A good first step would be recognize that the Crown has never had sovereignty over the land of New Zealand. Chris Finlayson’s political soveriegnty is some else entirely.
“Parliament is recognised as sovereign (the highest authority) in the law-making process because it is accountable to the people.”
sovereignty:
The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability …
Just tried to read the latest Waatea news item, but can’t read it all as the documentary choices on the right cover much of the text and I can’t remove them.
Any suggestions?
Cheers.:)
Fully support your idea of a bi-cameral parliament.
I like the idea of a bi-cameral parliament but mandated 50-50 governance is ridiculous.
Some interesting ideas there Martyn, but (and I speak as someone who has argued for a return to bicameralism with a disproportionate voice for Maori), I think there are a few issues with your plans.
1) A 50-50 split would not be acceptable to non-Maori New Zealanders and could actually lead to more reactionary governments (which would still come from the lower house). If more anti-Maori MP’s are elected in the lower house and if the upper house could only delay legislation we could actually see the right empowered by such a system – the exact opposite of the goal!
2) You don’t seem to discuss how these upper house people would be chosen – elected? appointed? Would the tribes select representatives, or Maoridom at large?
I don’t mean to seem like I’m attacking the idea, and I know you only had about 200 words to sketch out your plans, but I worry that you a putting a lot of faith in this upper house which would almost certainly not be fulfilled.
For example, it would be politically and morally impossible to have the upper house be able to delay the popularly elected lower one for more than 3 years, so any bill that a government would want to introduce would become law during a term. I’m sure you would argue that the government would change its mind in the face of public opposition during the delay, but as 2011 showed National can still win while arguing for sell-offs.
You are also putting a large amount of faith in Maori members of the upper house to represent Maoridom at large, rather than their tribes, region or constituencies (or their own political views). Are the views of Paula Bennett or Simon Bridges any better because they are Maori?
Foreign policy + Intel + Security
Subscribe | Follow | Bookmarkand join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday
MIL Public Webcast Service
A good first step would be recognize that the Crown has never had sovereignty over the land of New Zealand. Chris Finlayson’s political soveriegnty is some else entirely.
“Parliament is recognised as sovereign (the highest authority) in the law-making process because it is accountable to the people.”
sovereignty:
The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability …
http://www.actsinjunction.info/nzsov.html
Hi Martyn,
Just tried to read the latest Waatea news item, but can’t read it all as the documentary choices on the right cover much of the text and I can’t remove them.
Any suggestions?
Cheers.:)
Fully support your idea of a bi-cameral parliament.
I like the idea of a bi-cameral parliament but mandated 50-50 governance is ridiculous.
Some interesting ideas there Martyn, but (and I speak as someone who has argued for a return to bicameralism with a disproportionate voice for Maori), I think there are a few issues with your plans.
1) A 50-50 split would not be acceptable to non-Maori New Zealanders and could actually lead to more reactionary governments (which would still come from the lower house). If more anti-Maori MP’s are elected in the lower house and if the upper house could only delay legislation we could actually see the right empowered by such a system – the exact opposite of the goal!
2) You don’t seem to discuss how these upper house people would be chosen – elected? appointed? Would the tribes select representatives, or Maoridom at large?
I don’t mean to seem like I’m attacking the idea, and I know you only had about 200 words to sketch out your plans, but I worry that you a putting a lot of faith in this upper house which would almost certainly not be fulfilled.
For example, it would be politically and morally impossible to have the upper house be able to delay the popularly elected lower one for more than 3 years, so any bill that a government would want to introduce would become law during a term. I’m sure you would argue that the government would change its mind in the face of public opposition during the delay, but as 2011 showed National can still win while arguing for sell-offs.
You are also putting a large amount of faith in Maori members of the upper house to represent Maoridom at large, rather than their tribes, region or constituencies (or their own political views). Are the views of Paula Bennett or Simon Bridges any better because they are Maori?
Comments are closed.