The Government is considering its next steps after the Waitangi Tribunal's successful appeal to overturn the High Court's decision that the Children's Minister did not need to front with her reasoning for changing the Oranga Tamariki Act.

Yesterday's Court of Appeal decision said Minister Karen Chhour might have to explain to the tribunal her decision to repeal the acts’s section 7AA after all.

Section 7AA requires Oranga Tamariki to have regard to its Treaty obligations by taking into account the whakapapa of Māori children and reducing disparities for tamariki Māori.

Chhour refused to appear on Newstalk ZB yesterday afternoon after the decision because of "legal constraints", but appeared this morning and was asked by host Mike Hosking if the tribunal was over-reaching in general.

Chhour said she could not talk about the case but could discuss the bill the case was about: “And that's about making sure all our young people are treated with dignity and respect - and get the care they deserve".

Later, PM Christopher Luxon was asked about Chhour's response, which suggested the Government might be considering appealing the latest decision.

But Luxon said the Government only received the judgement yesterday and it was a big one.

"We need to work our way through it and then take advice on whether we will appeal it and what we'll do next," he said.

"The substantive issue is we're united and strongly aligned that we don't believe section 7AA is the right thing, and we think the privacy of a child is above and more important than the cultural needs."

Hosking asked Luxon if anything had been achieved through the legal process, besides a few lawyers pocketing taxpayer money. Luxon labelled the tribunal's actions as frustrating.

"[The tribunal] asked us for a whole lot of information, often briefs, that are actually inputs to conversations that may happen in Cabinet. We've tried to be in the spirit of what is called comity - making sure that the different branches of Government are respectful of each other providing that information," said Luxon.

"Again, we'll look at that judgement and work out what comes next."

In an unprecedented request last month, the tribunal issued a summons for Chhour to give evidence and answer questions before an urgent inquiry about the Government’s decision to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act.

However, Crown lawyers successfully challenged the summons in the High Court. The High Court found Chhour could not be compelled to appear before the tribunal, with Justice Andru Isac granting the Crown’s application for judicial review.

Breaking down the details of Isac's decision-making process, former Massey University law professor Chris Gallavin said the issue of comity was central to the case.

As Gallavin explained, comity - which is the respect branches of Government show to each other - in this case, the executive to the judiciary and the judiciary to the executive - is hundreds of years old.

Under the Bill of Rights Act Section 9, Gallavin said, anything in Parliament cannot be questioned by the court.

"Comity says well, you can normally have a court that can issue a summons, yes, and the test to that is if the person is somebody of relevance. But the issue of comity is that the court better be careful if it issues a summons to anybody from the executive, [like] a minister, that's not just if it's relevant but if it's clearly necessary," he said.

"The High Court said it’s not clearly necessary here, so it doesn't stand."

However, Gallavin said the Court of Appeal did not go into depth with whether the matter was clearly necessary or not.

"They just said comity didn't apply, because the tribunal is not a court, the tribunal is a commission of inquiry," he said.

Chhour said on Newstalk ZB this morning that she came into parliament with the goal of making a difference in the lives of young people - she saw a problem within the Oranga Tamariki Act, campaigned on it and listened to the communities.

She said she did not expect the removal of the section to get as much attention as it had but was glad that conversation around the issue had started.

Her goal was to place every child who was difficult circumstances with the best possible carer, regardless of race.

"This is to make sure we give a clear direction to everybody who is working with our young people that their best interests and safety come first and foremost," she said.

"Whanau, hapu and iwi can be important in a child's life, but what is most important is that they're safe."

Lady Tureiti Moxon, chairwoman of the National Urban Māori Authority said although she agreed with the Court of Appeal decision and believes the tribunal does have the right to summon ministers, the focus shouldn't be on the tribunal.

She told Heather Du Plessis-Allan Drive that the more important point was around the impact of the decision on Māori - the people Moxon said this Government was supposed to protect, particularly vulnerable babies and their whanau.

Du Plessis-Allan asked if the point of removing 7AA would be to ensure that babies could be removed from Māori families "bashing it" and place them in the care of Pakeha foster parents without the need for considering race or being forced to return the baby to the family.

Moxon hit back. "Really? Really? I actually think that a lot of these comments made are terribly emotive comments," she said.

"If you look at the number of children that come out of Oranga Tamariki broken, who come out hurt and traumatised...for years and years, this Government and successive Governments have been stealing our children every each way but left and never giving them back. And that is the issue."

Du Plessis-Allan asked Moxon if she had a problem with a Māori baby being handed into foster care of parents with another ethnicity. Moxon said she did not have a problem with that.

"What I have a problem with is for too long, ministries have taken the liberty of interpreting the law in a way that has created a huge issue for a lot of our children who are still trying to come to terms with that, once they're flipped out of Oranga Tamariki when they're 18," she said.

Moxon also hit out at the Government for deciding it was sovereign and knew everything about everything, so should be making the decisions - whereas the Waitangi Tribunal was not allowed to summon a key minister involved.

"They're a Treaty partner in this country and that's what everyone seems to overlook," she said.

"You can't go around making decisions as a Treaty partner by yourself, even in a marriage. Yes, I'll do this or that, well, that's an abusive marriage."

Chhour said she was un-apologetic for putting children first, which was why she put her hand up for the portfolio to ensure the safety of young people at risk.

She noted Moxon's comments calling children coming out of Oranga Tamariki care hurt and traumatised.

"I would argue, let's tell the whole story, children are coming into care traumatised," she told Hosking.

"Oranga Tamariki is there in their worst moments, I take my hat off to all those social workers who are out there trying to make the hardest decisions and the best decisions for our young people. I'm going to give them the tools to make those decisions."