Public Address | Cafe | Legal Beagle: Geoffrey Palmer has decided to write a constitution

Dennis Frank

Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:54:20 +1200

I wish the guy well in his attempt, but any establishment lawyer is unlikely to produce a constitution that serves anyone other than establishment interests, right?

Take the oath to serve the monarch that all MPs must take in order to participate in parliament, for instance. Bet he retains it!…

Graeme Edgeler

Sun, 05 Jun 2016 23:26:03 +1200

If Parliament passes a law with 75% super-majority that conflicts with something in the constitution, what actually happens to the constitutional provision?

Does it just not apply where it conflicts with that specific law, or is there a general interpretation principle that it won’t apply in similar conflicts with other…

Thomas Lumley

Sun, 05 Jun 2016 12:51:55 +1200

If Parliament passes a law with 75% super-majority that conflicts with something in the constitution, what actually happens to the constitutional provision?

Does it just not apply where it conflicts with that specific law, or is there a general interpretation principle that it won't apply in similar conflicts with other…

Steve Markham

Thu, 02 Jun 2016 11:23:09 +1200

In would be essential that in any national discourse with or without Sir Geoffrey's initiative for a written, by degrees entrenched, constitution, the clinical comparison between the status quo constitutional fragments and any proposed content with its change decision coding, is clear. This has not been a signal feature of…

Graeme Edgeler

Fri, 27 May 2016 09:40:56 +1200

Which reminds me, is the proposed constitution subservient the the treaty (which is after all our founding document), or superior to it? I’m kinda curious, because the legal status of the treaty is something I haven’t really researched.

The Treaty is part of Palmer's constitution.
(at least as it is…

Moz

Fri, 27 May 2016 09:37:59 +1200

Sir Geoffrey was asked about social and economic rights. He noted he was a conservative on such issue

The Treaty includes a number of rights that today are considered economic (in English, anyway), like fishing and forestry. Leaving those out of the constitution would raise eyebrows, regardless of the rationale.…

Graeme Edgeler

Thu, 26 May 2016 23:59:22 +1200

We may then be inspired. I’d see the key points as:
...
– entrenched and enforceable social and economic rights

Sir Geoffrey was asked about social and economic rights. He noted he was a conservative on such issues, asking eg, what we think a court could do in current circumstances…

Rich of Observationz

Thu, 26 May 2016 20:30:15 +1200

Another option, and one which might be favoured by those wishing to codify the essence, rather than the letter, of the current status quo is something like the Swedish monarchical model.

The Swedish constitution nominates a monarchical succession but grants that monarch more or less no powers.

An NZ constitution…

Rich of Observationz

Thu, 26 May 2016 20:09:41 +1200

Anyway, I tend to the view that we'd be better off trying to change our constitution in the bright light of a crisis (as Icelanders has tried and so far failed to).

We may then be inspired. I'd see the key points as:
– entrenched and enforceable human rights
-…

Rich of Observationz

Thu, 26 May 2016 20:02:08 +1200

a no-change constitution

The difficulty would be determining what that amounts to. Take ‘royal assent’, for instance. It hasn’ t been denied ever since 1878 in NZ (at the behest of Britain), or in the UK since 1707.

Is it now a nullity? Or could a minority government that was…

Moz

Thu, 26 May 2016 17:40:54 +1200

I'm also thinking of various decriminalisation campaigns, and how it would probably be difficult to add new rights as opinions change. Which can be a good thing, but also nasty if you're on the wrong side of the existing law. I mean, homosexuality is all very well, but if prostitution…

Moz

Thu, 26 May 2016 17:36:18 +1200

I will note however, that the alternative, not have an entrenched bill of rights, isn't much of an improvement from your perspective.

Entrenching would be a huge step forward, I agree. I would like to have constitutional rights, and generally I don't.

I'm just cautious that we don't entrench foolish…

Graeme Edgeler

Thu, 26 May 2016 16:23:25 +1200

Contrawise, if 60% of the population want a change and 26% of parliament don’t, the parliamentary vote will fail but a referendum vote will pass and the referendum will almost certainly pass.

That's still up for resolution, but under the process in the Electoral Act, it's either 75% of Parliament,…

Moz

Thu, 26 May 2016 16:17:58 +1200

It's an or, not an and

The way it's written above I think either 75% of parliament, or 50% of the population can strip basic rights, and it requires both other groups to be stronger to resist since either avenue can succeed independently.

Viz, if 80% of parliament want to…

bbrooks

Thu, 26 May 2016 15:47:22 +1200

Yay, what remains of my basic rights are safe as long as 50% of the population and 25% of parliament agrees that I should be allowed to keep them

It's an or, not an and. But more importantly, it would mean your basic rights are substantially more secure than under…

Moz

Thu, 26 May 2016 14:11:38 +1200

a 75% majority in Parliament, or a 50% majority at a referendum.

That seems both risky and useful at the same time. Yay, what remains of my basic rights are safe as long as 50% of the population and 25% of parliament agrees that I should be allowed to keep…

BenWilson

Thu, 26 May 2016 13:01:28 +1200

I guess a referendum is the safety valve there, then. And that would definitely need a good strong process of ensuring strong public debate.

Graeme Edgeler

Thu, 26 May 2016 12:48:49 +1200

I find the idea of needing supermajorities to change things particularly problematic, because that literally entrenches that a constitutional feature could remain very unpopular in near perpetuity, so long as it advantages 25% of the people.

The process in the Electoral Act (which Palmer proposes carrying over) is a 75%…

BenWilson

Thu, 26 May 2016 12:44:40 +1200

Sir Geoffrey isn’t expecting change soon. He suggests the adoption of a Constitution might not happen for 20 years, which, if we are to have one, seems like a reasonable time scale

Yes. It's an important enough thing that 20 years might well be how long it takes to forge…

Lucy Telfar Barnard

Thu, 26 May 2016 12:12:40 +1200

Why bother convincing NZers we need one first? Why not just decide to have a referendum on it, hold some poorly attended meetings round the country, then get NZers to send it their drafts for what they think should be in the constitution, and have a group of marketing experts…

Bee Hives

Thu, 26 May 2016 11:34:18 +1200

Given some of the similarities NZ has with the UK, Sir Geoffrey and PA readers may want to look at this attempt to write a constitution for the UK from the Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK.

Joe Wylie

Thu, 26 May 2016 08:53:19 +1200

It’s always useful to have something sitting around, if we suddenly find we need it it a hurry (it seems to have worked for the Rogernomes).
Geoffrey did get his Sir status back in the final twilight of that era, in the very same batch as Sir Roger.
https://youtu.be/LUyxmrRhwqI

Graeme Edgeler

Thu, 26 May 2016 08:42:21 +1200

Comments enabled.

Public Address

Thu, 26 May 2016 08:42:21 +1200

Discussion from blog post.