End the reign of King Gerry I
September 28th, 2010 at 12:44 pm by David FarrarAndrew Geddis blogs a letter from 27 legal scholars expressing concern over the powers granted to the Executive under the Canterbury Response and Recovery Earthquake Act.
The authors are:
Professor Stuart Anderson, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Mark Bennett, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Malcom Birdling, Keble College, University of Oxford.
Joel Colon-Rios, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Richard Cornes, School of Law, University of Essex.
Trevor Daya-Winterbottom, Faculty of Law, University of Waikato.
Professor John Dawson, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Richard Ekins, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Associate Prof. Andrew Geddis, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Claudia Geiringer, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Kris Gledhill, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Professor Bruce Harris, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Professor Mark Henaghan, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Dr John Hopkins, Law School, University of Canterbury.
John Ip, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Carwyn Jones, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Dean Knight, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Prof. Elizabeth McLeay, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Steven Price, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Vernon Rive, Law School, Auckland University of Technology.
Mary-Rose Russell, Law School, Auckland University of Technology.
Katherine Sanders, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Dr Rayner Thwaites, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Professor Jeremy Waldron, New York University School of Law.
Ceri Warnock, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Nicola Wheen, Faculty of Law, Univerity of Otago.
Hanna Wilberg, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Maxim Institute has also endorsed the letter.
My view is that it is desirable for Parliament to amend the Act in say two or three months time. By then it should be clear which acts may need to be amended by order-in-council, and the CERR Act can be changed so that it only applies to a small number of specified acts, rather than to every act (bar five) in New Zealand.
The list of signatories is impressive, with no less than seven law professors. I would make the point that it would perhaps carry more weight if they had also obtained signatures from lawyers outside the universities. A few senior partners from the big law firms would make it harder to dismiss as just “academics”, as would the senior officers of the Law Society?
Doesn’t the Law Society have a rule of law committee? I’d like to hear their view on the law. People should debate this issue – not because there is a risk that King Gerry I is going to declare martial law, but because of the precedent it does set for future disasters.
I think the One News poll had 89% approval (a staggering figure) of the Government’s response to the earthquake. This shows that the public like the fact the Government has put such emphasis on the earthquake recovery. But that doesn’t mean it would still not be a good idea to narrow the scope of the CERR Act in the not so distant future.
Related posts:
- Otago Foreign Policy School
- Electoral Funding Issues Seminar
- Auckland v Christchurch on quake law
- The earthquake recovery tsar
September 28th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
The whole damn lot of them are academics, and only ONE from Canterbury.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
I want to know what the 6% who thought the government’s response was poor were whinging about – or was their a statistical blip of Standard authors? I have no doubt recriminations and complaints will come but fairly hard to fault the response to date (probably a fairer question is did the government do anything not expected of an incumbent). I would also like to know what rock the 5% of don’t knows were hiding under.
I see only one signatory from University of Canterbury.
That said I think it should be an active priority to revise the legislation – certainly to beat the sunset clause although not sure if 2 or 3 months is fair – you have to remember that the EQ is still going on. Must be around 1200 aftershocks. Not necessarily causing more damage but they are preventing some recovery work as I understand it. And if and when the 6 that is due hits that will be another round of damage and assessments. In otherwords perhaps wait until the disaster finishes before starting the clock.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
And 0.005% of those would have understood the significance of Canterbury Response and Recovery Earthquake Act, ergo the 89% figure is meaningless in the context of support for the Act.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Clearly the public support what the Act is intended to accomplish. Those academics should get their heads out of their [books] and realise that the ability to act decisively in a crisis is a sign of good government. Legislation that supports that is to be applauded not decried.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
That’s right. It’s quite possible that most people think the government response has been good overall, but many may still question the wisdom of the wide scope of the act. It’s good that the act is not being abused, but the potential and the precedent are valid concerns.
I don’t see any problem with academics pointing this out, it’s good for them to highlight something of this importance.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
@bhudson – a tank supports my desire to pop down to the shops to buy some milk. It doesn’t mean it’s the right vehicle though.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
This issue again strongly underpins the need and urgency to have a written and robust constitution, which would prevent precisely the problems as pointed out by these academics.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
dimmocrazy “This issue again strongly underpins the need and urgency to have a written and robust constitution”
ABSOLUTELY spot on!
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
True, but then lawyers outside the universities live in the real world and have paying clients and other economic activities to attend to
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
27 school teachers don’t like God Gerry.
Tough.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
krazykiwi “@bhudson – a tank supports my desire to pop down to the shops to buy some milk.”
Fantastic! Imagine having your own tank! We’d wite that in the constituation as well…but only if run on biofuel and only if used in a politically-sensitive way…under guidance of course of a committee consisting of Maori, wheel-chair-ridden lesbians and anyone on a benefit.
Vote:Let’s get real-the earth shook, everyone got nervous and the gumint (over)reacted. As long as Canterbury gets the help it requires, who cares. It is not as if Gerry has declared an independent republic and rounded up all the good looking women as breeding stock
September 28th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Are the overseas academics NZers too…? If not, who cares what they think?
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Yes.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
I want to know what the 6% who thought the government’s response was poor were whinging about
I remember that 3% thought the french nuclear testing was a good idea… no matter what the question, someone will disagree with it!
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Doesn’t this Act, and the support for it, just align so well with Matthew Palmer’s characteristics of NZers, and why we don’t really support rule of law.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
You can count me among the 6% who think the government has mishandled this by badly overreacting. No more than one in sixteen, apparently, find it distasteful to watch an organisation so blatantly take advantage of a natural disaster to grab gobs more power for itself.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Obviously, the ivory towers that they occupy were well engineered and were quite unaffected by the earthquake. I wonder if their position would have been different had they been left with no homes, no place of employment, no prospect of income and an extremely long waiting list ahead of them?
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Why now is all I can say.
These people care about freeedom then where have they been for the last three decades?
They run their universities like miniature models of the Soviet Union.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
27 School teachers sign a rote letter, well big fucking deal really.
They will all be able to email each other how they are still at the fore front of the protest movement.
If these guys were any good they would all be in commercial law billing 2 k an hour and paying an extortionent amount of income tax, ( if they are any good they won’t be and good on them, the government just wastes it.)
Why would anyone be impressed by this ?
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Hilarious seeing how the usual suspects handle their ideological dilemma, academics criticising too much government power.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
I understand Napier was rebuilt under instruction of one Engineer and one lawyer., so Gerry’s committee of six seems appropriate. I see these under-employed academics only managed to include one outside pinhead, from ESSEX of all places..The legal world since Dicken’s day has been built on circumlocution, procrastination, and extortion. The nerve of the Government in trying to avoid imposing that further misery on the people of Christchurch.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
To reinforce GPT1′s point that this was not just one shake with everything since being calm and normal, check out the McQ!een’s Valley Drum showing the last 24 hours. http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/drums/mqz-drum.html
Vote:I was in ChCh for 3 days last week and couldn’t get away ffrom the shakes quick enough, but then I suppose it is easy to sit in glorious isolation elewhere and pontificate.
September 28th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
I am fascinated that as keen an observer as DPF behaves so naively on this issue yet I am pleased he raises it for discussion on this blog. Yes, he’s a supporter of this current Government, but what if that Government were to suddenly do something many of us didn’t like – constitutionally, what’s left to stop it?
I’m sure the supporters of the Khymer Rouge and Fidel Castro thought they were backing a benevolent regime to begin with. I imagine that it was only when those regimes started doing strange things that those supporters realised they’d helped create something they couldn’t stop.
Let’s hope thing episode passes without any problems and it introduces a greater consciousness of the need for constitutional safeguards in the forthcoming debate on republicanism.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Also, I don’t see why people are so worried that the list is composed of academics. Of course, lawyers in business have to respond to their clients. Why would they have any desire to involve themselves in this debate unless one of their clients wanted it?
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
The list is impressive enough that I hope the government takes notice. These people are not asking for more money from the state, but a reduction in the powers of the state. That has my full support.
If National really believes laws stand in the way of getting things done in this country, maybe they should have a look at the laws like the RMA they themselves have introduced.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
krazykiwi,
A nice analogy. I wouldn’t mind too much – all the plonkers that currently get in my way, wouldn’t. I doubt that road rage [of others] would be much of a problem either… But I digress.
I also said in my email “the ability to act decisively in a crisis is a sign of good government”
The Act allows decisive action to be taken without being lost in a maze of red tape, turf protection and general bureaucratic inertia. That is good legislation.
Parliament (actually govt of the day + supporters of the day) already have the power to be as dictatorial as they like, on anything they like. They can legislate all of the power and dictatorship they might desire at any time – they always have been able to. All it takes is the willpower, the numbers in the House, and using urgency to ram it through.
Better to have this capability in place before the next crisis than risk them running about like a bunch of headless chickens, wringing their hands, making noises and achieving nothing. The response this time was great – a good thing to give them the power to be able to do it again in the future
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Yes there is a rule of law committee, or at least there was when I was doing Law Society stuff. I could never work out what they did what they did so didn’t pay much attention to them.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I see these under-employed academics only managed to include one outside pinhead, from ESSEX of all places.
If by one, you mean three, and by ESSEX, you mean Essex, Oxford, and NYU, yes.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
@bhudson – I too am glad that the government has stepped up and moved decisively. I have quite a few immediate family in Christchurch and they’re pleased with the practical response. My concern is the sledgehammer to crack a nut approach, which may have some humour when applied to using tanks to go shopping, but absolutely none when it comes to government granting themselves more absolute power.
I don’t for a minute believe there weren’t alternative legislative approaches that could have been taken, and I’m concerned that the bar for re-introducing this type of response will be lower next time, and the time after etc.
To those who say “Look, it’s been handled very responsibly” I counter with another analogy: I don’t leave my house unlocked because it’s never been burgled. Similarly we shouldn’t be willing to drop constitutional safeguards just because they haven’t been abused.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Krazykiwi has already pointed out ow erroneous this reasoning is, David. You’re a professional statistician FGS… are you prepared to throw your credibility on the government’s bonfire so readily?
The public’s reasoning would have gone like this: “My god an earthquake!! The government must do something!! That’s ‘something’! Ergo it’s good”.
“National good, Labour merely potential dictators in waiting”? It may all look benign now, but wait till things in Christchurch have markedly improved, and see how readily King Gerry I and his court relinquish the power.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
I do not believe this power will be abused, on this occasion. And the Govt was right to do at least some of what the Act has done.
But the academics have a point, which some of their critics should pay more heed to: As Berend says: “These people are not asking for more money from the state, but a reduction in the powers of the state. That has my full support.”
Now that there is time to give more detailed consideration, the Govt should tweak the law so that the emergency powers are only what are really needed, and no more. That will stand us in good stead next time, and reduce the scope for some future Govt (of whatever political stripe) seizing more power than it should for a more dubious purpose.
The National Govt and the academics are BOTH right. And the best course now is for the Govt to act as DPF recommends and scale back the powers it has granted itself.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
This just goes to show that we have only check on Government power in NZ is morality of those at the top. Even in the scaling back of powers, that latent ability to increase them is always there. That more than what has happened because of the earthquake is very worrying to me.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Lucia Maria, I agree that the grab of power demonstrated by the earthquake response is very worrying. I think that, in the face of the latent ability you mention, it would be very foolhardy to rely solely on politicians’ morality.
Hope is not lost, though: the debate about constitutionalism (that will hopefully come with the push towards republicanism) will be a great place for a discussion about whether a greater check on power is needed than just politicians’ morality.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
@ mjwilknz and lucia, politicians morality is a contradiction in terms if there ever was one. To suggest that such morality could provide any safeguard to abuse of power in the absence of robust and constitutional limits is naive in the extreme (insert references to Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Fidel, Hitler, Mao etc here).
Vote:The general response to this post and the personal heckling of the academics that point to the very dangerous precedent that has now been set really should be cause for the gravest concern. It seems apparent that the some of the great unwashed that have been commenting here on the authority or motives of these (mostly quite distinguished) scholars are clearly unable to even comprehend the issues involved. As one commenter remarked, one would almost come to believe that New Zealanders are not very supportive of the idea of rule of law, and are quite happy to abolish the already severely depleted constitutional structures that are in place here. The level of ignorance on display does not bode well for the future.
September 28th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Dimmocrazy, have another read of my comment if you please; I simply said it would be very foolhardy to rely solely on politicians’ morality. An awful lot of leaders have demonstrated just how foolhardy it is, some of whom you’ve mentioned.
The great unwashed you refer to are just people going about their everyday business; of course, they have little reason to study constitutionalism. Instead, they look to their leaders and their leaders should look to academics such as those who have complained. It is our leaders we now look to – if we can get jolly Labour off the subject of making fresh fruit GST-free and onto more pressing issues such as this, so much the better.
Personally, I am unconcerned about the comments on here – this is just a blog, for pete’s sake – I am much more worried about our leaders’ response to the legal academics’ concerns. There is still time for them to respond: the forthcoming debate on constitutionalism the country will need to have. Let us hope we can muck through ’til then.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Ben – at least I got an answer. Not entirely convinced that is fair although I guess there is an element of politics in the answer to the question of what would have happened if Key had gone to Bamoral and the government had not reacted as it did – especially given the media coverage. On the subtantive issue of over reaction I am not so sure. That Saturday seemed like a pretty reasonable excuse for a civil emergency to me even if the majority of damage was minor and there were no deaths. Then again the only reason I can use the word majority it because of the scale of the damage city wide. I doubt the home and business owners who now have a rubble park consider the EQ was minor. Majority of the city with out power or water for a period of time – some still without water or proper sewage tends to support fairly major disaster.
I would agree that the majority of the city (except the flat bits) is now up and running and despite the aftershocks for most of us it isn’t that bad. Although try telling that to people who have to rely on porta loos. I think your criticism is harsh.
David – another site worth checking out is this one http://quake.crowe.co.nz/QuakeMap/Single/?Index=0 – identifies the epicentre down to the house on occasions.
Berend – nice point about the fact that, for once, its not a demand on the government for more money.
I agree that the matter should be monitored closely but I strongly suspect that without this legislation we’d be in the ludicrous position of having to remain in a state of emergency (one of the few good side effects is that things actually get done – seal that road – done – no traffic management plans, no OSH inspections, cars just go around the big trucks. Not that hard).
To be fair we’re not quite at the point of Abe Lincoln suspending habeous corpus and he’s revered for bringing freedom to the slaves and winning the Civil War. That said, vigilence is warranted.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
@mjwilknz: I didn’t intend to express that you were in favor of using politicians’ morality as a final and ultimate safeguard, and your comment of course stated precisely that.
I am less confident that the fact that this is merely a blog should remove concern, after all, what we have here is a nice sample of misunderstanding, as well as a demonstration of the (lack of) substantial argument in lieu of personal attack and vilification. I am very afraid that the debate we must have will not actually eventuate or be restricted to sound bites and simplifications such as the color of the flag or the future of the monarchy and other trivialities that completely miss the core issues at stake.
There is some dangerous precedent also in your use of the word “leaders”, an expression that is increasingly used by those in receipt of some political power, even including the dimwits seeking local office. Not until we abolish the notion that politicians are ‘leaders’ by virtue of their election will we be truly able to have a constitutional debate.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Looking down the list the governments actions are obviously the right ones,
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
GPT1, at least when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, his decisions were still subject to the interpretation of the U.
Vote:S. courts. I am no legal expert and I’m sure it’s very debatable, but there must be the argument that, in this country in 2010, we have gone quite beyond what Lincoln did in 1861!
September 28th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Alas this list of academics would also argue that if the mad Iranian Leader unleashed a stockplie of nukes then before the intended target could respond the letter of the law MUST be satisified even if that meant the strike occurred before the relevant legislative authority had met debated discussed and determined the lawfully prescribed response or enacted the appropriate legislation in order to deal with the situation.
I rest my case
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Dimmocrazy, a thoughtful and mature reply. My apologies that I had earlier misunderstood you. Yes, this blog may represent a small sample of peoples’ understanding, but I still don’t see it as overly important. If this blog had existed in 1983, I doubt we would have seen any hint in its comments of the momentous break from NZ’s post-war history that was just around the corner.
In that sense, I do see our elected (national) politicians as leaders because they are the ones who offer different political alternatives to the general public. The NZ public affirmed its leaders’ post-84 decisions when it re-elected them in 1987. I would agree that leaders aren’t leaders by election, but I see them as leaders by their ongoing public support; the extent of that support shows how much they can be seen as leaders (hence local government politicians are likely to be less deserving of the term).
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
lastmanstanding suggests:
You’re suggesting they’re successful in making the trains run on time? Well then, a small price to pay for a complete abolition of the rule of law.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Lastmanstanding, have you ever been to Zimbabwe or Cambodia or Iran or North Korea? No, how about any country where the rule of law has been or is not always abided by – maybe somewhere in Eastern Europe? If so, how’d you find the locals there? Suspicious? Fearful? Funny how not having law to rely on makes people so uncertain, eh?
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Folks, take a look out the window. This isn’t Iran. or Cambodia. Or Zimbabwe, North Korea or Eastern Europe.
To raise potential risks is, generally speaking, all well and good, but this furore has descended into ‘the art of the hypothetical’.
lastmanstanding – a good analogy for the opposite end of the spectrum from “they have completely destroyed the fabric of society” argument
The anti argument is flawed from my perspective as it seeks to elevate the ‘sanctity of the process’ above common sense and pragmatism – things that are required to manage/do anything properly, as opposed to endlessly talking about how things should be done and never actually getting them done
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
1. Acting decisively is great… but sometimes regulations and safeguards are there for a reason. When they get taken away bad things inadvertently happen… leaky home anyone?
2. No one is disputing the need to act exceptionally in exceptional circumstances. The experts in constitutional law are agreeing with that. They’re just saying the reaction went a step too far and needs to be corrected. Precedent gets used and the path to misery is paved with good intentions… Remember Hitler… he was pretty decisive & had to act exceptionally in exceptional circumstances.
3. The fact someone spends a chunk of their lives researching and studying how the law effects society, what the long term implications of law change are and why we have the safeguards we do may, just may, make them qualified to warn us of things we should be concerned about. Ignoring a problem and saying it wont happen to us is not a good way to live your life… anyone remember 9/11? They never thought it would happen them… Anyone noticed the mass murder often gets described as “not being the type” or a “nice-guy” by his neighbours.
Stop complaining that someone is standing up and calling the government to account. The fact is they over reacted, ignored what advice was available and stuffed up. Simply make a few amendments, and be prepared like the rest of us, to come into work urgently if required and everyones happy and safe.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
@bhudson: Zimbabwe wasnt “Zimbabwe” a half a generation ago. Had good friends that grew up there and it was a pretty peaceful nice place to live. They wont go back for fear of their lives now. Wrong person gets in power and it all turns to shit. Don’t assume it will never happen here.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
bhudson, I agree that this isn’t Iran or any of those countries. What I am concerned about is the risk that our Government could descend to similar depths as theirs already have!
Are you (or anyone else) arrogant enough to believe that we’re somehow better and that that won’t happen to us? Try reading a bit more about the rise of the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia or of the Nazis in Germany! We have little more than some concerned legal academics, who many are now complaining about, and some threadbare reliance on public opinion that are (for now) preventing us from turning that way. Many are warning of the possible outcomes here; you would do well to slow down and have a listen.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Where were these self important plonkers when the bloody socialists were perpetrating:
Vote:The attack onfree speach.
Illegal election spending.
Buying a third term.
Supporting an MP who was subsequently convicted of fraud.
Supporting WRP’s various rorts.
Buying a vastly over priced train set on the cusp of an election they were clearly going to lose.
Appointing a speaker who was not only completely incompetent but partisan in the best Gilbert and Sullivan tradition except it wasn’t entertaining.
And all the other actions that trampled on citizens rights for an open democracy.
Oh hang on they were the true socialists wern’t they, it not a center right government trying to deal with the greatest economic, social and traumatic challenge in my lifetime most of which I have lived in Canterbury.
The comment on the reconstruction of Napier and the rest of Hawkes Bay is entirely valid.
How would those posers survive if they were cast out in the real world, oh of course they could all be Labour party candidates couldn’t they, Tossers all
September 28th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Mjwilknz,
What is overweeningly arrogant is to accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with you as not listening.
The pulses that are racing are perhaps those of the people decrying the end of our democracy. Perhaps they could slow down and notice that our little part of the world is not falling apart.
JayMal – the statement about overacting is an opinion not fact. You are entitled to yours; others are entitled to theirs
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
@bhudson:
Sorry… but suspending the crimes act in respect of crimes in Auckland on the basis that there has been an earthquake in Christchurch is a massive overreaction. That, like it or not, is a fact.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
bhudson, I wasn’t accusing you of arrogance because you weren’t agreeing with me, I was accusing you of it because you were dismissing potential alternatives as being different to NZ. If you had said, “yes, while NZ might turn out like Iran and North Korea, I believe it won’t because of a, b and c.” If you’d said that you would have been disagreeing me and it would have been improper for me to call you arrogant. Instead, you said, “Folks, take a look out the window. This isn’t Iran…” I stand by my statement that that is arrogance!
I agree with KK, the Act does look like an obvious overreaction. If you want to view as otherwise, please suggest wy?
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Prof Jeremy Waldron from NYU (a kiwi from Otago) is viewed as the leading expert in the US on the ‘rule of law’. I would be much more interested in his view than some overstuffed law firm partner or worse still a pleb from the Law Society whose so called ‘rule of law’ committee has given up trying to decide what ‘rule of law’ means.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
mjwilknz,
The why is bleeding obvious to those who are not of a mind to over dramatise some purely hypothetical outcome of the legislation. They have enacted it. They haven’t abused it. It is, in fact, that simple.
Those who continue to focus on what could possibly happen neglect to consider that even if this Act were repealed they could just as easily enact another one in the future. So to remove this Act doesn’t actually remove the threat they perceive. At most it just means one night to assemble the numbers in the House, claim urgency and ram another, similar piece of legislation through.
To limit or repeal this piece of legislation doesn’t actually curb the potential powers, and therefore potential risk at all. It merely gives the appearance of it.
That is why, if anything, it is absolute ignorance to think that repealing this Act actually provide some real measure of safeguard.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
ummmm, the “rule of law” is measured by a bullshit metre.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Dammit, this business of doing what 89% of the people approve of, it’s just,…just UNDEMOCRATIC !!!!
Where were these law professors when Labour was spending 800,000 illegally and restroactively legalising it ? If they had nothing to say then, they can fuck right off now.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Do any of the above academic learned types know how to use a shovel and pick? Lots of cracks need filling, as I’d hate big Gerry to fall into a large hole.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
If big Gerry fell down one of the quake cracks all the Kings Men wouldn’t be able to help him.No crane built could possibly haul such tonnage.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Did any of these academic fuckers worry about the loss of our constitutional rights at the Privy Council?
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
@PIA – Please show me where 89% of NZ citizens approved the overriding of the Crimes Act and the scope for judicial review of Executive Orders? Claiming that 89% of NZers approve of this would be like having the same percentage applaud Fiji as a holiday destination being seen a endorsement of an invasion.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
@bhudson – So what you’re arguing is that because the door to executive excess is slightly ajar, on account of the government ‘getting the numbers’ and ramming legislation though.. that we should be unconcerned that the door has been thrown open by this legislation? C’mon… If something is broken we fix it, rather than normalize it by increasing the scope of the fault.
The opt-repeated cry that “it’s all ok, no dodgy Exec Order has been actioned” is just nuts. Seriously. I challenge anyone who feels this way, and who has never been burgled, to permanently leave their house unlocked as there is clearly no risk.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
kk try reading the article at the top of the thread. Which part of “89% approve of the Government’s response to the earthquake” was too complicated for you ? Your absurd non-sequitur about Fiji makes no sense whatever. Must try harder.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
It was disingenuous to put that approval figure of 89% in the context of the CRREA, the 2 are not relative.
The 89% poll in question was carried out BEFORE the CRREA was mooted. To get accurate feedback on the populations’ view on this legislation you need to ask a question specifically about it. I approved of the Govt’s response to the earthquake, I don’t approve of the emergency legislation.
Vote:Reminds me of the US Patriot Act, an overreaction if ever there was one.
September 28th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
@PIA – Thanks for the advice. I read DPF post and commented #3 on the thread. So I have – I think – a good grasp on this discussion.
To your comment:
So… you’re saying that 89% approval of the government response to the earthquake equates to 89% of the population agreeing to override/suspend the Crimes Act and remove the right for judicial challenge?
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
krazykiwi,
The point to my last piece was you can’t actually fix it. You can put a band aid over your psyche and try to pretend the problem has been removed by repealing this particular Act, but it doesn’t stop it happening again. At any time.
The door to executive excess has always been ajar and it will likely always remain so.
To use your analogy, you can lock your door but its a fool’s protection when they have the ability to whip up a skeleton key very easily.
Someone earlier suggested a written consitution, which could be a way to immprove the safeguarding, but such a consitutional change is not on the current or planned legislative programme and is therefore as hypothetical as the democratic doomsday predictions.
(I also maintain I don’t believe it is necessary, but I also acknowledge that is only my personal opinion and it has all the weight of a single vote.)
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
@bhudson – Fair enough. We’re pretty much in agreement on this. That said I’m not sure we (citizens) should accept that executive excess is uncorrectable. Not sure what the answer is – an upper house? Switzerland’s 100-day rule? There must be others.
Vote:September 28th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
And anyway, we all know from bitter experience that the Government (whatever the colour) NEVER does what 89% of the population approve of, in fact history shows they often do the opposite.
Vote:September 30th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Doesn’t the Law Society have a rule of law committee?
FWIW at this point in the thread, the law soc response released last night:
Vote:http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1009/S00365/law-society-comments-on-canterbury-earthquake-act.htm