Latest news with #GeoffreyPalmer
Kiwiblog
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Kiwiblog
AUKUS is probably dead
A recent release: Prominent New Zealand leaders Helen Clark, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Sir David Carter, Dr Don Brash, Mr Carl Worker, and Mr David Mahon have placed a full-page open letter in Stuff and NZME newspapers expressing grave concern about New Zealand's foreign policy open letter, co-signed by the group of influential New Zealand figures, cautions Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, and his Government, against taking an adversarial stance against China as part of an alignment with the United States.'While good relations with the United States must be maintained, we see considerable disadvantage to New Zealand in becoming part of defence arrangements, including the associated prospective AUKUS Pillar Two, which are explicitly aimed at China,' said former Prime Minister Helen Clark.' For many years, New Zealand has maintained a balanced foreign policy, building strong relationships with both the United States and China. That has served our national interests well. Recent moves by the Government, however, suggest an increasing willingness to align New Zealand with the United States in a way that could harm our relationship with China.' First of all AUKUS is probably dead as far as NZ is concerned. Trump doesn't see allies, just cost centres. He will not see any benefit in the US sharing military technology with New Zealand. Hell, he may even renege on the deal with Australia. The chance of NZ being invited in, is minuscule now I would say. The characterisation of recent foreign policy changes as being aligning with the US against China is misleading, in my opinion. First of all the changes started under the Ardern Government (which they deserve credit for). They started because Russia launched a war of aggression against Ukraine, and China has been a cheerleader for them. The decade long project of believing trading with authoritarian states would make them more benign has (sadly) failed. China has itself become much more aggressive. The change in NZ's stance has zero to do with the US. It is to do with how Russia and China have behaved. In fact the US is itself becoming very unreliable, and hence NZ's future is probably not with AUKUS, but a looser collection of alliances with Australia, UK, the EU, Canada, Japan, South Korea etc. The letter specifically addresses recent actions, including the authorisation of New Zealand naval vessels through the Taiwan Strait, the strengthening of defence ties with the Philippines amid tensions in the South China Sea, and visits to Taiwan led by Government parliamentarians. Why would we not have MPs visit Taiwan, and not have better defence ties with the Philippines? We're not a vassal state of China.
RNZ News
05-06-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
'No upside and very considerable downside' in annoying China: Helen Clark and Don Brash warn
Helen Clark and Don Brash. Photo: RNZ Two former prime ministers and an ex-governor of the Reserve Bank have put their names to a letter questioning the coalition government's foreign policy - in particular "positioning New Zealand alongside the United States as an adversary of China". Helen Clark, Sir Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Dr Don Brash say they are "deeply concerned" about statements made by Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, and actions taken by the government, when it comes to our relationship with the two superpowers. "Our country has for many years enjoyed a cordial relationship with both the United States and China. Both countries were comfortable with that in the past," they said. "But more recently, the United States has described China not only as a competitor, but also as an adversary, and has been putting pressure on other countries to take sides." They said while the US had made a valuable contribution to trade and development in the Pacific, and "good relations… must be maintained", they held concerns about initiatives such as AUKUS Pillar 2, which New Zealand is keeping an open mind about. An update provided to ministers in February said Pillar 2 had the "potential to support New Zealand's national security, defence, and foreign policy settings in the Indo-Pacific" through technology sharing and development. China has [ warned New Zealand against joining it. New Zealand did not consider Pillar 1, as it involved nuclear-powered submarines. The group cited a number of decisions as potentially souring New Zealand's relationship with China, including: They also cited Peters' recent criticism of the 2008 free-trade deal New Zealand made with China (signed during one of his former stints as foreign minister). "It would not be surprising if China were to come to the conclusion that the special relationship which New Zealand has had with it since becoming the first developed country to have a free trade agreement with it in 2008 is no longer so valued by New Zealand. "Yet China is already by far our largest export market, and is almost certain to become an even more important market as the country continues to develop. We see no upside and very considerable downside in the situation which has developed." The group said while New Zealand shared more "political values" with the US, and a longer relationship, a "military relationship with the United States directed against China has many risks for New Zealand". "That is especially true in a situation where the United States itself has recently become more ambivalent about its defence relationships with traditional partners." They urged Luxon to "make it clear at the highest level that New Zealand retains its bipartisan commitment to its strategic partnership with China in the interests of a peaceful and prosperous region and world" when made it to Beijing, expected to be sometime this year. Luxon first met Chinese President Xi Jinping at last year's APEC meeting. He was yet to visit China as prime minister. The other signatories to the statement were former Speaker of the House Sir David Carter, former New Zealand Ambassador to China Carl Worker, and David Mahon, a New Zealand businessman resident in Beijing since 1984. In response, a spokesperson for Peters told RNZ he saw "no value in indulging the tired arguments of various former politicians". "The AUKUS II process was commenced by the Labour government in 2021. New Zealand has yet to be invited to join. "The government stands by its independent foreign policy approach which has been transparent about its focus on advancing New Zealand's security and prosperity after the years of inaction by the previous administration." Clark and Brash, once political foes, last year teamed up to criticise the government's foreign policy, in paticular its refusal to rule out joining AUKUS Pillar 2 . Labour has promised it would not sign New Zealand up to the US-UK-Australia defence agreement . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
04-06-2025
- Entertainment
- RNZ News
Inside Pint of Order, Parliament's new in-house bar
Inside Parliament's new in-house bar, Pint of Order Photo: VNP / Phil Smith For many decades New Zealand's Parliament was described as akin to a boozy gentlemen's club that happened to pass laws. That is also how its history reads. There are many stories. My favourite is that of early MP Edward Jerningham Wakefield, who was locked in an upstairs room in an attempt to keep him sober enough to vote with his captors, as he had agreed. The opposing camp - plotting against him (since he held the deciding vote) - lowered whisky into his confines via the chimney. Eventually, released in time to vote, he staggered to the chamber where, to everyone's surprise, he voted against his allies and with the suppliers of the whisky. Or how about the MP who, drunk enough to mistake harbour navigation lights for street lamps, reeled down the docks and into the sea, nearly drowning. Or the prime minister who, it is said, was so reliably drunk, that his staff regularly let down the tires on his car to prevent him driving home. Inside Parliament's new in-house bar, Pint of Order Photo: VNP / Phil Smith In a 1871 session of Parliament, which lasted just 60 days, the MPs got through fifty dozen bottles of champagne, a hogshead and seventy-two bottles of claret, four casks of sherry, a cask of port and four cases of wine. And that accounting doesn't even include the beer. In the 1980s, Geoffrey Palmer's parliamentary reforms began professionalising Parliament, taking the "party" out of the Party system. The slow arrival of female MPs may also have helped kill the boys' club feel. Moves from recent Speakers have pushed the institution not just away from booze, but towards a family-friendly vibe. The change in tone and expectation is such that there was barely a ripple in the glass when Parliament's in-house bar closed last year to make more room in the Beehive for ministerial offices. Inside Parliament's new in-house bar, Pint of Order Photo: VNP / Phil Smith This week a replacement bar was formally opened. Pint of Order is located in Parliament House, having been cleverly cobbled together from a run of storage rooms and odds and ends spaces. It is much smaller than the former version, but cute and cosy, like a speakeasy from the US prohibition era. It is not open to the public unless you're someone's guest. Back in the day, liquor cabinets were prominent features in an MP's office but they are now rare. Once, tipsy MPs were not uncommon in evening sittings. Once, snap elections were announced in a heady miasma. None of those are now commonplace. One strong reminder of Parliament's unusual relationship with alcohol is displayed in the new bar: a framed picture shows the first 'proper' bill to be passed by a newly independent parliament, straight after being released from the clutches of colonial governorship. And what was the bill for? Allowing Parliament to circumvent the liquor laws. It's a pretty short piece of legislation, as you can see below. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Photo: VNP / Phil Smith See also this story from Jamie Tahana for The House . Hanging this sign in Parliament would once have been unthinkable. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Find our articles and podcast at RNZ.
NZ Herald
13-05-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Prisoner voting ban shows how few parliamentary power checks there are
In short, removing prisoner voting rights will damage a critical but fragile check on Government power — what is known as the 'judicial declaration of inconsistency'. An 'executive paradise' New Zealand has been described as an ' executive paradise ' by constitutional lawyer and former Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer. There is no upper house, no federal structure, and the courts lack the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation. The constitution itself is a collection of statutes and conventions that, for the most part, can be changed by a simple parliamentary majority. The 1990 Bill of Rights Act is a cornerstone of that constitution, but is an ineffectual check on Government power. When Parliament considers a bill that is potentially inconsistent with ' the human rights and fundamental freedoms ' set out in the Bill of Rights, the Attorney-General delivers a report explaining the inconsistencies. This is supposed to be a deterrent, and one might think it would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Adverse Attorney-General reports have appeared regularly (there have been 15 since 2021) without blocking legislation. Parliament's habit of passing legislation that does not comply with the Bill of Rights is why the recently developed judicial declaration of inconsistency is constitutionally important. The declaration is a 'soft' legal power. It doesn't strike down laws or rewrite them. Rather, it is a ' weak form ' of review that enables affected citizens to petition the court to declare a law inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. This should then spur Parliament to fix the problem. The declaration aims to start a constitutional dialogue between the two branches of government. Enabling citizens to hold Parliament accountable, it is a vital instrument in a system otherwise heavily dominated by the executive branch. Constitutional dialogue in action The High Court issued the first such declaration in the case of Taylor vs Attorney-General in 2015, declaring a total ban on prisoners voting was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The Government appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the declaration in a landmark 2018 decision. What happened next, however, was just as important. If the declaration was to initiate a constitutional dialogue, it was up to Parliament to respond — which it did. In 2020, it rescinded the ban on voting for prisoners incarcerated for less than three years. Then, in 2022, it amended the Bill of Rights to require the Attorney-General to notify Parliament when a superior court issues a declaration of inconsistency. And it required a ministerial report to Parliament on the Government's response within six months. Those measures put in place a framework for constitutional dialogues. And this process played out in the next (and to date only) declaration of inconsistency. This was in 2022, when the Supreme Court declared prohibiting 16-year-olds from voting was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. In 2023, the Government tabled its response and introduced a bill to enable 16-year-olds to vote in local elections. The Government initially announced it would do the same for parliamentary elections. But that idea was dropped when it became clear this wouldn't get the necessary super-majority support of 75% of MPs. An over-powered Parliament Although modest, Parliament's responses were constitutionally important because they modelled a new framework for accountability. Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann suggested the process illustrated how courts and parliament could work together in the ' gradual and collaborative elaboration ' of New Zealand's constitution. An evolving constitutional dialogue would enable the courts to pose a modest check on New Zealand's over-powered Parliament. So, those who hoped they were seeing the dawn of a new constitutional convention will be disheartened by the move to ban all prisoners from voting. The current Government has already terminated the bill enabling 16-year-olds to vote, without mentioning this contradicted the Supreme Court's declaration of inconsistency. Should Parliament now ban prisoner voting, it will have nullified all substantial responses to declarations of inconsistency. That would be a profound constitutional setback. Parliament regularly flouts the Bill of Rights. We are now seeing it double down by rolling back its previous responses to judicial declarations. New Zealanders already have comparatively little constitutional protection from Parliament. Reinstating a total ban on prisoner voting will undermine the practice of constitutional dialogue between the two branches of government. And it will weaken a fragile check on Government power.
RNZ News
12-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
A prisoner voting ban shows again how few checks there are on Parliamentary power
By Stephen Winter of Photo: RNZ / Giles Dexter Analysis - Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith's recent announcement that the government would reinstate a total ban on prisoners voting was in keeping with the coalition's overall tough-on-crime approach. The move was called "ridiculous" and "stupid" by opposition spokespeople, largely because it contradicted findings by the Supreme Court and the Waitangi Tribunal. But behind those concerns about the ban , placing an "unreasonable limit on the electoral rights guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act" lies a broader constitutional question to do with Parliament's relationship with the courts. In short, removing prisoner voting rights will damage a critical but fragile check on government power - what is known as the "judicial declaration of inconsistency". New Zealand has been described as an " executive paradise " by constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer. There is no upper house, no federal structure, and the courts lack the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation. The constitution itself is a collection of statutes and conventions that, for the most part, can be changed by a simple Parliamentary majority. The 1990 Bill of Rights Act is a cornerstone of that constitution, but is an ineffectual check on government power. When Parliament considers a bill that is potentially inconsistent with " the human rights and fundamental freedoms " set out in the Bill of Rights, the Attorney-General delivers a report explaining the inconsistencies. This is supposed to be a deterrent, and one might think it would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Adverse attorney-general reports have appeared regularly (there have been 15 since 2021) without blocking legislation. Parliament's habit of passing legislation that does not comply with the Bill of Rights is why the recently developed judicial declaration of inconsistency is constitutionally important. The declaration is a "soft" legal power. It doesn't strike down laws or rewrite them. Rather, it is a " weak form " of review that enables affected citizens to petition the court to declare a law inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. This should then spur Parliament to fix the problem. The declaration aims to start a constitutional dialogue between the two branches of government. Enabling citizens to hold Parliament accountable is a vital instrument in a system otherwise heavily dominated by the executive branch. The High Court issued the first such declaration in the case of Taylor vs Attorney-General in 2015, declaring a total ban on prisoners voting was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The government appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the declaration in a landmark 2018 decision. What happened next, however, was just as important. If the declaration was to initiate a constitutional dialogue, it was up to Parliament to respond, which it did. In 2020, it rescinded the ban on voting for prisoners incarcerated for less than three years. Then, in 2022, it amended the Bill of Rights to require the attorney-general to notify Parliament when a superior court issues a declaration of inconsistency. And, it required a ministerial report to Parliament on the government's response within six months. Those measures put in place a framework for constitutional dialogues. And this process played out in the next (and to date only) declaration of inconsistency. This was in 2022, when the Supreme Court declared that prohibiting 16-year-olds from voting was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. In 2023, the government tabled its response and introduced a bill to enable 16-year-olds to vote in local elections. The government initially announced it would do the same for Parliamentary elections. But that idea was dropped when it became clear this wouldn't get the necessary super-majority support of 75 percent of MPs. Although modest, Parliament's responses were constitutionally important because they modelled a new framework for accountability. Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann suggested the process illustrated how courts and Parliament could work together in the " gradual and collaborative elaboration " of New Zealand's constitution. An evolving constitutional dialogue would enable the courts to pose a modest check on New Zealand's overpowered Parliament. So, those who hoped they were seeing the dawn of a new constitutional convention will be disheartened by the move to ban all prisoners from voting. The current government has already terminated the bill , enabling 16-year-olds to vote, without mentioning that this contradicts the Supreme Court's declaration of inconsistency. Should Parliament now ban prisoner voting, it will have nullified all substantial responses to declarations of inconsistency. That would be a profound constitutional setback. Parliament regularly flouts the Bill of Rights. We are now seeing it double down by rolling back its previous responses to judicial declarations. New Zealanders already have comparatively little constitutional protection from Parliament. Reinstating a total ban on prisoner voting will undermine the practice of constitutional dialogue between the two branches of government. And it will weaken a fragile check on government power. Stephen Winter is an associate professor in political theory at the University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. This story was originally published on The Conversation.
