OnPoint by Keith Ng

Read Post

OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But Shorter and With More Swearing

227 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 10 Newer→ Last

  • "chris",

    Good on you Keith. Well put. I felt that from here.

    location, location, locat… • Since Dec 2010 • 250 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    What next? The authorisation of arbitary arrest by the GCSB with no resort to the courts for a writ of Habeus Corpus allowed?

    This is dangerous, dangerous Star Chamber stuff – the use by an inner circle of executive power to suppress opposition to government policies is exactly what that body was for. Any extraordinary power that allows the executive to override the law is completely incompatible with, and an explicit threat to, the rule of law and thus the liberty of us all.

    Honestly, this is the sort of behaviour that has already caused one civil war and seen one king lose his head, although such is the Stuart levels of arrogance, ignorance and stupidity being reached by this government I would doubt they even know that. I hope that as the outrage grows Key, Joyce, English and Collins all start to feel their necks nervously.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1776 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    G-G is the only "check" in the system, but he's only a figurehead. we could have an aussie-style GG coup, but... party man. oh, there's also the select committee system but 'urgency'.

    might be time to refer to my recent reading - colin crouch. flax-roots democracy has withered, and "democracy" has become a facade. we vote for people to make decisions for us, so we are entirely dependent on them to act in our interests. but they act on behalf of the people who put them in power - their funders.

    and the people just don't care. they have all the toys they want, and the media is 100% compliant.

    enjoy your soylent green people.

    (oh, PS. not sure that the HRC will be kicking up a fuss.)

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2024 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Is this a legitimate case for the GG to refuse to sign this into law?

    No. We still get an election 18 months.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2996 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Bonus points: Actually, the Governor-General is the other check in the system.

    The GG is not a check, and nor are they meant to be - they are a rubberstamp. The idea of an unelected representative of a foreign power acting against the advice of the elected government and purporting to veto our legislation is at least as troublesome as what Parliament has done here.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1630 posts Report Reply

  • Tristan,

    First they came for the caregivers of children with disabilities and I said nothing...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 195 posts Report Reply

  • Tze Ming Mok,

    I remember this case working its way through the Human Rights Review Tribunal way back when I worked for the HRC, with the Crown Law reps cock-blocking all the way. Mad bitchfacing action. And that was under Labour. I seem to recall (happy to stand corrected) that they threatened even then to just bypass the Tribunal result with legislation. So much for our democratic recall. Fuck this fucking bullshit.

    SarfBank, the Gangnam of … • Since Nov 2006 • 104 posts Report Reply

  • Euan Mason,

    Well said, Keith. This is scary stuff, and we can't just stand by and say nothing.

    Canterbury • Since Jul 2008 • 172 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood,

    This is wrong on so many levels:
    - ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
    - ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
    - ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 856 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    What is the most practical path to challenge this? Is the most likely path to try and get the Supreme Court to rule the legislation illegal on the grounds it breaches the bill of rights (1990) and by breaching that it also breaches the Bill of Rights of 1689? That might be to long a bow, and I suppose it could trigger a constitutional showdown between the government and the supreme court. I am frightened to imagine how far this government of increasingly confident casual fascists would go if challenged on the constitution by the courts.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1776 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    We still get an election 18 months.

    And if my father-in-law is any indication that won't help. My father-in-law is a nice reasonable sensible man, some of his attitudes are "of his age" but otherwise reasonable. And he won't vote Labour because of The Greens. In short he will support this bunch of selfish arrogant thieves because he thinks The Greens are too loony.

    So no, this kind of disgusting self serving theft of the human rights of those caring for disabled will continue after the next election unless somehow The Greens can convince my father-in-law that they won't behave like a bunch of loonies.

    And Tze Ming is dead right, this abuse of those who care for their disabled children ... yeah that's right we are talking about men and women who give up everything to care for their child rather than just dumping them into state care ... those people who deserve the greatest possible support are going to be fucked over by both Labour and The National parties. Neither party really care about the "rule of law" let alone human rights.

    Think about that when you call Mr Key or Mr Shearer "nice men". That isn't how "nice men" actually behave.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3262 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Tze Ming Mok,

    I'm appalled by the sheer childish shittiness of this response to a decade of hard-fought court cases. Oh how their mothers must be proud of these cabinet Ministers for stealing the lunch of the slow kid in the payground. What character.

    Let's vote for good people instead, shall we. And demand they show some resolve about abuses like this in the meantime. This law should not stand.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16491 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    The GG is not a check

    Exactly.

    Firstly, no monarch or governor-general of an independent Commonwealth realm has vetoed a bill in 300 years.

    Secondly, it's quite plausible that vetoing a bill, like most of the other things a G-G does or doesn't do, gets exercised on the advice of ministers, not autonomously.

    Thirdly, the G-G is in office at the pleasure of the PM. If they vetoed a bill, we'd have a new G-G tomorrow. The PM could even appoint themselves as G-G and avoid the problem.

    Fourthly, (this is a problem with any system that purports to use a person as a constitutional check, including an elected presidency) why would you assume the G-G opposes the measure? He's a retired army officer appointed by the current government.

    We should stop pretending that faeries in palaces form a check on overbearing government and get ourselves a written constitution with an entrenched Bill Of Rights. While we're at it, we should also include the Treaty, socio-economic and community rights.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4421 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    Think about that when you call Mr Key or Mr Shearer "nice men". That isn't how "nice men" actually behave.

    Snap. And they wonder why people vote for other parties.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16491 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    unless somehow The Greens can convince my father-in-law that they won't behave like a bunch of loonies

    Get him to watch Russel Norman on Q&A yesterday talking economics with style and force of logic. Nothing scary at all. Guy even wears a suit.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16491 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    We should stop pretending that faeries in palaces form a check on overbearing government and get ourselves a written constitution with an entrenched Bill Of Rights.

    good luck getting the turkeys to vote for xmas

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2024 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    Thanks for your outrage. Keith, but such public policy treatment of disabled people and their families is just par for the course if you look back over the last century or so. Where was the public interest as this case wound through the courts over the last decade – or while we waited for the last year after the victory for some announcement? Or the current case whereby the IHC is trying to interest the Office of the Human Rights Review (headed by Robert Kee) in taking up the case whereby disabled children are excluded from schools and the education system all over the country. And what about the case for a government apology for institutionalisation?

    Even though disabled people make up about 20% of the population and the likelihood that everyone will probably either require care or be a carer sometime in their adult life, we have no academic departments focussed on disability policy. There appears to be no specialist disability input into the Constitutional Review, just as it was overlooked in the Welfare Working Group’s work. The latest review of the latest residential care abuse case will be headed by someone with no background in disability.

    Just occasionally it briefly crosses over into the mainstream. So we can thank the government for achieving this with the Budget announcement (and by the way Green MP Catherine Delahunty blogged about its implications almost immediately).

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 2030 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    Tom, none of that works against a determined government. Parliament is sovereign and can override any previous legislation, including the 1689 Bill Of Rights.

    To illustrate what our unconstitution allows, you might think that there must be an election in 18 months and that's entrenched? Nah. The government could, in response to a 'crisis', pass a CERA-style measure allowing it to raise taxes and legislate by edict, prorogue the now redundant parliament and continue in office indefinitely. The parliamentary term would end, sure, but the government could just prevent any election from taking place and a new parliament being summoned.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4421 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    ust as it was overlooked in the Welfare Working Group's work

    Worse, having a rehab specialist on the committee made sure the only focus was getting people *back* to work after an accident, not into a job if they never had one.

    Disability organisations somehow completely failed to see that coming and work together to counter it. Until the quality of community advocacy improves enormously, we will continue to be weak targets for bullies of all stripes.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16491 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Che Tibby,

    not sure that the HRC will be kicking up a fuss

    Bit unfair. He's only involved once it gets to the stage that Hilary mentioned of taking a case. Commissioners have already come out in media against this latest development.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16491 posts Report Reply

  • Fooman, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Firstly, no monarch or governor-general of an independent Commonwealth realm has vetoed a bill in 300 years.

    I had a conversation with someone who knows a fair bit about Governers General on a similar topic, and they noted that it isn't so much a formal refusal to sign, but governments, after "reflection" decide not to proceed with assent, if something is not sitting quite right.

    This has happened at least once in a realm, if I recall correctly.

    FM

    Lower Hutt • Since Dec 2009 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • Graham Dunster,

    There is an increasing amount of idiocy coming out of Parliament, this bill, the protest at sea one, the GCSB, etc. Unfortunately I have no faith, and worse no hope, that Labour would be doing anything noticeably differently. Rather like the clusterfuck that the Auckland Council's Draft Unitary Plan is finally being recognised as being, it seems that the only way through all this is to start again with a better bunch of politicos. That means some people are going to have to give up their lives to be those politicians and a whole heap of the rest of us are going to have to fall in behind supporting, organising and keeping them on track. Rather like how all good causes originally started.

    Is anyone up for this, or will wide screen tvs and iPhones rule the day?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2009 • 126 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Stop giving them ideas. BTW, I think we should be a republic with a written constitution. However, I think including such things as the treaty, socio-economic and community rights in a written constitution simply makes a wordy mess that locks everyone into the values and interests of a certain era. What is your worthy community right today becomes tomorrows pain in the neck right to bear arms. Just enshrine the key legislation that guards the liberty of the subject and the mechanics of peroguing the house and calling elections and leave the rest to legislation.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1776 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Graham,

    Does anyone know why the redacted parts couldn't be got by an OIA request?

    Christchurch • Since Jul 2011 • 39 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    Rather like the clusterfuck that the Auckland Council’s Draft Unitary Plan is finally being recognised as being

    What exactly is your beef with the DUP? It is the result of wide consultation and is being widely consulted on again. The manipulative dishonesty of it's opponents and the disingenuous outrage being generated is a poster child for why democratically elected governments increasingly seek autocratic and authoritarian governance solutions. If you genuinely consult, these days you just end up with your political opponents using the opportunity granted to them to run hysterical campaigns against you.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1776 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.