Blue Libs Newsletter - March 2010
Constitutional review - Time for a four-year term
Bluelibs readers will know that we have begun a campaign to strengthen the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The trouble with taking such a focussed approach - as important as it is - is that it runs the danger of ignoring some of the wider constitutional issues that also deserve timely consideration.
Among the problems that have driven our consideration of the Bill of Rights Act, has been the quality of legislation and the often rushed nature of it. This is a problem that all Governments face. There’s a lot to do and little time to do it in.
The problem is made worse by the three-year term, which leaves Government with fewer than two years to advance its programme before it has to get into electioneering. The net result is that things must happen quickly and often do too quickly. Urgency motions and hasty Supplementary Order Papers become the order of the day and a plague for Parliamentarians, people and judiciary alike.
Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, has commented frequently on the need to do things well so that we only have to do things once. But the cards of the current electoral system are stacked against that. A four year term would restack the deck, allowing greater consideration of legislation Government.
Later this year the Government is about to embark on a constitutional review. The current idea is that it will consider the future of the M?ori seats. But at a time when questions abound about MMP, the role of the Queen as head of State, and the Bill of Rights Act, it seems to us that the Review could consider a lot more.
Should a four-year term be part of that?
What do you think?
Responses to bluelibs@national.org.nz
Quote of the Quarter
“A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away” - Barry Goldwater
Constitutional review - Time for a four-year term
Bluelibs readers will know that we have begun a campaign to strengthen the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The trouble with taking such a focussed approach - as important as it is - is that it runs the danger of ignoring some of the wider constitutional issues that also deserve timely consideration.
Among the problems that have driven our consideration of the Bill of Rights Act, has been the quality of legislation and the often rushed nature of it. This is a problem that all Governments face. There’s a lot to do and little time to do it in.
The problem is made worse by the three-year term, which leaves Government with fewer than two years to advance its programme before it has to get into electioneering. The net result is that things must happen quickly and often do too quickly. Urgency motions and hasty Supplementary Order Papers become the order of the day and a plague for Parliamentarians, people and judiciary alike.
Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, has commented frequently on the need to do things well so that we only have to do things once. But the cards of the current electoral system are stacked against that. A four year term would restack the deck, allowing greater consideration of legislation Government.
Later this year the Government is about to embark on a constitutional review. The current idea is that it will consider the future of the M?ori seats. But at a time when questions abound about MMP, the role of the Queen as head of State, and the Bill of Rights Act, it seems to us that the Review could consider a lot more.
Should a four-year term be part of that?
What do you think?
Responses to bluelibs@national.org.nz
Quote of the Quarter
“A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away” - Barry Goldwater
