Fast law but is it good law?

Email
Print

Sat, 08 Oct 2011 1:24p.m.

Labour's deputy leader Annette King went out with her adjournment debate speech, asking where was National's 'brighter future'

Labour's deputy leader Annette King went out with her adjournment debate speech, asking where was National's 'brighter future'

Our 49th parliament shut up shop on Thursday.

Over its three years, it met on 266 days and passed 293 bills.

Ministers answered an incredible number of 3000 questions, and it all ended on a sour note.

Parliament’s Speaker Lockwood Smith imposed a 10-day ban on the press gallery office staff of the New Zealand Herald newspaper because one of them flouted rules prohibiting photographs of the public galleries.

He is probably not worried though as he is off on an eight-day taxpayer-funded trip to Washington.

His last formal act as Speaker was to preside over the adjournment debate on Thursday night, when the party leaders effectively began their election campaigns.

Meanwhile, with so many bills passed, it raises the questions of has this government passed good law?

Political journalist Colin James joins The Nation to put forward his opinion.

Watch the full video

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

09 Oct 2011 10:57a.m.

Dodger wrote:

Our lawmakers are good at passing laws good and bad. Good laws are useless if not enforced. Microchipping has not stopped dog attacks! Anti-smack laws were useless against child killers and abusers.

09 Oct 2011 08:48a.m.

JohnC wrote:

New Zealand has long been known as the fastest and most prolific lawmaker in the West. Is that a good thing? Is more, and often very detailed, legislation a good thing? I should say not.

We should aim to reduce the total number of acts of parliament by at least half, and reduce their total length to only 10% of the current number of pages. 100 years ago a law might have 10 sections. Now it would have 100 or more. Does that really add anything, other than obfuscation and confusion?

08 Oct 2011 06:13p.m.

kane wrote:

I think the under urgency law is being used far to often... Think its time we re-looked at the under urgency law... Seems to be used for very minor matters to often... It was never intended to be used like it has been...

08 Oct 2011 06:03p.m.

Hamish wrote:

I have been bloging my discust at this police state law BS, and the fact that the cops were knowingly breaking the law without consequence, since it hit the news. What National suporters ( and everyone) have to ask themselves is how far do we go? Are we going to let fear of criminals dictate our civil liberties? Is this law the end of it? Or will more potentially oppressive laws be rushed through without public input? Democracy and our civil liberties are precious, give the government laws to take our freedoms away and they may not use them, but some-one in the future will.

Who knows what kind of govt we will have in the future?
Hardline Socialist?
Far right nutters?

08 Oct 2011 05:12p.m.

Irascible wrote:

It is a constant feature of any NACTional govt. Once in power the corruption of arrogance drives them to use urgency to remove the democratic examination of their legislation. Thus, we have seen Key sell the NZ legislature to WingNut & Warner Bros, Joyce & McCully over-ride the Auckland City Council, Hide destroy democracy in Auckland and Brownlee bumble and jackboot his way around Christchurch while English excused his double diptoning without rebuke. We have just witnessed three years of inept, corrupt and muddling government led by an socially and philosophically ignorant and arrogant man more concerned about his image, his diplomatic protection squad and holidaying in Hawaii than being a serious, responsible Prime Minister.

08 Oct 2011 04:31p.m.

Clarke wrote:

Most of Nationals policies were pushed through under urgency ryan. It allowed Key to bypass the democratic process, which is what urgency does in essence... it allows National to bypass select committees so that expert advice is not sought on government policy. Remember that National has passed laws in the last 3 years that have breached human rights accords, and the one key thing that has allowed them to do this is the use of urgency. I would suggest that no other politician over time in all the world has been so authoritarian as John Key, except perhaps hitler. Its also effectively allowed National to setup the ultimate Nanny/Police state.

08 Oct 2011 02:06p.m.

Ryan wrote:

And how much of this legislation was pushed through under "urgency" to avoid people participating in the democratic process of controversial bills? While I don't mind this government too much - this blatant abuse of power has really been the issue that has annoyed me the most - and I think it should be a major election issue.