- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 2,477
- Points
- 318
@Gaz to try to make some simplicity out of the comment above:
The current government recently passed a law changing the ownership of watercare assets in NZ (water pipes, sewerage, processing plants, etc.). There was a lot of ideological disagreement over this (yes the things we get excited about in NZ). The opposition said that when they come into government (looking very likely at this point for late next year) that they would repeal this new law. A not insignificant chunk of Labours MP's were very bought into this asset ownership change.
At some point during the passage of the law a part of the law changed to be "entrenched", i.e. to make so that it could only be repealed if more than 60% of parliament voted against it. Entrenchment is reserved for constitutional matters (e.g. number of MPs, length of parliament terms, geographic composition of seats and so forth). Not for ideological matters, the principle being that no parliament can bind the actions of a subsequent one. (It is also a factor of NZ's MMP electoral system that it's very unlikely any future government coalition would ever reach 60% control of parliament, the current status is a fluke from the COVID election).
This was against Crown Law advice, advice from the other government ministries and (apparently) the advice of the Solicitor General (also a Labour MP). And yet it went through Cabinet and was agreed upon.
When people noticed this (and this was before it was passed into legislation) and kicked up a stink, Arden had a sudden outbreak of amnesia, claimed at first that she wasn't there, then that she didn't remember, then that it wasn't something she'd pay attention to, etc. etc. etc. and that no-one in her cabinet was to blame for the clause being in the bill. (Mainly because the person who inserted it has a great deal of political clout in cabinet and can't be disciplined or demoted except at great cost to the PM). The clause was subsequently removed from the bill prior to it becoming law, with a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who had put it in there in the first place.
It's hardly Watergate but it is indicative of a loss of power by the PM, she has a substantial chunk of her cabinet that she can't/won't control. She can't take responsibility for it, but she can't allocate it either.
The current government recently passed a law changing the ownership of watercare assets in NZ (water pipes, sewerage, processing plants, etc.). There was a lot of ideological disagreement over this (yes the things we get excited about in NZ). The opposition said that when they come into government (looking very likely at this point for late next year) that they would repeal this new law. A not insignificant chunk of Labours MP's were very bought into this asset ownership change.
At some point during the passage of the law a part of the law changed to be "entrenched", i.e. to make so that it could only be repealed if more than 60% of parliament voted against it. Entrenchment is reserved for constitutional matters (e.g. number of MPs, length of parliament terms, geographic composition of seats and so forth). Not for ideological matters, the principle being that no parliament can bind the actions of a subsequent one. (It is also a factor of NZ's MMP electoral system that it's very unlikely any future government coalition would ever reach 60% control of parliament, the current status is a fluke from the COVID election).
This was against Crown Law advice, advice from the other government ministries and (apparently) the advice of the Solicitor General (also a Labour MP). And yet it went through Cabinet and was agreed upon.
When people noticed this (and this was before it was passed into legislation) and kicked up a stink, Arden had a sudden outbreak of amnesia, claimed at first that she wasn't there, then that she didn't remember, then that it wasn't something she'd pay attention to, etc. etc. etc. and that no-one in her cabinet was to blame for the clause being in the bill. (Mainly because the person who inserted it has a great deal of political clout in cabinet and can't be disciplined or demoted except at great cost to the PM). The clause was subsequently removed from the bill prior to it becoming law, with a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who had put it in there in the first place.
It's hardly Watergate but it is indicative of a loss of power by the PM, she has a substantial chunk of her cabinet that she can't/won't control. She can't take responsibility for it, but she can't allocate it either.
