's Nine to Noon today to discuss the week in politics. Joining host Kathryn Ryan and former Green Party MP Gareth Hughes, they discussed the conflicting polls out this week, Parliament's decision to suspend Te Pati Maori MPs for three weeks, the Regulatory Standards Bill and security clearances for Parliament.
Franks Ogilvie has become aware of a political action campaign against Franks Ogilvie and principal Stephen Franks following a letter sent on behalf of a firm client, Inflection Point NZ.
The letter, as instructed by our client, sets out the legal implications in New Zealand of the UK Cass Report (that prompted government decisions to restrict puberty blocker drug treatment for minors). The letters were informed by a recent Ministry of Health evidence brief. The letter highlighted the risks for health practitioners if they do not ensure they have an up to date understanding of these issues when providing this treatment.
As lawyers we take seriously our duties to:
- Accept work in a field where we profess to be competent to practice (the ‘cab rank rule’); and
- To not misinform or misdirect as to the legal basis for the statements we make on behalf of our clients.
It would be unethical for us to withdraw from acting for a client due to threats or criticisms of their views by others. However, we are aware that critics may extend their campaign to our clients. We ask if any of our clients are contacted, that you contact one of the Directors promptly.
