D&D and the rising pandemic

[Zardnaar]

That is really not true. New Zealand is a Parliamentary democracy, which means the PM doesn’t actually have much power - Parliament does. Which is why the latest lockdown didn’t happen when the PM wanted it to - but instead it was imposed after Cabinet sat around the table and reached agreement that this was the right thing to do.

Our PMs have a lot of power domestically espicially if they have the support of their party.

Current one is the most powerful since 1938. We had one declear war on Germany and parliament backed them after the fact.

If your party has a majority and supports the PM they can more or less do whatever the hell they want. Rewrite the law check, rewrite constitutional law check, become a republic check, fire the governor general check declear state of emergency check, dissolve parliament check, remake the civil service check etc.

Right now current PM has a deathgrip on her party they're more or less completely dependent on her personal popularity. They have an absolute majority in a proportional system.

She personally appointment the cabinet which hasn't been done since 1938. The courts tend to look to parliament to clarify what they meant with the law.

I'm not worried but see the problem theoretically? The police arrested anti lockdown protesters for violating the health act whatever that is.

 

[Ryujin]

If they're going to a Hollywood guy then they could choose worse. If it was Ronald D Moore everyone would secretly be a Dalek.

 

[Mikeythorn]

Our PMs have a lot of power domestically espicially if they have the support of their party.

Current one is the most powerful since 1938. We had one abitrarily declear war on Germany and parliament backed them after the fact.

If your party has a majority and supports the PM they can more or less do whatever the hell they want. Rewrite the law check, rewrite constitutional law check, become a republic check, fire the governor general check declear state of emergency check, dissolve parliament check, remake the civil service check etc.

Right now current PM has a deathgrip on her party they're more or less completely dependent in her personal popularity.

She personally appointment the cabinet which hasn't been done since 1938. The courts tend to look to parliament to clarify what they meant with the law.

But she has that “death grip” because she is popular and making popular decisions. If her polling were to drop, then the party can dump her and she could do nothing about it. Her “power” is a phantom thing, that really is nothing more than Cabinet and the party choosing to stand behind her today. That certainly doesn’t make her a dictator.

 

[Zardnaar]

But she has that “death grip” because she is popular and making popular decisions. If her polling were to drop, then the party can dump her and she could do nothing about it. Her “power” is a phantom thing, that really is nothing more than Cabinet and the party choosing to stand behind her today. That certainly doesn’t make her a dictator.

No but in practice she can do whatever vshe wants until election time as long as her party supports her
There's no constitution, supreme court, Senate etc to gum up the works. I trust her but a neferious populist could easily abuse the system.

The governor general can theoretically fire he as well but she can appoint them as well and fire them as well.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well the good news.

56000 vaccine doses done in aday.
46000 Covid tests.

Waiting for the bad news. 21 new cases up from 11 previous day.

 

[Mikeythorn]

No but in practice she can do whatever vshe wants until election time as long as her party supports her
There's no constitution, supreme court, Senate etc to gum up the works. I trust her but a neferious populist could easily abuse the system.

The governor general can theoretically fire he as well but she can appoint them as well and fire them as well.

But that is all not true, and not at all how Parliament works. I am currently writing a Cabinet paper at work. That will go to the relevant Minister who is likely to ask questions and for different options to be considered. When the Minister agrees, he/she will take it to Cabinet. Cabinet Ministers will debate it, and may ask an official (probably my boss) to answer questions. If Cabinet is unanimous in agreement, they will ask us to write a law to bring the recommendations into effect. The proposed law will have to go back to Cabinet for approval and then gets its first reading and vote in the House. That law will then be refined by a Select Committee that includes representatives from all the major parties, who may tweak it and who will almost certainly consult the general public, before sending it back to the House for further debate before it becomes the law of the land.

The only steps that are easier with a majority government are the decisions at Cabinet (no NZ First to torpedo everything) and the debates and votes in the House. The PM herself will have next to zero involvement in the entire process. Because that it how our system of government is intended to work - by means of consensus within Cabinet, the House and Select Committee, rather than at the whim of any one person.

 

[Zardnaar]

But that is all not true, and not at all how Parliament works. I am currently writing a Cabinet paper at work. That will go to the relevant Minister who is likely to ask questions and for different options to be considered. When the Minister agrees, he/she will take it to Cabinet. Cabinet Ministers will debate it, and may ask an official (probably my boss) to answer questions. If Cabinet is unanimous in agreement, they will ask us to write a law to bring the recommendations into effect. The proposed law will have to go back to Cabinet for approval and then gets its first reading and vote in the House. That law will then be refined by a Select Committee that includes representatives from all the major parties, who may tweak it and who will almost certainly consult the general public, before sending it back to the House for further debate before it becomes the law of the land.

The only steps that are easier with a majority government are the decisions at Cabinet (no NZ First to torpedo everything) and the debates and votes in the House. The PM herself will have next to zero involvement in the entire process. Because that it how our system of government is intended to work - by means of consensus within Cabinet, the House and Select Committee, rather than at the whim of any one person.

Yep but if that party and PM were in cahoots and didn't care what anyone thought they can essentially do whatever's legal yes?

And they can write the laws to make something legal yes?

I'm guessing you don't remember Muldoon or what the wartime prime ministers got away with.

They're using the health act which was written in 1956.

 

[Mikeythorn]

Yep but if that party and PM were in cahoots and didn't care what anyone thought they can essentially do whatever's legal yes?

And they can write the laws to make something legal yes?

No. Not if those laws might result in a breach of the Bill of Rights, or the requirements of an international treaty to which we are a signee, or if there were even a couple of backbench MPs in the party who chose to vote against.

Sorry for the derail, but it seriously annoys me when people claim that our system of government is in any way dictatorial - or even that the Prime Minister holds any sort of presidential-style powers. It is simply not true.

 

[Zardnaar]

No. Not if those laws might result in a breach of the Bill of Rights, or the requirements of an international treaty to which we are a signee, or if there were even a couple of backbench MPs in the party who chose to vote against.

Sorry for the derail, but it seriously annoys me when people claim that our system of government is in any way dictatorial - or even that the Prime Minister holds any sort of presidential-style powers. It is simply not true.

Domestically she has more power than a president.

Health Act 1956 No 65 (as at 13 December 2021), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

www.legislation.govt.nz

That's just the emergency powers the DG of Health has.

There's been arrests for violating the health act. Which violates the Bill of Rights which can get suspended if they invoke emergency powers.

It doesn't really matter they can rewrite the bill of rights act anyway with a simple parliamentary majority.

The context of the conversation was in the USA they're arguing about mask mandates. Our one came down from high in around 24 hours.

In the USA constitution can be changed with 75% of the states support.

Our human rights act and bill of rights can easily be suspended via the health act or other legislation.

And even if they couldn't they can be rewritten by the government of the day if they have the numbers.

Which she has.

Basically a lit of the assumptions we take for granted can easily be revoked by parliament with a simple majority.

Of course they don't but that comes down to societies mores and norms not law.

In USA terms imagine if any sitting President could rewrite the constitution with a simple bill in the house and the Senate and supreme court doesn't matter.

Well that's what we have here.

 

[Mikeythorn]

Again, none of that is true. Yes, the Health Act delegates a lot of power - to a Medical Officer of Health in very limited circumstances. The PM has no special powers. And, speaking as somebody who has actually been an officer given powers under the Health Act, while those powers are considerable - there are also lots of limits on them. Note the opening clause ”…if authorised by the Minister”. A MOH can have those powers whipped away in the instant by the Minister, not to mention that a MOH is an employee of a District Health Board - and can be sacked or suspended from the role if they abuse their powers.

And as for the Bill of Rights, while certain rights can be suspended in extreme circumstances (eg, a pandemic), that has to be approved by the Ministry of Justice’s BORA committee (note, that means neutral officials appointed by the State Services Commission, not politicians).