Posts by Rich of Observationz
-
Hard News: Te Qaeda and the God Squad,
Email
Yeah, what's needed is a proper supervisory authority with the ability to take disciplinary action and prosecute miscreant officers, backed up by an offence of police misconduct that doesn't go away when the cop resigns.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Michael Roberts,
Email
That's got nothing to do with Royal Assent.
The HoL has voted down numerous Commons bills. What happened (roughly) with the Asquith government was that Conservatives in the Lords set themselves against a number of that government's policies (specifically finance and Irish Home Rule). Asquith wanted the King to create a number of Liberal peers to override this, which he agreed to do only after a General Election. After this second election, the Lords backed down and passed the 1911 Parliament Act, which limited the Lords abilities to veto legislation.
For a clearer explanation in book form, George Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England is an accessible and well written account of the period.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Email
And Whitlam was just too slow. Mutually Assured Dismissal as Lewis Holden called it. If Whitlam had fired Kerr first and appointed a more favourable G-G, he'd have stayed in office (until the yanks invaded or the Aussies voted him out, anyway).
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Steve Curtis,
Email
New Zealand was not "an independent Commonwealth realm" before 1947, but a quasi-colony under British suzerainty.
Britain appointed the Governor and then the Governor-General [EDIT: they were called G-G before they became independent of the UK] and directed the delay or veto of legislation. Note that it was not the Queen or King deciding on the veto, but the British government of the day.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Michael Roberts,
Email
"Appointed on advice of PM" means "appointed by PM". The Queen is no more likely to refuse such advice than the PM's pen is to jump out of his hand and stab him in the neck.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
Email
It's quite interesting, because one of the imaginary parts of our constitution is the requirement on government to observe the Treaty. If the government wanted to, it could revert to treating it as a "mere nullity".
You would have thought the Maori Party might be a bit more vigilant about constitutional matters. But hey, those BMWs sure are comfy.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Sacha,
Email
But closer to Italy or Greece. It's entirely possible that if and when the Chinese economy crashes, the NZ financial system is going to come under a lot of stress, and a government might feel justified in extraordinary measures to restore "stability".
The CERA law could be seen as just a dry run in that context.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Fooman,
Email
Any idea where and what? I know about various cases where a *state* governor or a colonial governor has vetoed something, either because it's ultra vires or simply because Britain (or Canada/Australia) didn't want it.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Email
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.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Email
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.