......but he shies from enlightening us on issues such as Treaty entitlements
It’s the stuff David Parker didn’t discuss, when he addressed an audience gathered to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Law Faculty of the University of Otago, that’s worth thinking about.
He did mention Britain’s 1688 Bill of Rights, for example, but steered clear of thorny constitutional issues such as the Treaty Partnership and co-governance.
Largely, he expressed his admiration for the Law Faculty’s output of graduates who have become members of the judiciary, academics, barristers, solicitors, public servants, diplomats, politicians…
In civil law, criminal, family, employment, Treaty, environment, human rights, international, or tax. Others who chose to devote their learnings and skills to the arts or other fields of endeavour – in business, for NGOs, sports or other causes.
We all carry with us what we learned here. This institution – which is the sum of its people over the last 150 years – has helped shape us, and through us the countries we live in.
Our predecessors include many luminaries. I’ll list a few, roughly in order of their time here. You’ll see how society and the legal profession has changed.
The speech has been posted on the Government’s official website along with a few fresh announcements since Point of Order last checked on which ministers are doing what and going where.
In civil law, criminal, family, employment, Treaty, environment, human rights, international, or tax. Others who chose to devote their learnings and skills to the arts or other fields of endeavour – in business, for NGOs, sports or other causes.
We all carry with us what we learned here. This institution – which is the sum of its people over the last 150 years – has helped shape us, and through us the countries we live in.
Our predecessors include many luminaries. I’ll list a few, roughly in order of their time here. You’ll see how society and the legal profession has changed.
The speech has been posted on the Government’s official website along with a few fresh announcements since Point of Order last checked on which ministers are doing what and going where.
Defence Minister Andrew Little departs today to attend Anzac Day commemorations at Gallipoli in Türkiye.
The Government is providing an additional $25 million to help more businesses in the clean-up from the damage caused by Cyclone Gabrielle affected regions and get them back on their feet.
Speech
I am confident I speak for us all when I say how pleased we are to be here to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Law Faculty of the University of Otago.
The Government has hit another major milestone in improving connectivity for rural and remote households and businesses, as 400 mobile towers have now been delivered by the Rural Connectivity Group (RCG).
As mentioned earlier, David Parker listed lots of luminaries and said there were many others, too numerous to name or even count.
Then he said:
Every generation deals with challenges of the day.
I was here in the late 70s and early 80s. Rt Hon R. D. Muldoon was Prime Minister. Think Big, the high dam at Clyde, the proposed smelter and the Save Aramoana campaign, the 1981 Springbok tour, abortion and homosexual law reform were all contentious.
Fitzgerald v Muldoon was not long decided. CREEDNZ on judicial review was hot off the Court of Appeal press.
A nationwide wage, price and rent freeze was imposed not by Parliament but by statutory regulation promulgated under the Economic Stabilisation Act.
But he didn’t wade into today’s challenges.
He did mention the history of the law and said.
After 20 years as a politician I know more about the 1688 Bill of Rights and the boundary between Parliament and the Courts than I had expected to be relevant, and perhaps I have become an expert in trial by battle. I did not envisage that controversies about entrenchment – single or double – would feature.
To this day I value the most important lesson I learnt here – that at the heart of most legal questions lie fascinating societal issues.
The difficult balance between individual and community rights, civil liberties, economic theory including competition, monopolies, the importance of but limits to property rights, investment certainty, political theory and democracy, risk allocation, the intersection of private and public interests, environmental externalities like to climate and water, the tragedy of the commons, identity and the interests of the majority and minorities, the often competing interests of capital and labour, and inherited privilege or disadvantage.
Understanding these often competing interests helps make sense of the law and how it should be applied or developed.
Parker told the author of a 2006 Yale Law Journal article “The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review” he had referenced this more than once in Parliament, most recently as part of the debate on the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Act.
I helped ease that through Parliament, unanimously, in 2022 after a lengthy Select Committee process which I chaired and after many years of careful prior development.
The amendment and related changes to standing orders requires Parliament and the Executive to respond to declarations by the senior courts which find primary legislation to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Parliament remains sovereign and can respectfully disagree and leave the legislation unamended, or it can on reflection amend or repeal it. And a later Parliament can always change its mind.
So, I too am opposed to conferring on the Courts the constitutional power to overrule primary legislation. In my respectful opinion, your arguments trump Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s (a remarkable protector of civil liberties though he undoubtedly is).
The inability of the USA system, in the name of free speech, to limit donations or election spending by corporates (which can’t vote) and others is a case in point. As is the recent rewrite of abortion laws by the US Supreme Court. And the inability to effectively limit the right to bear arms, including semi-automatics, including in some State legislatures, which I find bizarre.
The Bill of Rights of 1688 to which he referred, of course, has strongly influenced this country’s legal arrangements.
The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand says:
The idea that human beings enjoy rights is much older than the United Nations. An early English rights document is the Magna Carta, the ‘Great Charter’, of 1215. The English barons listed their grievances against King John, along with rights they believed they should enjoy.
A further key rights document in English history is the Bill of Rights of 1688. This document declared that the monarch had no power to dispense with the law without the consent of Parliament. Members of Parliament were to have freedom of speech within Parliament. All persons were to be free from cruel and unusual punishments as well as excessive bail. Establishing Parliament as the supreme authority was seen as a means of protecting human rights.
But do (or should) some citizens be privileged with different rights than those enjoyed by others?
And where does the Treaty of Waitangi fit into this?
It would be great to hear Parker explain his role as Attorney-General in having the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill abandoned, even though all Labour MPs had voted in support of it at its first hearing.
His report on the Bill found it would discriminate against general ward voters and not be consistent with this country’s Bill of Rights.
But he had no similar objection to the legislation which guarantees Ngāi Tahu representation and decision-making powers on the Canterbury regional council.
The Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill entitles the tribe’s rūnanga to appoint two councillors with full voting rights to the council.
How much further representation should the tribe be given when the Government gets around to determining who should sit on whatever entity governs and manages waters services in the Canterbury region?
These and other questions…
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
1 comment:
What a mess. No obvious way how NZ will get out of it. An invitation for some other country to come in and resolve on their terms? Refer article in this blog on Biden and US activity. Who would see NZ as a useful base to further their interests?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.