A good Green bill
September 2nd, 2010 at 3:45 pm by David FarrarI have advocated for some time that the requirement for the Attorney-General to advise the House if a bill breaches the Bill of Rights, should be expanded so that such opinions are not just given for first readings, but also at second and third readings.
Keith Locke has a bill, which will do effectively that and more. I hope it gets drawn and referred to a select committee. The PR says:
It will require all legislation to be checked for consistency with the Bill of Rights, and it will enable Courts to send a report to Parliament where legislation is inconsistent with the Act. The Government will be obliged to respond to such reports.
“The bill will help protect our rights, by making it harder for a government to ignore conflicts between its legislation and the Bill of Rights Act,” said Mr Locke, Green party human rights spokesperson.
“My bill requires vetting of legislation for consistency with the Bill of Rights at all stages of the parliamentary process.
There is one aspect I am not sure about:
The bill also entrenches the Bill of Rights Act, by requiring a 75% majority of the House to change it.
It should only be entrenched if 75% of Parliament vote for it to be so. A basic majority should not be able to require a super-majority to over-turn it.
Related posts:
- Locke retires
- The Electoral Finance Bill and the Bill of Rights
- A near naked Green MP
- Bill of Rights report on the Lobbying Disclosure Bill
September 2nd, 2010 at 3:51 pm
There is no such thing as a good Green bill.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 3:57 pm
If Locke is citing the Bill of Rights as a good thing to entrench further then there must be plenty wrong with it…. bing bing bing… warning bells
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 4:03 pm
It should only be entrenched if 75% of Parliament vote for it to be so. A basic majority should not be able to require a super-majority to over-turn it.
Standing Order 262 provides for this.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 4:09 pm
So Komarade Locke (no doubt ably assisted by the usual suspects) proposes to enshrine the Bill of Rights – interesting. What is more interesting is that those who yell and scream in favour of such a ‘Bill are invariably those who ignore it the most – or manipulate it for their own purposes. The old rhyme about going softly and catching monkeys comes to mind.
Vote:Methinks that socialsts (both Green and Red) and rust are good companions . . .
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Judges in various countries have refused to acknowledge entrenchment where the entrenchment was done by less than the super majority which would be required to overturn the entrenchment. Moreover the entrenchment clause needs itself to be entrenched (‘double entrenchment’) otherwise the entrenchment clause can be repealed by a simple majority.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Fifteen years after the drafting of the US Constitution, amendments known as the Bill of Rights were ratified and the men who wrote it believed in a balance between citizen responsibilities and citizen rights.
They knew that an emphasis only on rights would inevitably lead to self-interest and anarchy. They also knew that without this balance a nation could not endure.
Keith, how about proposing NZ’s own “Bill of Responsibilities”? for example (pinched from the Internet):
- You have the responsibility to support yourself and your own immediate and extended family.
- You have the responsibility to be educated and informed. A public education is not enough.
- Accepting citizenship means that you are, first and foremost, a New Zealander, not a hyphenated New Zealander or an expatriate of another country who is here solely for economic advantage.
- You have the responsibility to speak up when the criminal or legislative actions of any persons threaten the welfare of your family or your nation. It is not someone else’s responsibility to blow the whistle; it is yours.
- You have the responsibility to bypass excuses of race, economic standing, and victimisation of any kind because, no matter which excuse you choose, someone has successfully overcome it.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 5:21 pm
What is more interesting is that those who yell and scream in favour of such a ‘Bill are invariably those who ignore it the most – or manipulate it for their own purposes.
In that case Act will be screaming in favour of this Bill.
“Alter the Bill of Rights Act. We’ve got too hung up on people’s rights.”
Vote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10559642
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:42 pm
..is an oxymoron?
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 5:52 pm
The blog needs you! Volunteers please for dangerous mission!
We are forming a snatch squad to grab blogster/statistician David Farrar.
The task is to rescue him from a crazed socialist cult and deprogramme him. Urgent rescue and therapy needed as Farrar is showing signs of extreme disorientation. He is praising ex-Stalinist Keith Locke as well as leftists Mikhail Khullen and Dim Bulger.
Help us rescue this well-known blogster from this sad mental incarceration.
Experience with serving alcohol and ability to hold it are required for this mission.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Chris2
All of your points.
Questlove
Good point, unfortunately what do we do about terrorists in action, let them live or kill them so they can’t ACT?
Jack5
Vote:Good idea, I can supply excellent curry (with side veggie curries) cooked to order!
Would recommend a Fontanel/Gertzentreimer or/and good beers with accompanying dhals and breads.
What’s his schedule next week so we can plan the kidnap
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:50 pm
I don’t think this Blog is being run by DPF anymore. He is being held in a jail somewhere in Europe and the Communists have taken over the best NZ Blog.
Vote:September 2nd, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives:
EDIT: oh wait – beaten to it by I/S.
Vote:September 3rd, 2010 at 7:38 am
The devil is in the deail no doubt. Treat anything the Greens offer up as suspicious.
Vote: