Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 38651	2003-10-14 05:31:00	OT: Goodbye Privy Council, Hello Republic	Winston001 (3612)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
183081	2003-10-14 12:31:00	> Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the creeping > republicanism of government? No more Privy Council > now despite the absence of compelling arguments or > public support. > Helen for President? Privy Council! What a joke. The average Jo could not afford it so why bother having it as it is a waste of time to those who really need it. Also they are politically selected. Just what everyone is complaining about here. Biggest joke around. Get rid of them and lets set up our own that everyone can enjoy.	Big John (551)
183082	2003-10-14 12:38:00	> I say kick Helen out for good. Lets look at what shes > acomplished in her time as Prime Minister: > > *She killed the airforce, Airforce? What a joke. Just a couple of old planes that just went here and there and burned up millions of tax payers money on fuel > *She's keen for GE food to be made available for > general consumption You have probably been eating it for years. I know of several that have been made using GE products that most people in NZ probably eat. Don't use it now though. Wont name them due to my job. > *We have prostitutes running round the streets, They have been for years even before the bill. Nothing changed there. Or have you been stuck home all your life? > *We have an interesting crimes amendment bill about > to be passed, that will mean no privacy for us. Bills are always passed and privacy in this day and age is almost existant without the bill anyway.	Big John (551)
183083	2003-10-14 21:13:00	Marke - great post. I agree wholeheartedly. The politicisation of our judiciary is a serious danger for a small country. Just to clarify matters: 1 The Privy Council is our highest Court of appeal. It consists of British judges although a NZ judge has been a member in recent years. 2 The House of Lords is Britains highest court. The judges for both courts are the same people. 3 If the British do away with the PC it will only save them some administration money. 4 These judges come from a pool of 60 million people. They have big brains and are sharp cookies. 5 The PC is completely independent from NZ political, business, and social influences. Some people do not like this. 6 Nevertheless the PC has said on occasions that if the NZ courts wish to develop our own law then they will go along with that. So not every appeal is decided as if it was in the House of Lords. They do respect our own body of law. 7The British taxpayer funds the PC - very kind. We will fund the new Supreme Court. 8 The cost of any final appeal to any court will still be high. I suggest that the average Joe today cannot afford a case in the High Court let alone appeals. 9 The trend is towards international courts of justice. In the face of globalisation nations are aligning their laws to cope with business, social, and criminal activities. Setting up a new isolated court in a corner of the South Pacific is insular and counter-intuitive. 10 Voting for judges would be a circus. Judge Simon Dallow (has a law degree)? It would be a popularity contest with the slickest smile and best soundbite the decider. Ability cannot be accessed by 5 minutes on Holmes. The problem is that this is pretty dry and a Labour Government which I expected to consult the community, has kept the discussion in Wellington. I think even the NZ Law Society has gone along with the loss of the PC because they could see the writing on the wall. No matter what was said, it was going to happen. Have a good day.	Winston001 (3612)
183084	2003-10-15 03:49:00	>yes and I see you tried to stop it Winston :p ok did nobody get my joke?	promethius (1998)
183085	2003-10-15 03:59:00	Lets not call it a Supreme Court; what about Committee for Public Safety. We could all take our knitting and watch the guillotine in use. :D	Graham L (2)
183086	2003-10-15 04:05:00	I remember reading somewhere that every year millions of $$$ of taxpayers money are given in Legal Aid to people taking cases to the Privy Council. Apparently most of them were Treaty claims, with the few odd cases of appeals etc. Kind of scary really, how so much money is wasted on flying people over to Britain to file a complaint against the Government.	somebody (208)
183087	2003-10-15 04:34:00	Good post in return Winston! ;-) Actually I'm not necessarily against bumping the Privy Council - I think it's inevitable given the British are themselves pretty reluctant to continue it . And I don't necessarily think that we couldn't establish a court of quality (although that's not to say that's what WILL happen) . We too have some quality legal minds here you know - many of whom have trained at the same colleges and universities as the esteemed Privy Councilors . I would perhaps like to have seen the inclusion of some foreign blood on the bench from time-to-time . . but hey I wasn't asked for my opinion by the government . (I personally will remember that at the next election!!) We could have established a court which included a short-term (say 3 year appointment) of a sitting judge(s) from an overseas jurisdiction (like UK, Canada, Australia etc) which might have helped to keep things honest . . . at least they might be more free to provide robust criticism of dodgy decisions . And I don't necessarily think that the Privy Council judges are above the odd bad decision either . . . your opinion of their stellar academic qualities notwithstanding! ;-) Some of their decisions have - I've been told - been fairly revisionist at times (i . e they've overridden established precedents for no good reason) . The real danger it seems to me, is that we get a court that is stacked with judges who believe that revisionism is OK: "It doesn't really matter what the statutes say . . we'll just revise them on-the-fly . . . we're the highest court in the land so who's going to stop us/" . If that happens, we will not only be in danger of an horrendous legal system, but we will also become an international laughing stock . . . and it WILL affect our international reputation . Imagine a situation where an international company dealing in NZ takes a case to the Supreme Court based on a matter of law, only to lose the case NOT because the letter of the law says that they should have lost, but because the revisionist judges didn't like what the letter of the law said, and saw fit to change it by over-riding it . Net result? That international company ceases to invest in this country and puts us in the same category as other third-world countries where the rule of law cannot be trusted . It is the judges' place to interpret laws, not to make them . This is a distinction that Margaret Wilson just doesn't seem to get . Actually it's worse than that - she seems to think it's right! She will - as a Law professor from Canterbury suggested on National Radio the other morning - likely go down as the worst Attorney General in New Zealand history . And she'll take Helen Clarke down with her by association . It's time Ms Clarke realised how dictatorial and dismissive of the public she has become . I'm personally quite shocked by it . And I don't think I'll be voting Labour next election that's for sure . Trouble is, who else is there?! [Again - these views are my own personal ones, and not those of my employer - IDG Communications Ltd]	marke (457)
183088	2003-10-15 05:39:00	> > ok did nobody get my joke? Sorry Promethius, I know you bring fire and light among us but I'm afraid I'm still in the dark.	Winston001 (3612)
183089	2003-10-15 07:03:00	Presumably Win Peters was against loosing PC.	Thomas (1820)
183090	2003-10-15 10:08:00	why does nz want to be nuclear-welcome when........... US President George W Bush has made it clear that New Zealand's anti-nuclear policy will not affect the chances of a free trade deal with America...	csinclair83 (200)
1 2 3 4 5 6