Blue Libs Newsletter - March 2010
Constitutional review - Time for a four-year term
Bluelibs readers will know that we have begun a campaign to strengthen the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The trouble with taking such a focussed approach - as important as it is - is that it runs the danger of ignoring some of the wider constitutional issues that also deserve timely consideration.
Among the problems that have driven our consideration of the Bill of Rights Act, has been the quality of legislation and the often rushed nature of it. This is a problem that all Governments face. There’s a lot to do and little time to do it in.
The problem is made worse by the three-year term, which leaves Government with fewer than two years to advance its programme before it has to get into electioneering. The net result is that things must happen quickly and often do too quickly. Urgency motions and hasty Supplementary Order Papers become the order of the day and a plague for Parliamentarians, people and judiciary alike.
Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, has commented frequently on the need to do things well so that we only have to do things once. But the cards of the current electoral system are stacked against that. A four year term would restack the deck, allowing greater consideration of legislation Government.
Later this year the Government is about to embark on a constitutional review. The current idea is that it will consider the future of the Māori seats. But at a time when questions abound about MMP, the role of the Queen as head of State, and the Bill of Rights Act, it seems to us that the Review could consider a lot more.
Should a four-year term be part of that?
What do you think?
Responses to bluelibs@national.org.nz
Quote of the Quarter?
“A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away” Barry Goldwater
Blue Libs Newsletter - November 2009
Strengthening the Bill of Rights Act - Campaign Update
Our paper, Strengthening Freedom and Choice, has been circulated to regional policy chairs, and the Policy Committee. Copies have also been sent to key Ministers and their advisors
For those coming up to speed with this, next year is the 20th anniversary of the Bill of Rights Act coming into force.
On the heels of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 it is clear that it is necessary to strengthen rights protection and bring greater rigour to the legislative process. Accordingly, we have suggested that:
· The courts be given the power to refuse to apply legislation that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act unless Parliament expressly directs that it should be applied.
· Parliament refer bills to the Supreme Court for independent judicial vetting;
· The Bill of Rights be expanded to include a right to property (bringing us into line with other countries); and
· Making some of the drafting clearer.
If you support this campaign or want to hear more, email laura.dalby@national.org.nz.
The Ralph Hanan Dinner
In September the sixth Annual Ralph Hanan was held, attracting a strong attendance from party members and supporters.
This year's speaker was historian and former Labour Minister, Dr Michael Bassett. Dr Bassett provided a scholarly history of Ralph Hanan's tenure as an activist Justice Minister, shining light as he did so not only on National's sometimes tentative embrace of 'social liberalism', as well as on Hanan's own liberal commitment and, in particular, his role in the abolition of capital punishment.
It was far from dry stuff. Bassett's history was tempered by his own familiarity with the give and take of life in politics. His description of a savvy Justice Minister shepherding the ban on capital punishment through sometimes ambivalent caucus and the strategic engagement of equally savvy Prime Minister (Holyoake) made for interesting listening. It added depth and colour to what for many of us is a distant period of our political history.
Dr Bassett has given permission for his speech to be made available. It may be found here.
In the news (but not ours)
In the UK a couple of weeks ago constitutional history was made.
The big moment came when over-muscled law firm Carter-Ruck applied for (and got) an injunction stopping the media from reporting a Parliamentary Question. The injunction not only covered the question, but also the response and even the fact that there was an injunction to begin with. Everything was to be under wraps and no-one was to be allowed to know about it.
Not since 18th century MP and journalist John Wilkes battled his way through layers of obstruction to the King over the right to keep the public informed about what was going on in Parliament, have the media (and indeed Parliament itself) found themselves subject to such a gag.
The reason for it - an attempt on behalf of an international oil trader to keep secret a report into toxic dumping - is almost incidental. Of larger moment was the gag itself and the fact that it had enough traction to hold the media at bay for at least 24 hours. And it may have been longer, but for the fact that the lawyers decided to fold their tents and leave the field.
It would be nice to think that this result came from a belated appreciation of constitutional niceties, but no. It owed more to the realisation that more harms was being done to the client than benefit. As Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger put it, "It was a fantastic own goal".
The fact that the lawyers felt that it was okay to try to keep the public in the dark suggests a wider malaise - one where constitutional norms are up for grabs. Perhaps this is why the UK has earned the reputation as the worst of western democracies in combating state surveillance and shoring up civil and political freedoms.
We are not immune from that malaise. We have just emerged from a period of Labour government where the ends justified any means. That alone should tell us something and it is sure that we should watch what goes on with the "Mother of Parliaments" and learn.
Quote
"Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you." ~ Unknown
