Other liberal luminaries like Helen Clark and Anne Salmond have also been delivering such salvoes frequently.
I agree with some of these criticisms. Governments should not be rushing bills through Parliament under urgency as far as practicable. It is important that members of parliament have time to debate the provisions of bills.
But my question is: Were people like Palmer, Clark or Salmond living in New Zealand circa 2020-2021?
Shall we take a quick look at what our government did around that time?
The first nine days of our April 2020 lockdown was declared “unlawful” by the High Court.
Two legal experts wrote at the time that the lockdown:
I agree with some of these criticisms. Governments should not be rushing bills through Parliament under urgency as far as practicable. It is important that members of parliament have time to debate the provisions of bills.
But my question is: Were people like Palmer, Clark or Salmond living in New Zealand circa 2020-2021?
Shall we take a quick look at what our government did around that time?
The first nine days of our April 2020 lockdown was declared “unlawful” by the High Court.
Two legal experts wrote at the time that the lockdown:
“…imposes the most extensive restrictions on New Zealanders’ lives seen for at least 70 years; perhaps ever. No matter how ‘necessary’ these may be, we should expect such restrictions to have a clear, certain basis in law and be imposed through a transparent and accountable process.”
We passed the Public Health Response Bill that allowed police warrantless entry into homes to see if isolation protocols were broken. The requirement that police obtain a judicial warrant prior to entering a home is a fundamental requirement of civil society to prevent citizens from illegal search and seizure.
This bill was passed under urgency within two days.
Parliament was suspended from meeting.
In fact, the standing orders of Parliament were amended to allow the Prime Minister to unilaterally prorogue Parliament upon the recommendation of the Director General of Health, who actually reports to the Prime Minister.
The need to seek approval from the Governor General represents an important check on the powers of the Executive and is yet another cornerstone of democratic society.
Citizens were denied the right to return to their own countries and even if they did, were charged hefty amounts of money for that privilege.
Even though New Zealand does not mandate any other vaccines (such as one for measles, mumps, rubella, polio or whooping cough) a vaccine mandate was imposed for Covid.
Later the courts ruled that parts of the vaccine mandate were unlawful as were aspects of the managed isolation and quarantine system.
Auckland went through a lockdown between August and December 2021 despite advice from the Director General of Health in September of that year that this was unnecessary.
I can provide detailed citations to every point made above and have done so elsewhere.
Maybe I missed something, but I did not hear the likes of Palmer, Clark or Salmond screaming about how our “democracy is being weakened by the methods this Government is using to achieve its goals.”
From what I can make out, the current government is doing the things that they campaigned on.
And a majority of New Zealand citizens voted them into power ostensibly because they agree with the current government’s priorities.
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. It is very difficult to ignore the partisan rancour in these fulminations.
The anger it seems is not so much about what the government is doing wrong but that they are doing things that the critics don’t like.
To people like Palmer, my only advice is this: if you want to be taken seriously then it is important to call out government impropriety regardless of the party in power.
Otherwise, take a deep breath, sit back and wait till the next election. Sell your vision to the people and see if there are enough buyers.
Till then I suggest letting the government get on with what they promised to do since they have a mandate to do so.
Ananish Chaudhuri is Professor of Experimental Economics at the University of Auckland. Besides Auckland, he has taught at Harvard Kennedy School, Rutgers University, Washington State University and Wellesley College. This article was first published HERE
9 comments:
Geoffrey Palmer did criticise the last government for constitutional impropriety a number of times, but the media didn't report it. He was also critical of the courts, such as with the attempted intervention in the Moana case. However the point is valid that he, Clark and Salmond are hardly objective sources of information. They just don't agree with the current governments policies and the media are trying to give weight to their opinions by calling them experts.
Strafed, then hit the target square in the middle.
People like Palmer and HC et al should learn when it is appropriate to STFU and that is clearly all the time.
Especially Geoffrey Palmer !
Geoffrey who?
Another wrecker who needs to play golf or bowls.
The fourth Labour government, of which Palmer and Clark were both MP’s committed nothing bur “Constititional Impropriety” throughout its term and as a result New Zealand is now an illegal, unconstitutional monarchy where Parliament in Wellington took supreme power for itself from Westminster through the Constitution Act of 1986.
This turned our parliament into a corporation/legal fiction called “The Queen in right of New Zealand”. It never went to a public vote. It was the ultimate smoky backroom deal, a quiet revolution, a very kiwi coup and ever since 1986, ruling politicians have done whatever they liked.
Then there was the 1985 TOW Amendment Act introducing “Principles/Partnership into our legislation, the State-Owned Enterprise Act, the 1989 Fisheries Act to name a few, all turbo charging racial division and apartheid in New Zealand, and all based on the lie that created the 1975 TOW Act and the Waitangi Tribunal.
Then in 1989, when the truth to the lie turned up in the form of the “lost final draft” used to compose the Maori language Tiriti o Waitangi, they did everything in their power to discredit and debunk it.
As for Anne Salmond, well she is just a shill for the Maori radicals.
I missed Geoff and HC when the last Government went into overdrive before the election passing harebrained policies like 3 waters through under urgency knowing they’d be repealed plus removing voting rights for Maori Wards.
The "constitutional impropriety" had already happened. It goes both ways and depends on what side you are on. If you are on the so called "right" then it happened under Labour; if you are on the so called "left" then it is happening now. The fact of the matter is tho that if a constitutional change such as co-governance or "partnership is to happen, it must be voted on by the people of NZ. We all voted to change FPP to MMP. We all voted against a change of flag. These things should and must be decided by the people who are ultimately in charge of it all because they pay for it all. Unfortunately for minority groups these situations are determined by the majority vote, and rightly so. Under Labour we saw a swift change in constitutional arrangements that strongly suggested a strong move towards the implementation of the HePuaPua report. If this is not constitutional impropriety then I dont know what is.
I have heard so little from Palmer in recent times I thought he was dead. He always had a lot to say, although most too cerebral for my plebian brain. But I would like to know his views on He Pua Pua, maori fishing and the Kermadecs, the myriad pending foreshore actions, Urewera National park, the maori orientated Orange Tamariki, the separate maori health system that was/is, the school history curriculum, the Waitangi Tribunal etc etc. Have I been missing releases or have business considerations, ever a factor with lawyers, and/or threat of cancellation kept him quiet?
The hypocrisy of NZ's Left knows no limits. (Except for its incompetence.)
Post a Comment