Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Interesting news http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10886031
I think the activity that various people upthread 8 months ago considered unthinkable *was* actually happening.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to TristanEgarr,
I'm interested to know why it isn't a breach of privilege to expect members to vote on material that has been shared with some but not all of them. I guess that it isn't a breach if the majority (and the partisan Speaker) say it isn't.
-
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,
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,
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,
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,
"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,
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,
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,
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.