| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 112636 | 2010-09-15 05:00:00 | Emergency Legislation - Thoughts? | Erayd (23) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1137302 | 2010-09-15 09:55:00 | Interestingly, most people I've talked to don't share my view - so I figured I'd jump on the web and see what all the fine people here thought, and possibly get an interesting debate out of it too . __________________ We did have interesting debates here once. :devil |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1137303 | 2010-09-15 09:59:00 | It basically relies on the "politics of good faith" to work correctly, and places a huge amount of trust in the integrity of those to whom it grants power . There are politicians involved . . . If I read it correctly though, it's the Governor General who actually vests power in said ministers (based on their recommendations) . . . . . And the GG is an apolitical appointment . . . :rolleyes: And in terms of precedent, I'm not sure that's an issue - the Act seems quite limited in scope & timeframe? |
nofam (9009) | ||
| 1137304 | 2010-09-15 10:27:00 | If I read it correctly though, it's the Governor General who actually vests power in said ministers (based on their recommendations) . . . . . And the GG is an apolitical appointment . . . :rolleyes:That's true, but the Governor-General is basically a rubber stamp attached to the Crown - they don't make policy decisions . The way this Act is structured, the relevant Minister (in this case Gerry Brownlee), after optional (albeit recommended) consultation with a newly formed commission, makes or amends legislation on almost anything, and can further grant any and all powers and protections granted to the Minister by this Act to any other party . These decisions are approved by default, have very little oversight, and nobody is liable for any legal fallout later . The checks and balances involved here are fleeting at best, and definitely not evenly balanced with the considerable power vested in a few individuals . And in terms of precedent, I'm not sure that's an issue - the Act seems quite limited in scope & timeframe?*This* Act has a limited timescale, and although some altering of the norms is obviously needed, I don't think that this Act as worded is the best way of doing that . What worries me is what politicians may do at some later date, when some bright cookie points at this one and says "See, it worked then" . |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1137305 | 2010-09-15 11:01:00 | That's true, but the Governor-General is basically a rubber stamp attached to the Crown - they don't make policy decisions. The way this Act is structured, the relevant Minister (in this case Gerry Brownlee), after optional (albeit recommended) consultation with a newly formed commission, makes or amends legislation on almost anything, and can further grant any and all powers and protections granted to the Minister by this Act to any other party. These decisions are approved by default, have very little oversight, and nobody is liable for any legal fallout later. The checks and balances involved here are fleeting at best, and definitely not evenly balanced with the considerable power vested in a few individuals. *This* Act has a limited timescale, and although some altering of the norms is obviously needed, I don't think that this Act as worded is the best way of doing that. What worries me is what politicians may do at some later date, when some bright cookie points at this one and says "See, it worked then". Fair points - and as John H alluded to, it's a somewhat right-leaning piece of legislation - the checks and balances may simply be that a Labour-led government would never draft such an oligarchical bill in future. |
nofam (9009) | ||
| 1137306 | 2010-09-15 19:59:00 | Get rid of the communist Nationals from the South Island let the North keep them. Back on topic although I haven't had time to read the new act yet, I somewhat agree with JohnH however Christchurch does need some relaxing of the rules to allow for things to go ahead quickly with less red tape but and it's big but the guidelines regarding building codes etc still need to be followed so that buildings don't just get thrown up by the cowboys. I'm not sure that an act of parliament was necessary though |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 1137307 | 2010-09-17 09:53:00 | Anything that Parliament passes into law unanimously is going to cause auto-skepticism here. That is the sort of voting they normally reserve for boosting their pay and/or pensions. I would sooner trust a bunch of car dealers. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1137308 | 2010-09-17 10:34:00 | "The recommendation of the relevant Minister may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed, or called into question in any court." I'm sure I remember reading those words or similar before, it could have been The Enabling Act of the NSDAP 1933........ "The rulings of the Reichs Chancellor may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed, or called into question in any court." Hitler would have approved......... :) |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||