Another excellent piece John. Amongst other things, you have correctly identified the outworking in NZ of the one of the very same issues that has infected the USA - namely the fight for supremacy between unelected lawyers (judges) and elected politicians. It is a very real but largely unrecognised conflict because our MSM either does not understand it or, if it does, will not report it.
Like him or not, Trump is forcing the issue now in the USA such that those who support judicial supremacy are being unmasked as they hand down decisions such as a purported injunction on the removal of illegal Venezuelan gang bangers.
It is hard to comprehend what has been happening to western democracies where they vote in conservative governments that then immediately and consciensciously ignore what their voters asked them to do. Brexit is a very good example - the Brits voted for it in large part due to concerns about mass migration, they get it, and yet mass migration has ever since been turbo charged.
The same appears to happening in NZ, with Luxon campaigning from the right and governing from the left, with little discernible difference between him and Ardern - free speech suppression; digital IDs; migration; climate change; maorification; support for MSM amongst other matters where they seem to share a common view. In the words of S Plunkett, he is 'A John Key Tribute band with a Jacinda Ardern playlist'.
“Like him or not, Trump is forcing the issue now in the USA such that those who support judicial supremacy are being unmasked as they hand down decisions such as a purported injunction on the removal of illegal Venezuelan gang bangers.”
The only thing being unmasked is your political and historical illiteracy.
Whatever one may think about a desire to replace parliamentary supremacy in NZ with a codified constitution, it’s utterly absurd to make a comparison to the US which has a codified constitution and the judiciary a formal role in ensuring any laws or actions of the executive ate in line with it. The President swears to uphold it
It’s literally in the document on which the country was founded, it was placed there by the founders to provide checks on the other branches of government.
I don't think Charles is trying to equate New Zealand's and the US's constitutional arrangements. Of course the US Court's have power to strike down both laws and governmental actions that conflict with the US (written) constitution. That's a much wider remit than New Zealand judges have. Charles seems to me to be simply saying that in both NZ and the US there are judges that are coming up with indefensible decisions that are "outside of their lanes" are motivated by ideological biases. There's no doubt about that
He clearly has no clue how the US constitution works. It’s embarrassing.
The courts aren’t doing things ‘outside their lane’. They’re literally doing what is prescribed by the constitution
The fact you & Trump don’t like those decisions is irrelevant. Trumo is trying to take executive power which no Predatory is US history has. He obviously doesn’t think he should be constrained by the constitution, by either of the other branches of government in a way no President Republican or Democrat has before.
The funniest thing is, whilst I have some sympathy for NZ case (the absurd hyperbolic about ‘dystopia’ side, although they are funny) we all know this isn’t actually about the constitution. Were courts to be blocking decisions of a Labour government you wouldn’t write a sentence in complaint.
I'm no Trumper and don't follow the US scene closely. Will the true test of whether Trump is an aspiring dictator be if, having exhausted all rights of appeal and received an unfavorable Supreme Court decision, he ignores the Supreme Court?
Why leap to ‘aspiring Dictator’, there’s a huge amount of damage he can do to (and is already) to constitutional government before getting close to that.
More directly relevant in the short term is what he does if the Dems take one or both houses in the mid terms.
The point is though, the founders very deliberately created a constitution with significant constraints on executive power.
Certainly agree Miller...if after the midterms the Congress passes laws and El PresiTrumpo ignores them then it'll be game on - which way with the National Guard go! No excuse to be bored, eh!
Politicians and governments are elected to Parliament, and are ultimately accountable to the people they represent. Judges and the Judiciary are not , and this lack of democratic accountability, and the ideological agenda certain activist members are pursuing without the publics mandate is extremely worrying. Parliamentary Sovereignty is a cornerstone of our Democratic system, and although this power struggle is largely taking place behind the scenes thanks to the media's obvious bias, thankfully as you say wiser heads are asserting our countries common law traditions against these judicial revolutionaries.
Hi Miller - you might well know more about the US constitution than me, I am no expert at all and don't purport to be. But please don't be embarrassed about it, for my sake or for yours.
The point i am simply making is that the Courts are in a scrap for supremacy in both NZ and the US. The outcome of the MACA legislation is an example in NZ - where its architect C Finlayson told the electorate that it would impact on 5 to 10 per cent of the coastline, yet the Courts have interpreted the law in a way that reportedly means that there are circa 500 claims awaiting a hearing which cover circa 90 per cent of the coastline. The Government has not yet had the courage to walk the Courts back by passing legislation to clarify the position. Tikanga is the same - a Court introduced body of 'law' that has not been blessed by those who we elect to make our laws.
As far as the US is concerned, Trump campaigned on an unambiguous promise to remove illegal immigrants. He won a mandate to do so, with increased support from minority groups. Yet the Courts have injuncted some of his moves to enact this policy. Maybe the Courts have the power to do so, maybe they don't - I have no idea. But if they can constrain a President in this way then the US is arguably no longer a democracy, as unelected judges are in effect determining immigration policy and perhaps a lot more. Everyone should be concerned about that, even Democrats.
What I have learned Miller in the last two years is not to trust mainstream media, in particular with regard to US politics. Since late 2023 i made an effort to hear alternative voices from the US, i.e from sources other than those that refused to report on Biden's mental decline and who, as a consequence, now have no legitimacy as a source of truth. What i have found is that in the court of public opinion I had heard a compelling prosecutorial case against Trump for over ten years, which is why I, like probably 90 per cent of NZers had a visceral dislike and mistrust of him and his agenda.
However, by listening to unfiltered voices unaffected by corporate media agendas, i learned that the court of public opinion had not heard Trump's case theory: defence, counterclaims and cross claims. Once I understood his case theory it became clear to me why he has turned US politics on its head, and become a champion for the working class who don't want: forever wars where they and their children are sent to fight and die overseas for the sake of the bi-coastal elite; boys in the girls changing room; mass illegal immigration; reckless government spending; and a country run by a marzipan layer of civil servants/deep state operatives and elites. If being in favour of those positions means I can be categorised as a Trump supporter then so be it. i would certainly rather align with that platform than one that stands for the opposite.
Miller, i encourage you to listen to some alternative voices who can prosecute the case for what Trump is trying to do.
Perhaps it was a little unfortunate that our first active constitution, from 1856 or thereabouts, made the upper chamber, the Legislative Council, with all members appointed by the Governor. Maybe that didn't work out so well.
Let's have a Legislative Council with members elected by preferential basis, at large, in three wards 1. South and Stewart Island 6 MLCs; 2. North Island from its head, down to Turangi 6 MLCs; and 3. From Turangi to the the tail at Cape Reinga 10 MLCs. One proviso: all MLCs must be non-partisan, as in, not being active members of any political party. They will be empowered to review any bill, Act or action of the lower house, and either strike down or order changes, and make high-level inquiry into any administrative matter.
This LC would be in essence higher in status than the Supremes court, and would obviously eliminate the need for any appointed regulatory standards board.
It would be much better to have an elected LC with a broad view of the national interest, as opposed to an unaccountable committee of supposed technical experts (most likely lawyers....) with a very narrow brief....
This could be instituted via an amendment to the current Constitution Act.
How would that grab people as a fix for the situation? Surely more democracy is better democracy?
Thank you for a great article. Some history. In 1977, Mr Palmer inserted “economism” into our political discourse, which became manifested as Chicago School economics in the 4th Labour Government. He wrote It’s Time to Think: Contributions to the Philosophy Debate in the New Zealand Labour Party. He wrote: But we must redefine social justice in terms of fairness. Our guiding principle should be: LIBERTY, WEALTH, INCOME AND OPPORTUNITY ARE TO BE DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY UNLESS IT CAN BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION IS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE LESS FAVOURED.” This is the “Rawlsian difference principle.” In 1987, he stated that “I put to you my view of the role of government in a mixed economy and in which the government intervenes to achieve the goal of equity.” Bruce Jesson noted that Labour’s economic and social programmes were being hoisted on an “objective economic theory. The 1977 booklet was the adoption, according to Jack Vowles, of a Rawlsian theory of justice, justice as fairness. It was a substantial move in Labour philosophy from a basis in equality and entitlement to social justice. I recollect that this is not quite what we ended up with.
In "It's Time to Think", the role of government is enhanced in redistribution decision-making. What occurred in 1984 ff was the predominance of the then Treasury and Reserve Bank. The 1984 exchange rate crisis saw the adoption of power by the clerisey.
As to your article, the Platonic Philosopher Kings (and Queens), again, enter this time not from the Treasury or the Reserve Bank but from the Judiciary. It is an elite fetish that the disdained deplorables, the plebs sordida of Rome and the idiotas of Athens need the undemocratic guidance of a ‘soviet of the clerisey and judiciary’ on the road to perfection in Stalin’s Adminsitrovanie. To cite Jane Austin, ‘I think we have been amused quite enough’.
That's intriguing about Palmer's economic "thinking". I wasn't aware of that. Such advocates for the State to promote equality of OUTCOMES are proponents of levels of social engineering that can only be achieved by drastic authoritarianism. Striving for equality of OPPORTUNITY (while accepting that the goal is unobtainable) seems okay to me. A reasonable level of genuine equality of opportunity, especially through education, will address any undesirable levels of intergeneration wealth inequality. Donning my tin hat, perhaps that's why NZ''s educational standards have been allowed to plummet in the last few decades - the zealot authoritarians want to try and prove that equality of opportunity is not enough!
Have a look at Thomas Sowell's demolition of Rawls in (from memory) his book Intellectuals. He is compelling in his argument. My post is merely my opinion.
Spot on once again John. Palmer was often seen by many as some geeky, harmless old codger who meant well, bless. But your loathing for the man is a more apposite perspective for he is one of the most dangerous, anti-democratic 'caring understanding nineties types' we have seen. Fucking lawyers. No disrespect intended, but look at the run of arseholes we have had thinking they have some special right to screw up our country. Margaret Wilson, Goofrey Palmer, Doug Graham, Chris Make-Money-from-both-sides Finlayson and then all those jerks on the bench (Cooke, Elias, Glazebrook, Williams etc etc). Add in all the seriously retarded KCs & underlings who are convinced their shit don't smell and thus it is their job to tell us the Treaty Principles Bill was evil or that Israel are somehow the bad guys.
So yeah, forgive me, cos I know there are rare exceptions, but perhaps the Bard had the right idea about lawyers... (that would get me locked up in the UK, suffice to say I don't really mean it....)
it's remarkable who crops up these days as KCs. I don't want to appear mean but...I used to work with Karen Feint KC (who Geoff Palmer loves to knock around with) at Bell Gully. Exceptionally ordinary lawyer. And now she's an "honorary Maori" KC, orchestrating KC letters against Seymour's Treaty Principles bill, telling all non-honoraries they're racists and otherwise making a well remunerated, half mad pest of herself
Thanks for that John. Of course I then just had to look her up. Not to judge a book by its cover, but well, ahem... And daftly I then further googled and found a review by a Mr Pyke on her debate with Gary The Legend Judd on 'tikanga as law'. According to the review, Karen's argument was 'tikanga is law because the Supreme Court said so'. And tikanga is law because 'Article 2 of the ToW guarantees its status in NZ law'. The first argument is circular and self-serving. The second is just wrong. I re-checked, no mention of tikanga in there that I could find. (But that it can mean pretty much anything at all, then maybe it is hiding in there masquerading as another word?)
Gary's arguments against this contention are well known, and call me biased, but make a fuck load more sense than those of this scary looking woman.
The treaty, and everything that has happened since, has set this country back 300 years.
That doesn't mean the Crown is without fault; The Crown is a pathological liar, deceiver, indian-giver, and it will give you land and then steal it back from you and blame you for the theft. Then make you buy it back a piece at a time. And charge you tax for the privilege.
Palmer was doing what he was told, which is to create endless division. This is the Crown strategy.
A nation with two or three heads is not going to thrive . A nation with generations long disputes is not going to survive. Let's euthanise 'New Zealand', and come up with a better system, that instead of respecting the past, of either or any side, looks to the future , concentrates on the common values, and seeks to exclude the derogation of power to international entities, foreign powers, seeks to prevent foreign ownership, maximise national individual capability and sovereignty, and promote a neutral international-political stance.
NZ's 'system' is a mish-mash of opinions and badly executed legislation and survival requires dumping it and starting again.
“Unbridled Power, in which he expressed his feigned dread of that most dangerous phenomenon…democratically elected Governments passing laws and running the country, unmolested by unelected, activist judges”
There are only three (arguably two as Israel does have a kind of quasi supreme law) countries in the world without a codified constitution.
I’m not suggesting we should have one, but literally every democracy on the planet other than NZ, UK & Israel has governments constrained by the constitution which courts can rule on.
Your hysterical paragraph implies that make them undemocratic.
You next paragraph about Covid is a given away as to what this is really about.
I wasn't aware that Palmer initiated all the issues we face now by placing that constitutional cluster bomb into the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986.
Nor was I aware that he made a submission on the TPB suggesting that merely proposing the Bill had “damaged the collective fabric of the nation”… I didn't see many of the "anti" ones; I guess it was just too much to expect any intelligent argument against everyone being treated as equal...
Should we consider reverting to the Privy Council if the elite upper echelon have taken over our Supreme Court, or are they just as bad under Starmer dictates? If so, might we consider Australia's High Court as a substitute?
I think the Supreme Court should be scrapped in favour of our highest Court comprising, in respect of any particular decision, one credible New Zealand jurist plus four from other jurisdictions comparable to New Zealand. They could do it all on "Teams"...even the port/Scotch drinking at the end of each hard day of deliberation!
The "Constitutional Republic" of the USA doesn't contain references to democracy I believe. It is the three branches of governance which were supposed to contain excesses aided by the second amendment...as Plato opined...all democracy must end in tyranny. We have the evidence before us. Democracy alone can and does enslave minorities. The American constitution while preventing some excesses of abuse internally has not prevented enslavement of the third world.
Of course we need a constitution and of course no simple majority should have the power on its own to disadvantage minorities such as the present situation. How we ensure our judiciary is free from corruption, especially our supreme court appointees, needs a serious overhaul.
As an afterthought..the role of the media needs a place in your constitution Geoffrey.
Seems to me that autocracies are more capable of "enslaving" minorities than democracies (and the USA is certainly some sort of democracy). And let's not fall into the Chomsky trap...the childish mantra that the USA is the source of everything bad.
The fact that democracy always ends in tyranny doesn't mean that democracy isn't worth fighting for. The human species will of course become extinct in due course, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying to extend the ascendant ape project
How about people with one arm....how about low income workers who get a tax reduction of $2/ week while an mp gets $50 reduction. Anyone who has sufficient power to affect the wealth/ privilege of someone else is open to pursuasion..bribery. I haven't said we should dump democracy just that a human rights based constitution which cannot be over ridden by the betrayal of a wef trained witch would be a good move.
If they lost an arm in an accident, you know ACC looks after them Jonathan.
Where do you get the $2 per week??
The tax change, that was just adjusting the lower tax bands for inflation, and something the "caring" Jacinda should have done, amounts to over $13/week for most low paid workers. Even those on the minimum wage, who worked a bit of overtime, were being "whacked" by the 30% tax rate.
So, even tho you're right that many pollies are overpaid (relative to their contribution), and there are too many of them, IMO everyone should applaud the tax band adjustments that benefitted the lower paid and middle income earners.
Human rights is a terribly dangerous fiction. Not least because I can always manufacture an equal and opposite right, against your dearly held one....
The big problem with NZ democracy is the tribal adversarial party system. Other societies have a more relaxed and reasonable approach with an arena-style parliament,
A disabled person? Oh, so you mean minorities who are actually and genuinely disadvantaged through no fault of their own? 100% then. NZ should have at its highest priority the care, support and wellbeing of the disabled. They should not want for anything and receive whatever they need to help improve their lives to (as far as possible) the same standard as the rest of us. I'd happily pay more tax for that. It is just when you said 'disadvantaged minorities', it rang a pavlovian bell of the 'coloured peoples' persuasion. Thanks for clarifying.
(not sure about your low income argument though, that is more complex and those less well paid may have a good reason for being so, but I take your point. I think...)
Another excellent piece John. Amongst other things, you have correctly identified the outworking in NZ of the one of the very same issues that has infected the USA - namely the fight for supremacy between unelected lawyers (judges) and elected politicians. It is a very real but largely unrecognised conflict because our MSM either does not understand it or, if it does, will not report it.
Like him or not, Trump is forcing the issue now in the USA such that those who support judicial supremacy are being unmasked as they hand down decisions such as a purported injunction on the removal of illegal Venezuelan gang bangers.
It is hard to comprehend what has been happening to western democracies where they vote in conservative governments that then immediately and consciensciously ignore what their voters asked them to do. Brexit is a very good example - the Brits voted for it in large part due to concerns about mass migration, they get it, and yet mass migration has ever since been turbo charged.
The same appears to happening in NZ, with Luxon campaigning from the right and governing from the left, with little discernible difference between him and Ardern - free speech suppression; digital IDs; migration; climate change; maorification; support for MSM amongst other matters where they seem to share a common view. In the words of S Plunkett, he is 'A John Key Tribute band with a Jacinda Ardern playlist'.
“Like him or not, Trump is forcing the issue now in the USA such that those who support judicial supremacy are being unmasked as they hand down decisions such as a purported injunction on the removal of illegal Venezuelan gang bangers.”
The only thing being unmasked is your political and historical illiteracy.
Whatever one may think about a desire to replace parliamentary supremacy in NZ with a codified constitution, it’s utterly absurd to make a comparison to the US which has a codified constitution and the judiciary a formal role in ensuring any laws or actions of the executive ate in line with it. The President swears to uphold it
It’s literally in the document on which the country was founded, it was placed there by the founders to provide checks on the other branches of government.
I don't think Charles is trying to equate New Zealand's and the US's constitutional arrangements. Of course the US Court's have power to strike down both laws and governmental actions that conflict with the US (written) constitution. That's a much wider remit than New Zealand judges have. Charles seems to me to be simply saying that in both NZ and the US there are judges that are coming up with indefensible decisions that are "outside of their lanes" are motivated by ideological biases. There's no doubt about that
Bullshit.
He clearly has no clue how the US constitution works. It’s embarrassing.
The courts aren’t doing things ‘outside their lane’. They’re literally doing what is prescribed by the constitution
The fact you & Trump don’t like those decisions is irrelevant. Trumo is trying to take executive power which no Predatory is US history has. He obviously doesn’t think he should be constrained by the constitution, by either of the other branches of government in a way no President Republican or Democrat has before.
The funniest thing is, whilst I have some sympathy for NZ case (the absurd hyperbolic about ‘dystopia’ side, although they are funny) we all know this isn’t actually about the constitution. Were courts to be blocking decisions of a Labour government you wouldn’t write a sentence in complaint.
I'm no Trumper and don't follow the US scene closely. Will the true test of whether Trump is an aspiring dictator be if, having exhausted all rights of appeal and received an unfavorable Supreme Court decision, he ignores the Supreme Court?
Why leap to ‘aspiring Dictator’, there’s a huge amount of damage he can do to (and is already) to constitutional government before getting close to that.
More directly relevant in the short term is what he does if the Dems take one or both houses in the mid terms.
The point is though, the founders very deliberately created a constitution with significant constraints on executive power.
Certainly agree Miller...if after the midterms the Congress passes laws and El PresiTrumpo ignores them then it'll be game on - which way with the National Guard go! No excuse to be bored, eh!
Politicians and governments are elected to Parliament, and are ultimately accountable to the people they represent. Judges and the Judiciary are not , and this lack of democratic accountability, and the ideological agenda certain activist members are pursuing without the publics mandate is extremely worrying. Parliamentary Sovereignty is a cornerstone of our Democratic system, and although this power struggle is largely taking place behind the scenes thanks to the media's obvious bias, thankfully as you say wiser heads are asserting our countries common law traditions against these judicial revolutionaries.
Hi Miller - you might well know more about the US constitution than me, I am no expert at all and don't purport to be. But please don't be embarrassed about it, for my sake or for yours.
The point i am simply making is that the Courts are in a scrap for supremacy in both NZ and the US. The outcome of the MACA legislation is an example in NZ - where its architect C Finlayson told the electorate that it would impact on 5 to 10 per cent of the coastline, yet the Courts have interpreted the law in a way that reportedly means that there are circa 500 claims awaiting a hearing which cover circa 90 per cent of the coastline. The Government has not yet had the courage to walk the Courts back by passing legislation to clarify the position. Tikanga is the same - a Court introduced body of 'law' that has not been blessed by those who we elect to make our laws.
As far as the US is concerned, Trump campaigned on an unambiguous promise to remove illegal immigrants. He won a mandate to do so, with increased support from minority groups. Yet the Courts have injuncted some of his moves to enact this policy. Maybe the Courts have the power to do so, maybe they don't - I have no idea. But if they can constrain a President in this way then the US is arguably no longer a democracy, as unelected judges are in effect determining immigration policy and perhaps a lot more. Everyone should be concerned about that, even Democrats.
What I have learned Miller in the last two years is not to trust mainstream media, in particular with regard to US politics. Since late 2023 i made an effort to hear alternative voices from the US, i.e from sources other than those that refused to report on Biden's mental decline and who, as a consequence, now have no legitimacy as a source of truth. What i have found is that in the court of public opinion I had heard a compelling prosecutorial case against Trump for over ten years, which is why I, like probably 90 per cent of NZers had a visceral dislike and mistrust of him and his agenda.
However, by listening to unfiltered voices unaffected by corporate media agendas, i learned that the court of public opinion had not heard Trump's case theory: defence, counterclaims and cross claims. Once I understood his case theory it became clear to me why he has turned US politics on its head, and become a champion for the working class who don't want: forever wars where they and their children are sent to fight and die overseas for the sake of the bi-coastal elite; boys in the girls changing room; mass illegal immigration; reckless government spending; and a country run by a marzipan layer of civil servants/deep state operatives and elites. If being in favour of those positions means I can be categorised as a Trump supporter then so be it. i would certainly rather align with that platform than one that stands for the opposite.
Miller, i encourage you to listen to some alternative voices who can prosecute the case for what Trump is trying to do.
Perhaps it was a little unfortunate that our first active constitution, from 1856 or thereabouts, made the upper chamber, the Legislative Council, with all members appointed by the Governor. Maybe that didn't work out so well.
Let's have a Legislative Council with members elected by preferential basis, at large, in three wards 1. South and Stewart Island 6 MLCs; 2. North Island from its head, down to Turangi 6 MLCs; and 3. From Turangi to the the tail at Cape Reinga 10 MLCs. One proviso: all MLCs must be non-partisan, as in, not being active members of any political party. They will be empowered to review any bill, Act or action of the lower house, and either strike down or order changes, and make high-level inquiry into any administrative matter.
This LC would be in essence higher in status than the Supremes court, and would obviously eliminate the need for any appointed regulatory standards board.
It would be much better to have an elected LC with a broad view of the national interest, as opposed to an unaccountable committee of supposed technical experts (most likely lawyers....) with a very narrow brief....
This could be instituted via an amendment to the current Constitution Act.
How would that grab people as a fix for the situation? Surely more democracy is better democracy?
Thank you for a great article. Some history. In 1977, Mr Palmer inserted “economism” into our political discourse, which became manifested as Chicago School economics in the 4th Labour Government. He wrote It’s Time to Think: Contributions to the Philosophy Debate in the New Zealand Labour Party. He wrote: But we must redefine social justice in terms of fairness. Our guiding principle should be: LIBERTY, WEALTH, INCOME AND OPPORTUNITY ARE TO BE DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY UNLESS IT CAN BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION IS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE LESS FAVOURED.” This is the “Rawlsian difference principle.” In 1987, he stated that “I put to you my view of the role of government in a mixed economy and in which the government intervenes to achieve the goal of equity.” Bruce Jesson noted that Labour’s economic and social programmes were being hoisted on an “objective economic theory. The 1977 booklet was the adoption, according to Jack Vowles, of a Rawlsian theory of justice, justice as fairness. It was a substantial move in Labour philosophy from a basis in equality and entitlement to social justice. I recollect that this is not quite what we ended up with.
In "It's Time to Think", the role of government is enhanced in redistribution decision-making. What occurred in 1984 ff was the predominance of the then Treasury and Reserve Bank. The 1984 exchange rate crisis saw the adoption of power by the clerisey.
As to your article, the Platonic Philosopher Kings (and Queens), again, enter this time not from the Treasury or the Reserve Bank but from the Judiciary. It is an elite fetish that the disdained deplorables, the plebs sordida of Rome and the idiotas of Athens need the undemocratic guidance of a ‘soviet of the clerisey and judiciary’ on the road to perfection in Stalin’s Adminsitrovanie. To cite Jane Austin, ‘I think we have been amused quite enough’.
That's intriguing about Palmer's economic "thinking". I wasn't aware of that. Such advocates for the State to promote equality of OUTCOMES are proponents of levels of social engineering that can only be achieved by drastic authoritarianism. Striving for equality of OPPORTUNITY (while accepting that the goal is unobtainable) seems okay to me. A reasonable level of genuine equality of opportunity, especially through education, will address any undesirable levels of intergeneration wealth inequality. Donning my tin hat, perhaps that's why NZ''s educational standards have been allowed to plummet in the last few decades - the zealot authoritarians want to try and prove that equality of opportunity is not enough!
Is that right?
"All the wrongs that Rawls hath wrought......"
And I thought that Utopia was somewhere up past the Rakaia gorge, or was that Erehwon?
As our own dear Queen Victoria once said, 'We are not amused.'
Have a look at Thomas Sowell's demolition of Rawls in (from memory) his book Intellectuals. He is compelling in his argument. My post is merely my opinion.
Spot on once again John. Palmer was often seen by many as some geeky, harmless old codger who meant well, bless. But your loathing for the man is a more apposite perspective for he is one of the most dangerous, anti-democratic 'caring understanding nineties types' we have seen. Fucking lawyers. No disrespect intended, but look at the run of arseholes we have had thinking they have some special right to screw up our country. Margaret Wilson, Goofrey Palmer, Doug Graham, Chris Make-Money-from-both-sides Finlayson and then all those jerks on the bench (Cooke, Elias, Glazebrook, Williams etc etc). Add in all the seriously retarded KCs & underlings who are convinced their shit don't smell and thus it is their job to tell us the Treaty Principles Bill was evil or that Israel are somehow the bad guys.
So yeah, forgive me, cos I know there are rare exceptions, but perhaps the Bard had the right idea about lawyers... (that would get me locked up in the UK, suffice to say I don't really mean it....)
it's remarkable who crops up these days as KCs. I don't want to appear mean but...I used to work with Karen Feint KC (who Geoff Palmer loves to knock around with) at Bell Gully. Exceptionally ordinary lawyer. And now she's an "honorary Maori" KC, orchestrating KC letters against Seymour's Treaty Principles bill, telling all non-honoraries they're racists and otherwise making a well remunerated, half mad pest of herself
Thanks for that John. Of course I then just had to look her up. Not to judge a book by its cover, but well, ahem... And daftly I then further googled and found a review by a Mr Pyke on her debate with Gary The Legend Judd on 'tikanga as law'. According to the review, Karen's argument was 'tikanga is law because the Supreme Court said so'. And tikanga is law because 'Article 2 of the ToW guarantees its status in NZ law'. The first argument is circular and self-serving. The second is just wrong. I re-checked, no mention of tikanga in there that I could find. (But that it can mean pretty much anything at all, then maybe it is hiding in there masquerading as another word?)
Gary's arguments against this contention are well known, and call me biased, but make a fuck load more sense than those of this scary looking woman.
The treaty, and everything that has happened since, has set this country back 300 years.
That doesn't mean the Crown is without fault; The Crown is a pathological liar, deceiver, indian-giver, and it will give you land and then steal it back from you and blame you for the theft. Then make you buy it back a piece at a time. And charge you tax for the privilege.
Palmer was doing what he was told, which is to create endless division. This is the Crown strategy.
A nation with two or three heads is not going to thrive . A nation with generations long disputes is not going to survive. Let's euthanise 'New Zealand', and come up with a better system, that instead of respecting the past, of either or any side, looks to the future , concentrates on the common values, and seeks to exclude the derogation of power to international entities, foreign powers, seeks to prevent foreign ownership, maximise national individual capability and sovereignty, and promote a neutral international-political stance.
NZ's 'system' is a mish-mash of opinions and badly executed legislation and survival requires dumping it and starting again.
“Unbridled Power, in which he expressed his feigned dread of that most dangerous phenomenon…democratically elected Governments passing laws and running the country, unmolested by unelected, activist judges”
There are only three (arguably two as Israel does have a kind of quasi supreme law) countries in the world without a codified constitution.
I’m not suggesting we should have one, but literally every democracy on the planet other than NZ, UK & Israel has governments constrained by the constitution which courts can rule on.
Your hysterical paragraph implies that make them undemocratic.
You next paragraph about Covid is a given away as to what this is really about.
Very enlightening John.
I wasn't aware that Palmer initiated all the issues we face now by placing that constitutional cluster bomb into the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986.
Nor was I aware that he made a submission on the TPB suggesting that merely proposing the Bill had “damaged the collective fabric of the nation”… I didn't see many of the "anti" ones; I guess it was just too much to expect any intelligent argument against everyone being treated as equal...
Should we consider reverting to the Privy Council if the elite upper echelon have taken over our Supreme Court, or are they just as bad under Starmer dictates? If so, might we consider Australia's High Court as a substitute?
I think the Supreme Court should be scrapped in favour of our highest Court comprising, in respect of any particular decision, one credible New Zealand jurist plus four from other jurisdictions comparable to New Zealand. They could do it all on "Teams"...even the port/Scotch drinking at the end of each hard day of deliberation!
The "Constitutional Republic" of the USA doesn't contain references to democracy I believe. It is the three branches of governance which were supposed to contain excesses aided by the second amendment...as Plato opined...all democracy must end in tyranny. We have the evidence before us. Democracy alone can and does enslave minorities. The American constitution while preventing some excesses of abuse internally has not prevented enslavement of the third world.
Of course we need a constitution and of course no simple majority should have the power on its own to disadvantage minorities such as the present situation. How we ensure our judiciary is free from corruption, especially our supreme court appointees, needs a serious overhaul.
As an afterthought..the role of the media needs a place in your constitution Geoffrey.
Seems to me that autocracies are more capable of "enslaving" minorities than democracies (and the USA is certainly some sort of democracy). And let's not fall into the Chomsky trap...the childish mantra that the USA is the source of everything bad.
The fact that democracy always ends in tyranny doesn't mean that democracy isn't worth fighting for. The human species will of course become extinct in due course, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying to extend the ascendant ape project
could you please explain.... who are the disadvantaged minorities?
How about people with one arm....how about low income workers who get a tax reduction of $2/ week while an mp gets $50 reduction. Anyone who has sufficient power to affect the wealth/ privilege of someone else is open to pursuasion..bribery. I haven't said we should dump democracy just that a human rights based constitution which cannot be over ridden by the betrayal of a wef trained witch would be a good move.
If they lost an arm in an accident, you know ACC looks after them Jonathan.
Where do you get the $2 per week??
The tax change, that was just adjusting the lower tax bands for inflation, and something the "caring" Jacinda should have done, amounts to over $13/week for most low paid workers. Even those on the minimum wage, who worked a bit of overtime, were being "whacked" by the 30% tax rate.
So, even tho you're right that many pollies are overpaid (relative to their contribution), and there are too many of them, IMO everyone should applaud the tax band adjustments that benefitted the lower paid and middle income earners.
Human rights is a terribly dangerous fiction. Not least because I can always manufacture an equal and opposite right, against your dearly held one....
The big problem with NZ democracy is the tribal adversarial party system. Other societies have a more relaxed and reasonable approach with an arena-style parliament,
A disabled person? Oh, so you mean minorities who are actually and genuinely disadvantaged through no fault of their own? 100% then. NZ should have at its highest priority the care, support and wellbeing of the disabled. They should not want for anything and receive whatever they need to help improve their lives to (as far as possible) the same standard as the rest of us. I'd happily pay more tax for that. It is just when you said 'disadvantaged minorities', it rang a pavlovian bell of the 'coloured peoples' persuasion. Thanks for clarifying.
(not sure about your low income argument though, that is more complex and those less well paid may have a good reason for being so, but I take your point. I think...)