Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The only exception to this seems to be in the area of mental health, which I get the impression is treated as an absolute Cinderella.
There was a time in the 90s when it seemed like every year we had a new report by some committee or other on our mental health system all saying exactly the same thing - this is chronically under-funded. They were all dutifully accepted by the government of the day and nothing seemed to happen.
I'm not sure if that situation has gotten any better, or if we just stopped writing the reports.
That line in the Stuff article:
By 7.30 that night, Mr Higgins again grew agitated. His girlfriend tried to physically restrain him, hugging him to her for more than half an hour to stop him leaving.
damn near floored me this morning.
Me too. Sometimes heroic actions still lead to... well, how she's probably feeling right now. It's not right.
Maybe someone who actually knew Finn could write a tribute and Russell could put it up on Speaker? Our community, such as it is, has lost a little something, and it'd be nice to record that loss in the headlines in as much as the comments.
-
The Dom Post story is here.
Sad reading, particularly his poor partner trying to stop him leaving :(
-
So you agree the Treaty is a Constitutional Document & (in some capacity) has been enforce by NZ courts?
No that's specifically what I'm not agreeing to. The 'principles of the treaty as defined by a court in 1987', and the 'the treaty/ies' are not the same thing.
If the treaty had been enforced by NZ courts as it was written then I think our country would look pretty different these days.
-
"The Treaty itself doesn't fulfil any of the requirements for being some sort of constitution that I'm aware of."
& then
"While some of the rights and responsibilities listed in the treaty are of a constitutional nature," = Snookered :PMy point is, I could write a constitutional document on the back of a napkin. It still wouldn't fulfill any of the requirements for being a constitution, because it's not enforceable in law. The various treaties that were signed on and after 1840 are also not enforceable in law.
Kyle I'm pointing to the Judge made law that includes the TOW & so makes Common Law.
Unless you're looking at a different section than me, you're not:
Indeed, references to the "Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi" appear in a number of statutes, although the principles themselves have not been defined in statute. They are instead defined by a common law decision of the Court of Appeal from 1987...
The principles defined by the Court of Appeal might be enforceable in law, but they're not the same thing as the Treaty, they're a judge's interpretation of it.
It's a very different situation from say USA, where the constitution, with all its language quirks and out-of-date terms, is enforceable in law.
-
The common law you've referred to relates to principles, not the text of the treaties that were signed. Perhaps you mean that the principles listed are a constitutional document.
The Treaty itself doesn't fulfil any of the requirements for being some sort of constitution that I'm aware of. It doesn't have any higher powers over the crown, parliament, or indeed, basic law. Any law can breach the treaty legally, and the treaty itself doesn't have any power or is upheld, except when it is through some other law.
While some of the rights and responsibilities listed in the treaty are of a constitutional nature, the treaty is by a large a powerless document. The primary law that it's written into is the Treaty of Waitangi Act, and then only by reference - that Act doesn't enforce the treaty as some sort of constitution, it just uses it to address breaches through the tribunal and negotiation procedures. The principles of the Treaty are mentioned several times in law, but not defined. A set of principles has been defined by the judiciary, but that's not the same thing as the text.
-
Well even if that's true, that doesn't make it a constitutional document. Lots of legislation doesn't actually refer to the treaty, it refers to principles which supposedly relate to the treaty.
Either way, it certainly doesn't mean that all rights in NZ come from the Treaty. They come from parliament which wrote the legislation that you're referring to, and the Crown.
-
Bummer :(
I really enjoyed his contributions. If anyone has contact with his family or partner, please pass on our thoughts.
-
Insofar as all rights in New Zealand come from the Treaty (not because it says what they are, but because it allows them),
I don't believe that's true. The treaty isn't a constitutional document, and hasn't been embedded in any such legislation in NZ. Rights in NZ come from laws and from the crown - mostly our parliament, though some come to us from Britain. The right to do so without embedding the treaty is from international law, which states that parliament is sovereign. Essentially the newly created NZ parliament declared itself ruler of NZ and the surrounding waters under the Crown.
Or at least that's what I was taught in a postgraduate Maori Studies/Law class.
-
I agree. Another option is joining a gym, but given the smell and awful music, an unpleasant compromise.
And, y'know. The pointless exercise.
-
She openly acknowledged that many in the political media want a change of government, not because they are right-wing, not because they hate Clark, not because they are in love with Key, but - get this - just because they are bored.
Yeah. I only caught part of it, but that part was really interesting. I wonder if any of the media types on here would like to comment either way or the other.
Her point wasn't quite as direct as being 'bored' I think, more that the media have been writing about this government for 9 years now, so a lot of the stories are the same old thing. New governments go in different directions, new stories, interesting etc.