NZ Politics Thread

All things Rugby
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

The government is above the law. Two words. Retrospective legislation.
Santa
Posts: 10307
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Wilderbeast wrote:The government is above the law. Two words. Retrospective legislation.
Don't be silly. That would be the government making its action lawful not leaving them unlawful. Thus not above the law.
User avatar
Gordon Bennett
Posts: 2255
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Gordon Bennett »

booji boy wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:The Hitler thing is nothingburger, but it has highlighted how stupid it is to select an 18 year old as a candidate.

Saying "Look, it was when he was 14" is fine if you're talking about someone in their 40's or even 20's. But when it's only 4 years ago, the 'youthful indiscretion' argument doesn't really work.
I think there's going to be some real problems with this generation wanting to become politicians when their social media history can be dredged up. I'm pretty sure I said and did bloody stupid things when I was 14, but I wasn't plastering those thoughts online to be saved for posterity and there wasn't someone with a camera to hand to record photographic evidence.

Good god, I shudder to think.
It's not just the current internet kids though is it. Look at Justin Trudeau and his 'blackface' Arabian Nights fancy dress outfit from what? 2001?
Fair point. I obviously grew up where no one had cameras or, quite possible, opposable thumbs.

Either way, I'm not sure that's a huge amount of value in holding people to account for stupidity of thought in your early teens.

Mind you, could always claim it to be a joke. Judith was on RNZ this morning saying that New Zealanders need to find more time for a joke or two. Hard to disagree with that.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

Santa wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:The government is above the law. Two words. Retrospective legislation.
Don't be silly. That would be the government making its action lawful not leaving them unlawful. Thus not above the law.
Retrospective legislation means the govt was Technically always acting legally, right?
Santa
Posts: 10307
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Wilderbeast wrote:
Santa wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:The government is above the law. Two words. Retrospective legislation.
Don't be silly. That would be the government making its action lawful not leaving them unlawful. Thus not above the law.
Retrospective legislation means the govt was Technically always acting legally, right?
I don't know. But they wouldn't need retrospective legislation if they had always been acting legally.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

The government took actions which most agree were appropriate and necessary. If these are deemed to be illegal, then the issue is that our current laws are too restrictive on a govt in this Kind of emergency. I think this will be how the public reacts anyway. I don’t think anyone will hold this against labour when it really seems like lawyer dick waving (this may or may not be true, but perception is everything).
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5793
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Wilderbeast wrote:The government took actions which most agree were appropriate and necessary. If these are deemed to be illegal, then the issue is that our current laws are too restrictive on a govt in this Kind of emergency. I think this will be how the public reacts anyway. I don’t think anyone will hold this against labour when it really seems like lawyer dick waving (this may or may not be true, but perception is everything).
I'm sure all the people arrested and fined and all the business that were forced to shut and earn no money on the govts illegal actions for 9 days will laugh it off.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

What numbers are we looking at here?
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19662
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Dark wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:The government took actions which most agree were appropriate and necessary. If these are deemed to be illegal, then the issue is that our current laws are too restrictive on a govt in this Kind of emergency. I think this will be how the public reacts anyway. I don’t think anyone will hold this against labour when it really seems like lawyer dick waving (this may or may not be true, but perception is everything).
I'm sure all the people arrested and fined and all the business that were forced to shut and earn no money on the govts illegal actions for 9 days will laugh it off.
It was an old law and if they had known that there was an issue they would have just changed the law anyway so the lockdown was still going to happen.
Santa
Posts: 10307
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Looks like I'm in a minority here when I say I think it is bad if people are jailed unlawfully. I guess I'm a classicist like that.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

Santa wrote:Looks like I'm in a minority here when I say I think it is bad if people are jailed unlawfully. I guess I'm a classicist like that.
We’re people jailed? Or was this a threat? I actually can’t remember.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6118
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

Wilderbeast wrote:The government took actions which most agree were appropriate and necessary. If these are deemed to be illegal, then the issue is that our current laws are too restrictive on a govt in this Kind of emergency. I think this will be how the public reacts anyway. I don’t think anyone will hold this against labour when it really seems like lawyer dick waving (this may or may not be true, but perception is everything).
Do you think most people would feel the same way about Labour's pledge cards?
Just because this time around retrospective legislation was palatable to the masses doesn't mean it's never abused and it should be an absolute last resort only used when there are gaps in the law or unforeseen situations that the law doesn't cover.
Jay Cee Gee
Posts: 17668
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Jay Cee Gee »

deadduck wrote:it should be an absolute last resort only used when there are gaps in the law or unforeseen situations that the law doesn't cover.
Which would fit the lockdown situation, surely?
Santa
Posts: 10307
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

There's also the slight problem that the Crown Law advice, which Parker called 'draft' and which he tried to hide, was that Police enforcement of the order was not lawful. So they knew it was dodgy but they did it anyway.

This is a matter of principle. Is New Zealand a nation of laws or can the government just make it up as they go? The whole structure of Parliament and the process of lawmaking is predicated on the former isn't it?
User avatar
terangi48
Posts: 1730
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by terangi48 »

Amazing how cocky and dismissive people become post covid treat........can't believe that some are complaining their freedom has been threatened with "was eradicating community spread illegal bollocks".

Where were you, and what were you doing when the Virus was cranking up in March - April?

My suggestion to those who think this......get yourself a one way ticket to the US of A......they have the sort of freedom Utopia you dream of.....
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19662
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

terangi48 wrote:Amazing how cocky and dismissive people become post covid treat........can't believe that some are complaining their freedom has been threatened with "was eradicating community spread illegal bollocks".

Where were you, and what were you doing when the Virus was cranking up in March - April?

My suggestion to those who think this......get yourself a one way ticket to the US of A......they have the sort of freedom Utopia you dream of.....

Their arguments are political, not practical. The worst part of that is that they would make very good politicians - but get eff all done.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

Jay Cee Gee wrote:
deadduck wrote:it should be an absolute last resort only used when there are gaps in the law or unforeseen situations that the law doesn't cover.
Which would fit the lockdown situation, surely?
Nailed it. My only issue with labour is that they didn’t retrospectively legislate once the crunch was largely over, but there may be reasons as to why they did not (probably political).
Santa
Posts: 10307
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Wilderbeast wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
deadduck wrote:it should be an absolute last resort only used when there are gaps in the law or unforeseen situations that the law doesn't cover.
Which would fit the lockdown situation, surely?
Nailed it. My only issue with labour is that they didn’t retrospectively legislate once the crunch was largely over, but there may be reasons as to why they did not (probably political).
Here's a useful guide:
Legislation should not have retrospective effect.
The starting point is that legislation should not have retrospective effect. It should not interfere with accrued rights and duties.

Legislation might have direct retrospective effect if it:
- applies to an event or action that has already taken place;
- prevents a person from relying on a right or defence that existed at the time the person undertook the conduct that the right or defence related to; or
- punishes a person or imposes a burden or an obligation in respect of past conduct.

A person should not be made criminally liable for past actions that were not prohibited at the time of commission. Section 26(1) of NZBORA provides that no one is liable to conviction for any act that was not an offence at the time it occurred. If the penalty attaching to an offence is increased between commission and conviction, the lesser penalty should also apply.

Retrospective legislation might, however, be appropriate if it is intended to:

- be entirely to the benefit of those affected;
- validate matters generally understood and intended to be lawful, but that are, in fact, unlawful as a result of a technical error;
- decriminalise conduct (see for example, section 7 of the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986);
- address a matter that is essential to public safety;
- provide certainty as a result of litigation (discussed in more detail in 12.2); or in limited circumstances, make changes to tax law or other budgetary legislation.

If direct retrospective effect is intended, this must be clearly stated in the legislation and be capable of justification. If it is not expressly stated, there is a risk the courts will apply the presumption that legislation does not have retrospective effect.
http://ldac.org.nz/guidelines/legislati ... 12/part-1/

The bolded bit seems to be the key one, and given that Crown Law advice was that it was unlawful, there was no technical error.

The public safety could also apply but it's not quite clear what that means. Maybe Mr Mike might know.

The other interesting bit is Section 26(1) of NZBORA: no one is liable to conviction for any act that was not an offence at the time it occurred. So all those people that were fined and the dude (dudes) that was jailed in the relevant period should have all of that quashed.
Santa
Posts: 10307
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Also the data leak report is in.

1. Boag and Walker bad - we all knew that.
2. The data handling was poor from the Ministry (e.g. no password protection or encryption and no reason to send it as there was no community transmission) - some of us knew that while others defended it.
3. Boag's personal email address was used because she was only acting CEO. That might be right but it is very shit practice.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19662
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

The whole truth of that sorry saga will never come out I fear
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

The public safety one looks like a good rationale. Thanks for posting that Santa.
User avatar
RuggaBugga
Posts: 12691
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by RuggaBugga »

Santa wrote:The Government could be sitting on quite a big f.uck up here.
Unintended consequences could flow if a court was to rule parts of the coronavirus lockdown were unlawful, lawyers have warned.

An example was given on Wednesday of a business which received rent relief on the basis it was not able to open, and the consequences if the restriction stopping it trading was then found to have been unlawful.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... court-told

But...
If Borrowdale’s case succeeded it may have an effect but it would still need to be proved in any other cases that followed, he said.

All the court would declare would be that some lockdown orders were invalid, and it was not as if it would be deciding pre-emptively a whole bunch of cases.
And just to reiterate the point
For the first nine days massive restrictions were imposed by public announcement rather than by law, Mijatov said. It was not good enough to say, “I could have done it lawfully but I didn’t”.

“No-one, not even the government, is above the law, even in an emergency,” he said.

Borrowdale was not challenging whether the health response was reasonable, necessary or desirable, Mijatov said.

But the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and others, made statements that could only be read as requirements, such as ‘’go home and stay home’’, when the legal order was not to congregate outdoors unless you were more than 2 metres apart, he said.
Yeah it was positively Neo-Maoist :roll:

How's life in your shithole London bedsit, allowed outside yet?
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8821
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by booji boy »

Another day, another cheery post from RuggaBugga. :lol:
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Muttonbirds »

Am I right in thinking the people who have an issue with the '9 days of illegality' would rather we didn't lock down until the law was in place?

Let's say that happened 9 days after 26 March. We'd be looking at deaths in triple figures by now and a much more damaged economy. :?
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

It’s fair to ask why the govt hasn’t really engaged with the possibility it was illegal.
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Muttonbirds »

Wilderbeast wrote:It’s fair to ask why the govt hasn’t really engaged with the possibility it was illegal.
Ok then. But almost no-one cares. :?
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Muttonbirds »

Enzedder wrote:The whole truth of that sorry saga will never come out I fear
It's incredible. This report could have been written by and for the National Party itself. :lol:
User avatar
Kahu
Posts: 3480
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Kahu »

booji boy wrote:Another day, another cheery post from RuggaBugga. :lol:
Lol though I have never met anyone from PR I'm sure he's a great guy irl and PR is just his dumping ground that saves his wife/husband.
terangi48 wrote:Amazing how cocky and dismissive people become post covid treat........can't believe that some are complaining their freedom has been threatened with "was eradicating community spread illegal bollocks".

Where were you, and what were you doing when the Virus was cranking up in March - April?

My suggestion to those who think this......get yourself a one way ticket to the US of A......they have the sort of freedom Utopia you dream of.....
Complaining about the lockdown loudly and breaking the non-existent lockdown law by going surfing and socialising with friends.
Santa
Posts: 10307
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Huge apologies for questioning the Government. Just to check the rules are we not allowed to question all Governments or just Arderns one?
User avatar
Auckman
Posts: 9057
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Sydney Town

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Auckman »

Latest CB poll...

Image

but Judith Collins on 20% preferred PM - the highest score for a Nat leader since Bill English. Jacinda still on 54% though.
User avatar
Auckman
Posts: 9057
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Sydney Town

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Auckman »

Santa wrote:Huge apologies for questioning the Government. Just to check the rules are we not allowed to question all Governments or just Arderns one?
Even if it was technically illegal, most people won't give a toss. It'll simply be good learnings to update the law for future pandemics like this.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19662
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Woah - ACT. WTF???

Bye bye Winnie
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19662
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

One Covid escapee today - made 100 metres.

Hopefully going to be remanded to Springhill for a couple of weeks to serve out time.
Santa
Posts: 10307
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Auckman wrote:
Santa wrote:Huge apologies for questioning the Government. Just to check the rules are we not allowed to question all Governments or just Arderns one?
Even if it was technically illegal, most people won't give a toss. It'll simply be good learnings to update the law for future pandemics like this.
I get that. Still, it should be a very, very basic expectation that the Government should act within the laws that it sets for itself and every one else. Perhaps the most basic expectation.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

I think the current situation proves that statement wrong Santa. Clearly the govt prioritised public safety over acting within the law. If they even broke the law...
Santa
Posts: 10307
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Wilderbeast wrote:I think the current situation proves that statement wrong Santa. Clearly the govt prioritised public safety over acting within the law. If they even broke the law...
It was in their power to do both.

Anyway give me a few more posts and I will have run out of different ways of saying the same thing. New Sealanders nees to read John Locke. I doubt more than 20 have done so.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

I don’t think it was, speed was everything. The bureaucratic gears of govt are slow and cumbersome. Waiting to enact legislation could have changed everything.
Santa
Posts: 10307
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Wilderbeast wrote:I don’t think it was, speed was everything. The bureaucratic gears of govt are slow and cumbersome. Waiting to enact legislation could have changed everything.
They passed something in 2 or 3 days last month. It just needed to be an amendment didn't it? Anyway who cares I've done this one to death. :thumbup:
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

Santa wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:I don’t think it was, speed was everything. The bureaucratic gears of govt are slow and cumbersome. Waiting to enact legislation could have changed everything.
They passed something in 2 or 3 days last month. It just needed to be an amendment didn't it? Anyway who cares I've done this one to death. :thumbup:
Agree to disagree. I’ll see you when the ruling is made :D
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Muttonbirds »

Santa wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:I don’t think it was, speed was everything. The bureaucratic gears of govt are slow and cumbersome. Waiting to enact legislation could have changed everything.
They passed something in 2 or 3 days last month. It just needed to be an amendment didn't it? Anyway who cares I've done this one to death. :thumbup:
Which would be the fate of hundreds of vulnerable New Zealanders if the government had waited to dot the eyes and cross the tees.
Post Reply