Posts by Rich of Observationz
-
I agree that NZ's destiny lies with becoming a republic, but it will be a headache to get there. Do we just cross out the words "Governor-General" on everything and replace them with the word "President"? Do we directly elect the president? What would be his or her powers? At present technically the G-G appoints the PM and Ministers, what happens if the president wants to pick the cabinet without the advice of the coalition that commands a parliamentary majority? What about the Treaty?
One option would be simply designate the PM head of state (similar to South Africa, where the President is the leader of the parliamentary majority).
All the actions taken by the "Governor General on the advice of ministers" would simply be taken by ministers. Umpiring the appointment of governments could be left to e.g. a senior judge, a senior civil servant and the Speaker. Acts of parliament would enter office after their final reading. Entertaining of dignitaries would be done by the PM, foreign minister, or a retired rugby player, as appropriate.
(The other common alternative is to elect a President with identical powers to the G-G. Superficially attractive, but leaves open the possibility of an elected president choosing to claim a mandate for constitutional shenanigans).
-
the Treaty is a deal with the Crown
This is a common idea and one that is totally wrong, in the sense of the "crown" being the British Royal Family.
The "crown" in this case, as in others, is simply shorthand for the state. New Zealand has never been a personal colony of the Windsors (after the fashion of the Congo Free State. In 1840, Britain was a constitutional monarchy, and Hobson was the delegate of the British government. Treaties pass to succssor states, and thus as Britain and NZ slowly disentangled, the "crown" party to the treaty has become the government and people of NZ.
So NZ's transition to a republic will have no effect on the Treaty - it will remain binding on the state of New Zealand, as it has been since 1947* and before.
* NZ accession to the Statute of Westminster, which removed the last legal vestiges of suzerainty between the UK and NZ.
-
Hard News: Any excuse for a party, in reply to Russell Brown,
I don't think that figure bears any rigorous relation to the value in tourist dollars of having a monarch that's included in the UK constitution.
Did the revenues from stately homes drop when most of their inhabitants lost their right to sit in the Lords? Do less people go to National Trust properties than ones still owned by aristocrats? (Longleat vs Stourhead)
It's possible that tourism to the UK might actually increase if you could walk around Buckingham Palace gardens, for instance. It might not, but the figures are pretty indeterminate. If the UK became a bit less shit infrastructurally, it might make a bigger difference than any number of royal weddings.
(Also, that Civil List number is a bit bogus. It excludes the income from various lands, including the Duchy of Cornwall, that the royals insist are personally held, but which were acquired through their positions as monarch and could reasonably be held to be state property. It also excludes a lot of the costs of the royals use of the military, for instance. How much did it cost to put William through every form of military training he was interested in? )
-
The Atomic Energy Act is an interesting curiosity.
It doesn't distinguish enriched and natural uranium, so it would be legal for a secondary school to acquire a pound (454g) of 95% enriched uranium. Get a few schools together (something over a hundred) and they could jointly make a bomb.
They'd need to collect a *lot* of voluntary contributions, though.
-
The Civil List costs the British taxpayer £37 million annually, but the royals, by some estimates, bring in about half a billion pounds a year in “royalty tourism” revenues
I realize that that kind of economics (hey, we spent a few million, but it’ll bring in billions in tourism, and all the people who work in tourism will spend dollars, and all the people they spend money with will spend dollars and it’ll sprinkle all over the country in showers of gold) is a bit of an article of faith here, but there are those that disagree.
The Herald seems (unusually) to have uncovered a few slight overestimates around the Rugby World Cup (TM) for instance.
As regards the Saxe-Coburg Gothas, I’d be happy for them to continue to refer to themselves as Kings of England or any other title they like after their inevitable deposition. But the various palaces and land (5000 acres of Windsor Great Park for instance, worth perhaps GBP10bln) are clearly the property of the UK taxpayer, and should either revert or be paid for.
-
I guess the situation with yellowcake depends on whether the meaning of "imported" includes goods on a ship that aren't being unloaded in New Zealand. Such goods aren't subject to GST and duties, for instance.
You also have the situation where aircraft land in NZ with depleted uranium balance weights. I'd suspect they don't have permits, either.
-
Damien, you probably know more about Auckland than I do, but I don't fully buy that Epsom is safe for whoever NACT decide to endorse.
There are going to be some Epsom voters who were happy with the Hide populist agenda and are going to be less happy with Brash. There's also been three years for the Lab/Green voters to twig to what's going on and vote tactically for National (although even if they all did it isn't enough to overturn the National vote).
What would be smart would be for Labour and Green to denounce this electoral gaming and withdraw their candidates in favour of an independent right-of-centre figure. (Dick Hubbard?) That candidate might garner enough votes to displace Hide.
-
Surely a bit reckless, given the endangered status of the Kiwi.
I know the Russians fired dogs and monkeys, but they are at least fairly widespread.
Maybe if we need a lightweight creature for tests (although given it was all done in the 1950s, you have to ask why) a sparrow or fieldmouse would be more appropriate.
-
"Labour Party strategy" basically amounts to waiting another two or three elections for the public to finally decide that it's "time for a change". Since the Labour party has maybe 30% sheeplike "tribal" voters who will never desert them, they'll then get to be the government for a few terms.
-
I happen to believe that having a National government is a "sub-par outcome" per-se, and that moderating their stupidity just makes the continuance of their rule more attractive.
If a change that Labour managed to get through *was* so attractive as to seriously reduce the impact of the act (for instance, introducing real accountability, or limiting Henry VIII powers to specific laws like the RMA) I might be more convinced. (I can't actually see the amendments to the bill as the Parliament and legislation.govt.nz appear to delete them when a bill passes).
In the case of the Copyright Act, I think it would have been *better* had the law been passed in its original form and Big Media allowed to start laying into Pt. Chev mums with filesharing offspring. That would have at least created a reaction against further such measures including ACTA, TPPA and the like,