Geddis cries foul

May 20th, 2013 at 10:53 am by David Farrar

at Pundit blogs:

You might need a moment to let the implications of this sink in. By passing this law, Parliament is telling the judicial branch that it is not allowed to look at a Government policy (not, note, an Act of Parliament) in order to decide whether it is in breach of another piece of legislation enacted by Parliament (the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990). In other words, the judiciary’s primary function – to declare the meaning of law and its application in particular cases – has been nullified. Furthermore, the judiciary’s role as protector of individual citizens in terms of ensuring that they are being treated in accordance with the laws of the land has been removed. While the stakes may be small in the immediate case, this is about as big a deal as it gets in terms of our constitution.

Now, I sort of get why Tony Ryall (the Minister in charge of this bill) wanted to do this. Trying to come up with a policy on who does and doesn’t get money here is probably pretty complicated. And health dollars are a finite resource – everything that is paid over to family caregivers means less services somewhere else. So having the threat of the judiciary coming into this mix and upsetting whatever compromises he comes up with over the next few months when he finalises the family care policies would be a real pain in the backside. You can even argue, as does Attorney General Chris Finlayson in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment (which I’ll get to in a moment) that the courts were wrong to intervene in the first place.

After the court decisions, the Government decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court  and pay family members who care for disabled members of their own family. The Budget provided funding to do this.

I am one of those who have some disquiet that we have introduced a precedent of paying people to care for their own family members, but the courts ruled that if you can pay someone else to be the carer, then the parents should get paid also.

So as Geddis said, working out who qualifies in caring for a family member is complex. How do you define what level of diability etc. But is the Govt’s response appropriate? The Attorney-General said:

Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.

Geddis concludes:

And yet this declaration itself was not enough to stop the National Government using its numbers in the House to rush this Bill through all stages of lawmaking and onto the statute books in a single day.

So there you have it – another day in the life of the Government of the nation and the laws made by the Parliament it commands.

I think we could have a good debate about whether this policy should or should not be reviewable by the courts. But the point is we are not getting to have that debate. By passing the bill through all three stages under , it means the debate never got held.

The bill should have gone to select committee, so submissions could be held on whether the law change was reasonable, in exchange for the funding now granted by the Government and Parliament.

National’s use of urgency has been very restrained for the last two years. In fact they have not gone into urgency at all since August 2011, until this month. That is a probably a record. Of course the provision for extending sitting hours helps.

The urgency for the GCSB bill was fine with me, as the urgency applied to the first reading only. It has been referred to a select committee.

Some of the bills passed through all three stages after the Budget were appropriate to do so, such as the petrol tax hike which was announced a long time ago, and excise tax increases never go to select committee (I think). The fix to the Crown Minerals Bill was also arguably okay, as it was just fixing a drafting error.

But I can’t see any reason for this bill not to have gone to select committee. Urgency should not have been used to pass it through all its stages. The clauses to remove the ability of the courts to review the policy should be submitted on and debated – even if it delayed the implementation of the payments to parents as caregivers.

 

Tags: ,

70 Responses to “Geddis cries foul”

  1. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    Keith Ng is somewhat less polite than Andrew Geddis:

    In the GCSB case, they did something illegal, then just changed the law to make it legal (which is already quite a large crazy basket of NOT OKAY). Here, they’re doing something which was against the Human Rights Act before, and is still against the Human Rights Act after, but just made sure the people on the receiving end can’t have their legal rights recognised or enforced.

    It’s saying, sure, the Government’s doing something illegal to you, but it’s okay, because we just made a law to say there’s nothing you can do about it. Lolz!

    Well, it’s not okay. It’s not okay that human rights promised by law are not honoured because it costs money. It’s not okay that due processes promised by the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply because the Government says it doesn’t apply. It’s not okay that advice about how Parliament is about to piss all over the rule of law (at least I assume that’s what the legal advice says, because we can’t see it) is denied to Parliament. It’s not okay that saying “Budget, Budget, Budget” means that the Government can bypass all the checks and balances of Parliament itself and just put itself above the law overnight.

    NOT. FUCKING. OKAY.

    I agree. This is outrageous.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    Oops, forgot to include the link to Keith Ng’s post: http://publicaddress.net/onpoint/what-andrew-geddis-said-but-shorter-and-with/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. flipper (3,847 comments) says:

    The problem really boils down to this:

    Who determines how taxes and/or borrowings are to be spent?

    Is it the Government (Executive supported by a majority in the Parliament),
    or
    The Judiciary?

    If it was intended that the Judiciary should determine how taxes/borrowings were to be spent, why would we :

    a. Have an appointed Judicial system,
    and
    b. Have an elected parliamentary system

    The Courts can get stuffed on this issue, and so can Geddis. He is a simple, academic fool who sucks on the taxpayer and obviously believes the supply is unlimited.

    The judiciary should review ONLY the application of the law. They are not appointed to determine matters such as the re-distribution of income.

    Surely Geddis has enough sense to see that the legislation simply makes clear that it is the role of the Government to determine who receives payments under any legislative process?
    Or has his brain been frozen by the Dunedin/Otago weather?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. JC (933 comments) says:

    I certainly understand the quandary Ryall is in because right now ten thousand spouses/partners who look after family members who don’t qualify for this minimum wage are saying “why not me?”

    There is very little difference between a parent receiving the minimum wage to look after a paralysed son and a husband looking after his paralysed wife (and doesn’t qualify).

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. insider (1,032 comments) says:

    The thing I haven’t been able to get about this is, these adults have a right to paid care so why does the government care who provides it? Why are they fighting this so hard? Parents aren’t required to look after adult children, so someone will get paid for the care if parents choose not to, same as elderly parents get care regardless of their children’s income.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Tristan (63 comments) says:

    And Tony Ryall has the gall to crow about it!

    from his twitter…
    @TonyRyallMP
    Tonight NZ becomes only 3rd country in world to pay wages to some family carers of disabled adults. $92m over 4 years.

    and
    ‏@TonyRyallMP
    Wow! Labour and Greens vote against supporting parents who care for adult disabled children. Shameful after all their promises 2000-8!

    yes the opposition voted against you terminating the human rights of a large group of people and then removing thier recourse!…WHAT A DICK!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    Surprisingly perhaps, I’m leaning toward what flipper says.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. metcalph (1,410 comments) says:

    Keith Ng is wrong about the GCSB case. The GCSB actions have not been determined to be illegal. What lawyers have said is that the courts could rule either way on the legality of their actions. Which is bad form for a crown organization but not full-blown illegality.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. AG (1,820 comments) says:

    @flipper,

    The problem really boils down to this:

    Who determines how taxes and/or borrowings are to be spent?

    Is it the Government (Executive supported by a majority in the Parliament),
    or
    The Judiciary?

    The answer is none of the above. It is Parliament, through the budget process. Take a look at the Constitution Act 1986, s.21.

    If it was intended that the Judiciary should determine how taxes/borrowings were to be spent, why would we :

    a. Have an appointed Judicial system,
    and
    b. Have an elected parliamentary system

    We have a judicial system to ensure (amongst other things) that the policies the executive pursues are consistent with the laws as laid out by Parliament. If Parliament wants the executive to spend money in a particular way, it can expressly tell it to do so. But that’s not what is happening here.

    The Courts can get stuffed on this issue, and so can Geddis. He is a simple, academic fool who sucks on the taxpayer and obviously believes the supply is unlimited.

    The judiciary should review ONLY the application of the law. They are not appointed to determine matters such as the re-distribution of income.

    I recognise that taxpayer money is not limitless. But that isn’t the issue here – the issue is that the Governemnt is trying to shield itself when it spends that money in ways that is unlawful. And the courts did ” review ONLY the application of the law”. The NZBORA, s.19 (and the HRA, s.21) are laws, which apply to a Government decision on how to discriminate between those receiving carer payments. If you don’t like these laws, then ask Parliament to repeal them.

    Surely Geddis has enough sense to see that the legislation simply makes clear that it is the role of the Government to determine who receives payments under any legislative process?
    Or has his brain been frozen by the Dunedin/Otago weather?

    It is the role of the Government to determine who receives payments under any legislative process consistent with law. I would have thought this last point mattered quite a lot. And it has actually been very pleasant down this way. And I have a well insulated house with a logburner. But thanks for caring.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Graeme Edgeler (3,277 comments) says:

    Keith Ng is wrong about the GCSB case. The GCSB actions have not been determined to be illegal. What lawyers have said is that the courts could rule either way on the legality of their actions.

    Not in general, but in the Dotcom case in particular, It has been conceded.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Warren Murray (293 comments) says:

    I agree with DF that this issue deserved wider debate and scrutiny at select committee.

    I share some disquiet as to the policy, but more due to its limitations than its scope. I think review at select committee could have considered eligibility criteria. Personally i believe that if a family member sacrifices paid employment and saves the state something by caring for their severely impaired spouse /sibling / child, etc, they deserve some funding.

    It appears that having lost in the courts already, the govt is throwing some crumbs at the litigants, closing the door to new claimants, and bolting it to stop any further litigation.

    Lets have due process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    @metcalph 12:13 pm

    The GCSB have been found to have spied illegally in the Kim Dotcom instance. Key has even apologised for that.

    In the other instances the Inspector-General is still investigating.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. metcalph (1,410 comments) says:

    My remarks were on Keith Ng’s reference to the GCSB law change. To wit

    In the GCSB case, they did something illegal, then just changed the law to make it legal (which is already quite a large crazy basket of NOT OKAY).

    This is not a reference to the Dotcom case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Will de Cleene (485 comments) says:

    Releasing Blacked-up Regulatory Impact Statements to MPs is blantantly “Fuck You”ish as well. There’s not even the pretence of process going on any more.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RJL (145 comments) says:

    Not in general, but in the Dotcom case in particular, It has been conceded.

    True. Also, as the GCSB won’t tell us anything about any of the other cases the obvious conclusion is that they are indeed as guilty as sin in the other cases too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Geddis begins his article with:

    “Our constitutional arrangements work on an implicit bargain – the principle of comity – that the Courts and Parliament don’t mess with each other’s turf. I think that bargain just got broken.”

    The problem is that Geddis got his meaning of comity from an unreliable source, namely the NZ parliament. Not a good look to base your first sentence on the say-so of a bunk of muppets who don’t know the difference between a law and a conspiracy.

    That aside, it’s good to see he and Keith Ng are waking up to the fact that the NZ body politic has certain difficulties (cough) with constitutional principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Lets have due process.

    Due process is a feature of the law of the land, it has nothing to do with parliament’s civil process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    ‘Swung back’ here. AG is absolutely right. The Attorney General has expressed doubts about the legislation, but overall the Government have dressed it up as being ground breaking in recognising that family carers should be paid. However, finally relenting on an issue that was a unfair, shouldn’t be reason for ‘sheeting home’ law that denies due process and the guarantee of the Bill of Rights to a group of fellow nzers.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ,

    Due process doesn’t mean what you think it means. You confusion is understandable, since the NZ parliament misleads people about the nature of the common law.

    lex terre:
    The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, NZ Parliament is the law in this country. It is not bound by other countries laws unless they agree to it.

    It really is that simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Dennis Horne (2,227 comments) says:

    As many will acknowledge I’m sure, I have a handicap. Even so, I’m going to marry myself. I will need lots of money to look after myself, ever so nicely, and cheer me up. Professor Geddis has just given me the brush off on his blog; I’m feeling a bit weepy… :(

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    In your humanist dreams Kea. If it was it wouldn’t have to lie about what the law really is. Or are you going to try again and argue that they didn’t actually lie when they said that common law was nothing more than case law?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Dennis Horne (2,227 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth. Whoever controls the police and the defence forces controls the country until it is invaded by another military power.

    You have whatever freedom Parliament permits you. Homo Sapiens has no rights in the Universe, he’s just another animal on Earth. Stop dreaming.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    ‘Dennis Horne (1,123) Says:
    May 20th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
    As many will acknowledge I’m sure, I have a handicap. Even so, I’m going to marry myself. I will need lots of money to look after myself, ever so nicely, and cheer me up. Professor Geddis has just given me the brush off on his blog; I’m feeling a bit weepy’

    Bad luck Denny old pimple bot, but I’m sure you’ve always realised what a tosser you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne
    Or until the people get tired of all the bullshit and revolt. Police and military control is limited and is dependent upon public cooperation, by fair means or foul.

    Mankind has rights on this planet, and govcorp sometimes counters this by deeming man to be an animal.

    [Wilhelm] Wundt, in the 1870s, advanced the then-radical notion of man as an ‘animal,’ not accountable for his conduct, which was said to be caused entirely by forces beyond his control. According to Wundt’s thinking, in a human being there is nothing there to begin with but a body, a brain, and a nervous system. Therefore, teachers must try to educate a person by inducing sensations in that nervous system. Through these experiences, the individual will learn to respond to any given stimulus, with the ‘correct‘ response. Thus, a child’s actions are thought to be preconditioned and beyond his control, because he is simply a stimulus-response mechanism.

    http://adask.wordpress.com/category/man-or-other-animals/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Dennis Horne (2,227 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. Bad luck Denny old pimple bot, but I’m sure you’ve always realised what a tosser you are.

    You certainly know how to stick the knife in, Nasty Nosty! :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    I think this legislation will most certainly be challenged. Recent examples are Arthur Taylor and the smoking in prison ban, David Bain being ‘handled’ by a irate Minister ‘controlling his rights,’ and today the case (which I’ve yet to read in detail) of the psychiatric patients being denied their choice as to whether to smoke or not. Cumulatively these cases identify the rights of citizens against the ‘rights’ of Parliament to step on those citizen’s rights. It seems that NZers are increasingly looking to identify themselves, and what they understand to be their freedoms and rights, as being distinct from what a Government of the day may decide in rushing a law through after hours. I don’t begrudge families being assisted to look after their own, but seeing others excluded from the same benefits in rushed through laws isn’t constitutional. Nobody cant have a right denied them, or taken away from them at the whim of ‘the king.’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    You’re such a wimp Denny.
    A gutless one at that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Dennis Horne (2,227 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (779) Says: May 20th, 2013 at 8:10 pm. @Dennis Horne. Or until the people get tired of all the bullshit and revolt. Police and military control is limited and is dependent upon public cooperation, by fair means or foul.

    Depends entirely on the size of the Army and the number of civilian arms. You will have noticed the Americans will not surrender their arms. You will have noticed civilians are no longer permitted arms in the UK; even the Olympic pistol team has to train abroad. You will notice Clark bought over 100 armoured vehicles (LAVs) that we cannot use outside NZ. Why did we spend a billion dollars on vehicles we can’t take anywhere?

    I would still be interested in hearing your background, in a general way. I don’t mean to be rude, but I am taking you less and less seriously, and that might be a mistake. Is it? Give us a clue.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    Doing some ‘sister’ stalking Denny?
    Or just fantasising over the ‘Day of the Jackal?’
    Wimps come in all sizes, the ones out west are mostly dwarfs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. smttc (711 comments) says:

    Man, this is such a non issue.

    Parliament can (except in Sir Robin Cooke’s world) pass, revoke or amend any law. That’s what sovereignty actually means.

    If the NZ Parliament states in a statute that the Courts must not question a government policy by reference to NZBORA or HRA then that is the end of the matter. The Courts job is to interpret and apply the law. That is due process. The Courts do not get to bitch or make a contrary finding because Parliament says you will not second guess the executive.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Dennis Horne (2,227 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. You’re not much fun tonight, Nosty, killjoy really. Nothing wimpy about you, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Nobody cant have a right denied them, or taken away from them at the whim of ‘the king.’

    I assume that “cant” is a typo, and the you meant to write “can”.

    Not all rights are the same. There are constitutional rights, contractual rights, and human rights. The first two are real, but human rights are fictions of law. The divine right of kings was never a licence for tyranny.

    Because of their fictional nature human rights can be “allowed” or revoked by whim. If NZers choose to identify themselves as humans then they are in no position to argue about any injustice regarding their rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    Well then it’s sovereignty versus freedom. Sovereignty in a democracy guarantees freedom, fairness and all other things described in our BORA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. exile (34 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne

    We can’t take the LAVs overseas? NZLAVs have been operating in Afghanistan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    You’ve certainly got a big mouth Dennis, nearly as big as your ‘talk.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    The divine right of kings was never a licence for tyranny.

    History FAIL !!! :) :) :)

    UglyTruth you are a nutter. You demolish your own arguments with your crazy statements.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. AG (1,820 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth,

    Geddis begins his article with:

    “Our constitutional arrangements work on an implicit bargain – the principle of comity – that the Courts and Parliament don’t mess with each other’s turf. I think that bargain just got broken.”

    The problem is that Geddis got his meaning of comity from an unreliable source, namely the NZ parliament. Not a good look to base your first sentence on the say-so of a bunk of muppets who don’t know the difference between a law and a conspiracy.

    Oh UglyTruth, your condescending tone would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. The term “principle of comity” to describe the appropriate relationship between the legislative and judicial branch is well established in the public law field. As you would know if you actually had any knowledge of this – like I do. So learn to pick your battles.

    As for getting the meaning from an “unreliable source”, in our discussion on The Standard I cited the use of the phrase by Parliament’s privileges committee purely as evidence of how widely it is used. I didn’t say it came from this source. This, I note, was in response to your reference to an on-line, US focused law dictionary as defining the term’s meaning. So, you know … sources matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Parliament can (except in Sir Robin Cooke’s world) pass, revoke or amend any law. That’s what sovereignty actually means.

    Sovereignty is an abstract concept. All it means when it is applied in a political sense is that there is a single individual (or group) at the top of the heirarchy of power. The only law that a sovereign can make is over his own dominion, a sovereign’s power is not universal. In the context of the NZ parliament, all sovereignty means is that parliament has control over persons, not people in general. Personhood is about legal status, a person has diminished legal status compared to a man.

    For example, the NZ parliament never had dominion over the Maori people after the treaty of Waitangi was signed because the English text misrepresented the meaning of the Maori text. The interpretation favours the Maori people because of the legal doctrine of contra proferentem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    smttc , It is no use. The simple truth is beyond these people. They are so wrong it almost causes me physical pain to read some of their crap. I do enjoy the sheer craziness of their thinking though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Sovereignty is an abstract concept. All it means when it is applied in a political sense is that there is a single individual (or group) at the top of the heirarchy of power.

    You got it !

    What is at the top of the legal system you regard as valid ? I seem to remember it was an unelected dictator King who lived in the eighth century and some god figure from a Middle Eastern desert cult.

    Fuck me :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    Kea kisses the foot of his ‘masters.’ Way to go, enjoy being trampled on.

    As to your invitation, f… yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. AG (1,820 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia NZ,

    I think this legislation will most certainly be challenged.

    But this is different to the examples you cite. Here Parliament has closed off the avenue for challenge, in that it has said to the courts that they cannot examine the executive’s actions (as has occurred in the Taylor/Bain/smoking cases). So, to challenge this legislation you’d have to get a court to say Parliament has acted unlawfully. Which is highly unlikely.

    @smttc,

    What you say is true, in that once Parliament has said this, then the courts must do it. But it ignores the point at issue. Should Parliament have said it in the first place? That is a question of legal/political morality, not a question of legal efficacy. So … do you think Parliament should be saying that the courts cannot look at the actions of Government and assess whether these are consistent with the nation’s laws?

    And please – answer with reference to the upcoming Labour-Green administration and what it may do with respect to imposing regulations on environmentally harmful behaviours.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. smttc (711 comments) says:

    Nosty, bullshit. Sovereignty guarantees nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. smttc (711 comments) says:

    The separation of powers might give you some protections Nosty. But not sovereignty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    Andrew might I dare say calmly, that if the Courts, not Parliament, can’t decide what is lawful – then we are all up the creek.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Oh UglyTruth, your condescending tone would be funny if it weren’t so tragic

    My condescension wasn’t directed at you, Andrew.

    The term “principle of comity” to describe the appropriate relationship between the legislative and judicial branch is well established in the public law field.

    That would be inappropriate, rather than appropriate. The eytomology provides the same meaning as the US source I used previously. The Crown’s modus operandi involves fraud by legalese.

    comity (n.)
    early 15c., “association,” from French comité, from Latin comitas “courtesy, friendliness, kindness, affability,” from comis “courteous, friendly, kind,” of uncertain origin. Meaning “courtesy” in English is from 1540s. Phrase comity of nations attested from 1862: “The obligation recognized by civilized nations to respect each other’s laws and usages as far as their separate interests allow.”

    Comitas I kom:ld:ls I . Lat. Courtesy; civility; comity. An indulgence or favor granted another nation, as a mere matter of indulgence, without any claim of right made. Comitas inter communitates; or comitas inter gentes; comity between communities or nations; comity of nations.

    I cited the use of the phrase by Parliament’s privileges committee purely as evidence of how widely it is used

    OK, my bad for assuming that it was your source.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ , no foot kissing from me. I love folk who challenge authority intelligently. That does not include you poorly informed Freeman-on-the-land [sic] types.

    More like freeman-in-the-cells-for-contempt LOL :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    Go give yourself a kiss on the mirror Kea, just to add to today’s total.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. smttc (711 comments) says:

    See Nosty even Geddis agrees with me. Thank goodness because we are both lawyers :-) albeit I practice and he teaches and writes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Andrew might I dare say calmly, that if the Courts, not Parliament, can’t decide what is lawful – then we are all up the creek.

    Not entirely. The common law has always had provision for a court which is not beholden to foreign interests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Ugly,

    1. What law do you recognise and who granted authority to that source of law ?

    2. How are those laws enforced ?

    3. How can I access those laws, so as not to breach them ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. AG (1,820 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth,

    The etymology you provide perfectly encapsulates the way the term is used in public law parlance. I’m beginning to think you are a little bit crazy.

    @NostalgiaNZ,

    Andrew might I dare say calmly, that if the Courts, not Parliament, can’t decide what is lawful – then we are all up the creek.

    Well – Parliament gets to set the law. But if Parliament says “the law is that the courts cannot look to see if the Government is obeying the law” then yes … we’re at the headwaters of a watercourse.

    @smttc,

    Yes and no. What you say is descriptively accurate. But you prefaced it with “Man, this is such a non issue”, implying that it is perfectly OK for Parliament to legislate in this way. Which you haven’t addressed … is it good that Parliament has told the courts not to look at the legality or otherwise of a government action?

    And as you are a lawyer, think hard about a client who comes to you and says “the local council has refused to allow me planning permission to expand my business premises, but the relevant legislation says that this decision cannot be reviewed in any way.” Do you just shrug and say “tough cheese … that’s the way the law works”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Kea,

    1. I recognise the law of the land. The Creator is the source of authority for that law.

    2. They are natural laws. They are enforced in a similar manner as the law of gravity. Mankind may enforce them, this is a function of the values of society being consistent with nature.

    3. Reason and conscience are the primary tools. The maxims of the common law are useful in this respect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The etymology you provide perfectly encapsulates the way the term is used in public law parlance.

    No, affability/kindness doesn’t describe an implicit bargain, and it doesn’t describe the indulgence of unlawful behaviour between those who are supposed to administer justice and those who are supposed to represent the interests of the body politic.

    I’m beginning to think you are a little bit crazy.

    You wouldn’t be the first. What matters is whether or not what I post is rational.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Kea,

    1. I recognise the law of the land. The Creator is the source of authority for that law.

    2. They are natural laws. They are enforced in a similar manner as the law of gravity. Mankind may enforce them, this is a function of the values of society being consistent with nature.

    3. Reason and conscience are the primary tools. The maxims of the common law are useful in this respect.

    1. I say there is no creator. Others may have a different creator. Why should anyone be bound by your source of law ? You are really just declaring law by fiat and nothing more. I reject your source. You are also demanding people accept YOUR god. Good luck with that !

    2. Those laws are clearly not enforced like gravity. If that were the case then we would not be having this exchange as nothing would have violated those laws. Gravity does not require consent, belief, or any thing else. If the NZ Parliament made a law banning gravity, nothing would change.

    3. Common law is not what you think it is. It is man made law. The only difference is the people making it are not elected representatives.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Dennis Horne (2,227 comments) says:

    exile (22) Says: May 20th, 2013 at 8:38 pm. @Dennis Horne. We can’t take the LAVs overseas? NZLAVs have been operating in Afghanistan.

    Nitpicking. None in Iran. How many in Afghanistan (out over >100)? How did they get there? We have no transport aircraft to take any number anywhere. Most of them have been sitting around here. Why did we buy so many?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Kea,

    1. Because of the truth of the matter. Some (maybe most) people would rather not accept the truth because of the uncomfortable implications. The law doesn’t care what people believe. If there was no Creator then govcorp wouldn’t lie about it in order to assume the role.

    2. They’re not enforced immediately like gravity, but they are eventually, like the saying: what goes around comes around.

    3. We’ve argued this before, and you’ve lost. Your parliament accepts the primary benefit of common law, i.e the privilege of making oath, yet it denies the source of this privilege by lying about its source.

    lex terre:
    The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Well – Parliament gets to set the law. But if Parliament says “the law is that the courts cannot look to see if the Government is obeying the law” then yes … we’re at the headwaters of a watercourse.

    It gets to set the law of persons, nothing more. In my experience the NZ district court will commit fraud and refuse to address the point rather than act against the Crown’s interests by confirming that parliament acts unlawfully.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Uglytruth, your entire argument relies on there being a god who you claim imposes law on all man kind regardless of whether they believe in that god. That is what the fundamentalist Muslims call Sharia law. Gods law and they recognise no other law, just like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Nostalgia-NZ (5,045 comments) says:

    ‘Well – Parliament gets to set the law. But if Parliament says “the law is that the courts cannot look to see if the Government is obeying the law” then yes … we’re at the headwaters of a watercourse.’

    Who could disagree? Only a country living under military rule or a dictatorship. North Korea politics are alive and well in the south seas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Kea, You’re talking shit again, trying to connect a fact of the common law with irrational extremist religious interpretations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Dennis Horne (2,227 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth. Your whole argument is imaginary and justified only by appeal to authority. Anyway, although law may depend on precedent, science does not, and it’s science that gives us our notion of reality, not the law.

    The reason this exclusion is incorporated into the law is to stop lawyers feeding on legal aid to give people “rights” the government does not intend to give them, that is allow them to make demands the government does not intend the taxpayer meeting. No doubt lessons learned from the ACC about creation of “need”. (Including the need for even more lawyers.)

    No doubt someone has noticed how a determined campaign, using smart lawyers, all funded by the taxpayer, can get even a mass murder off and paid up for his crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (789) Says:

    May 21st, 2013 at 8:55 am
    Kea, You’re talking shit again, trying to connect a fact of the common law with irrational extremist religious interpretations.

    I asked who was the legal authority you acknowledge and you replied it was God. That is what Sharia law says. Why is it suddenly irrational when Muslims put YOUR ideas into effect.

    For your position to be valid you must first prove:

    1. There is a God.

    2. That God is the only God and that Gods law binds all mankind, regardless of their beliefs.

    Good luck with that…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Compare your statements: “1. I recognise the law of the land. The Creator is the source of authority for that law.” & “2. They are natural laws. They are enforced in a similar manner as the law of gravity. Mankind may enforce them, this is a function of the values of society being consistent with nature.”

    Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. .. it is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws

    Just like you, Sharia only recognises God as a source of valid binding law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth. Your whole argument is imaginary and justified only by appeal to authority.

    Wrong. Anyone with a functional brain can see that the NZ parliament is lying about the nature of the common law. Only Kea has contested this point, and he gave up when I broke the argument up into parts.

    Anyway, although law may depend on precedent, science does not, and it’s science that gives us our notion of reality, not the law.

    Science is ethically agnostic, law is not. Reality involves ethical considerations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I asked who was the legal authority you acknowledge and you replied it was God.

    No, you didn’t mention _legal_ authority.
    I said that the source of authority was the Creator. The term ‘God’ is ambiguous and has religious connotations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, so who do you recognise and a valid source of law ?

    Here is a question for you and others. I have a mate who is pestering me with the same sort of claims as you.

    He claims our government is a commercial enterprise and government agencies are companies. He has evidence. He has provided links to the NZ companies office showing government departments registered as companies. Just now he sent this, claiming NZ Ministry of Defence is a company registered in the USA.

    http://www.manta.com/c/mmy3jzk/new-zealand-ministry-of-defence

    I do not have an answer to this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Kea, other evidence is the contractual nature of the district court process. Typically the court will ask the defendant to confirm an understanding, eg “do you understand the charges?”. An understanding can describe a meeting of the minds, as is necessary for a valid contract. Also, consider the number of times the system will ask for a signature. If there was no question of obligation regarding the legislation then a signature would be superfluous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Dennis Horne (2,227 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (813) Says: May 21st, 2013 at 5:49 pm. DH: law may depend on precedent, science does not, and it’s science that gives us our notion of reality, not the law.

    Science is ethically agnostic, law is not. Reality involves ethical considerations.

    Ethics? Merely an aspect of Man’s thinking that concerns only man. The Universe is not “ethical” and neither are other animals. You are living in a world of fantasy. Did you make all this stuff up yourself or is it a cult? Scientology?

    Asking the accused if he understands the charges is to establish communication. Do you think his saying nothing or stating he does not accept the jurisdiction of the court would exempt him from trial?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.