Korean Job Discussion Forums

[gang ah jee]

[Otus]

[dalpengi]

The thing about NZ is that it lacks a written constitution and hence the need for MMP (the current voting system) to reduce the dominance the executive branch of the government enjoyed. A bicameral system did operate in NZ, and was shown to be no good (though that was a long time ago). How would NZ being a republic improve things, btw?

I do agree however that most NZ are ignorant when it comes to political and constitutional matters. It is amazing that political conventions are at the center of our (unwritten) constitution.

[Otus]

"New Zealand had a bicameral system from the establishment of a domestic system of government in 1852 until 1951. The abolition of the second chamber (the Legislative Council) in New Zealand was at the time based more on concerns about the value of a particular form of bicameralism than about the validity of bicameralism as a general approach to government. "

"Accountability conflicts of the kind described here (refer article) are not necessary features of bicameral systems. Rather, they are a product of the particular combination of strong bicameralism and a Westminster parliamentary system. Strong bicameralism and accountable government could, by contrast, be combined if New Zealand were to adopt a more consensual system of government (for example, with the first chamber being elected on a proportional representation rule), or a presidential system of government (with executive power distanced from the legislature)."

Section 4.1 http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/publications/new-publications/constitutional-change.doc.htm

I believe it was the presidential form of government that Bolger was going after.

To answer your question, if the system maintains proportional representation, it is more democratic and prevents to a greater extent executive abuses. MMP put unelected politicians into parliament who have little choice but to follow a party line.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[just alittlecrazy]

NZ's constitution is more correctly described as fragmented, not unwritten, as parts of it are wriitten and others unwritten (conventions).

The Constitution Act 1986 is the principal formal statement of the constitution.
This Act recognises that the Queen, the Sovereign in right of New Zealand, is the Head of State of New Zealand and that the Governor-General appointed by her is her representative. Each can, in general, exercise all the powers of the other. The powers of the Governor-General are described in the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor-General of New Zealand, most recently revised in 1983. Other relevant statutes are the State Sector Act 1988, the Electoral Act 1993 and the Judicature Act 1908, relating in turn to the three branches of government (the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary), as well as the Ombudsmen Act 1975, the Official Information Act 1982, the Public Finance Act 1989 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. http://www.gg.govt.nz/role/constofnz.htm

The number of MP's (currently 121 not 120) may seem high but the workload has increased with more select commottees being created since MMP. These are where MPs sruntized the actions of government and government departments, and proposed laws etc.

[Otus]

[huffdaddy]

Is there any truth to the rumor that a dildo is considered a deadly weapon in NZ?

[Woland]

Man, they've made this thread required reading in my course in New Sealland Politics: History, Theory, and Practice, Whatever at Stamford University.

Will this be on the test?

[dalpengi]

[dalpengi]

[Otus]

Answering your questions properly would mean researching a little more consitutional law than I'm prepared to do in my afternoon nap time. But here's a couple of brief comments:

Firstly: it has already been pointed out that NZ had a bicameral system for almost 100 years. There were conflicts that arose with the Westminster system of government. The exact nature of those conflicts would have to be further researched. But we may safely say that to resolve the problems either the WM system required change or the legislative system. At the time, the latter was chosen.

Secondly: Those who were hailing MMP a decade or so ago seemed very keen on breaking away from the Westminster system. (I was doing a couple of papers at Auck. Uni politics grad. school at the time - wanted to discuss the bicam. system in some tutorials but was told to shut my trap because the dept. was only interested in discussing and supporting MMP). Anyhow, moving away from the WM system naturally begged the issue of whether the bicam (bc) system was again plausable, given the first point.

Thirdly: The most reasonable case against bc was that it tends to function these days in countries that are much more populous than NZ. But I'm inclined to counter that by pointing to the increased number of politicians that MMP has brought in and wonder if the system would really be more cumbersome.

Fourthly: And more directly to one of your questions - strong party discipline begs the issue of having a system of stronger checks and balances, hence bc. MP's must be given more incentive to fight for their constituents that elected them, not be whipped around by the executive... grow some ...

Fifthly: (and connected to 4) the smaller number of reps. elected for a chamber are going to ultimately be answerable to an electorate, not the executive. It's the voters who hire and fire them. That's incentive to scrutinize legislation more.

Don't have the scope here to go into how it would be introduced. But given 1: It had a long precedent of operation in the past. 2. It was only regarded as being in conflict with a system we claimed to be breaking away from with MMP (WM system) ... would it really be that difficult to reintroduce ... (sorry, unlike Jesus I hate answering questions with questions)

I'll take another swing at this next week)

[just alittlecrazy]

[gang ah jee]

[just alittlecrazy]