Dompost says CERRA needs to go

19 comments on “Dompost says CERRA needs to go ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BLiP 1

   4 October 2010 at 2:14 pm

   Check out Clayton Cosgrove as he defends the opposition’s cowardice at about 2:33 here where he likens the critics to “latte drinking, hypothesising political pontificators”. He pulls out colloquial examples of people having to put up with portaloos but offers absolutely no evidence that that suspension of democracy will assist those same people. Further in you’ll hear Brownlee stating that he is not even willing to consider concerns – no surprises there.
2. ianmac 2

   4 October 2010 at 2:28 pm

   I think that I read an Editorial in the Press a week or so ago, but it does seem strange that such a “democracy under attack” issue has not become a public issue. Brownlie’s dismissive remarks as were Cosgrove’s bewilder me. Review CERRA please.
3. Bill 3

   4 October 2010 at 2:45 pm

   “If nothing is done to rectify things, I shall consider putting forward a Member’s Bill to give Parliament another opportunity to amend the more egregious parts of the Act,” said Dr Graham.

   Hardly an ‘about face’. They are, it seems steadfastly supportive of CERRA. All they want is to fiddle with “the more egregious parts”.

   I particularly like the bit where they reiterate their reasoning behind voting to demolish democracy “The Greens voted for the Bill as a signal of support for the people of Canterbury,…”

   There are no qualifiers. No doubts expressed.

   The Greens are maintaining they were essentially correct in what they did.
4. frog 4

   4 October 2010 at 4:07 pm

   Kia ora, I really appreciate your concerns and anger about CERRA, but it’s not really fair to characterise the Greens calling for a review as “doing an about-face”. They put up 6 constructive amendments in a very short time frame (they had less than 12 hours to consider the draft bill), all of which cover the concerns that have since been raised by the Law Society. Only one of them passed and Labour and others did not support most of them. Russel Norman and Kennedy Graham gave excellent speeches raising the very concerns that you have so rightly voiced.
   You may disagree with the final decision made about which way they voted in the end, but don’t mischaracterise the Greens position about the Act as one that has changed. They were constructive critics of the Act from the beginning, indeed they were the first to raise concerns about it.
   • BLiP 4.1

     4 October 2010 at 4:29 pm

     . . . but still voted for it.
     • Bill 4.1.1

       4 October 2010 at 5:02 pm

       “…but still voted for it”
       “as a signal of support for the people of Canterbury”, BLiP.

       Apparently.

       Thing is.

       I thought it was the Government was asking for the measure. But no. Because in that case The Greens (and the rest) would have been supporting the Government. But as we all know, they were in fact supporting the good people of Canterbury.

       Just, I can’t seem to find any record of the people of Canterbury asking that dictatorial powers be bestowed upon a single person of the Government’s choosing. Of course, I’m simply not being thorough enough in my search. It will be there somewhere.

       Maybe Dr Graham or Mr Norman can make public the letter that was received from the people of Canterbury asking that democracy be suspended? Can you help out on that one frog? Pass the message on perhaps? That some of us are curious as to the source and form of the solicitation for support that came from the people of Canterbury ( Which people? Who were they and what did they say?) that compelled the Greens (and others) to rally round in support and vote through the CERRA.

       At least we know it wasn’t fear of negative press that guided the Green vote. If it had been, they could now do a complete about face in light of press coverage, cop a mea culpa and get on with ensuring a full restoration of (our limited social democratic) democracy.

       But on the increasingly likely scenario that it was not fear of negative press coverage that led the Greens (and others) to vote in the CERRA as was initially claimed by some. And if there is no letter or was no delegation or such like from the people of Canterbury asking for CERRA type legislation, then the question that will remain is why did our representatives decide that we no longer needed he systems of a representative democracy?

       Anyone willing to turn blue waiting for a straight forward answer?
       • ianmac 4.1.1.1

         4 October 2010 at 5:35 pm

         I do believe that a Mr Parker asked for these powers to go alongside his request to demolish ECan. He said, “Please give me the power to over-ride those silly pesky rules that stop me from building an awesome Empire for me in Christchurch. The other two Mayors will believe anything I say so do it dear John.” And he did.
         (By the way I made that all up. 🙂 )
   • Blighty 4.2

     4 October 2010 at 5:03 pm

     but still vot.. BLiP beat me to it.
5. Frog 5

   4 October 2010 at 4:09 pm

   Kia ora, I really appreciate your concerns and anger about CERRA, but it’s not really fair to characterise the Greens calling for a review as “doing an about-face”. They put up 6 constructive amendments in a very short time frame (they had less than 12 hours to consider the draft bill), all of which cover the concerns that have since been raised by the Law Society. Only one of them passed and Labour and others did not support most of them. Russel Norman and Kennedy Graham gave excellent speeches raising the very concerns that you have so rightly voiced.
   You may disagree with the final decision about which way they voted in the end, but don’t mischaracterise the Greens position about the Act as one that has changed. They were constructive critics of the Act from the beginning, indeed they were the first to raise concerns about it.
6. Gotham 6

   4 October 2010 at 5:20 pm

   The Greens should never have voted for this in the first place. I am sure not all MPs supported it, so there must have been some (Norman? Graham??) who pushed for supporting the Act to be passed. Not good enough to now come out and demand changes – the Greens didn’t have to support it in the first place. It’s one of the only benefits of having no power in the House – you actually have the opportunity to stay true to your convictions and principles without having to get into the complicated area of negotiation with your coalition partners…

   A totally lost opportunity for the Greens to have stood up and been the voice of reason from the beginning.
7. Benjamin B. 7

   4 October 2010 at 9:17 pm

   The … what … wait. The Dom Post? Who? Eh? *gasp* The Dom Post condemns CERRA while the Greens defend it?

   Looks like I have to revise my opinion of the Dom Post. Ah, and, that of the Greens.

   PS Captcha: discussion … is what the opposition MPs shoulda had.
8. freedom 8

   5 October 2010 at 10:29 am

   It matters not what the various parties decide to do today, or tomorrow, or next week. They unanimously voted to remove Democracy in new Zealand. They are all guilty and it will not be forgotten.

   Actually, the chances are it will be forgotten. A staggering number of intelligent and supposedly informed people still have no idea of what occurred with CERRA. I was talking to some folks on the weekend who pride themselves on ‘knowing what is really going on’ and they could not answer a single question about CERRA. A couple of them reacted with incredulous fervour when i slowly explained for the the tenth time that The government, the entire body of MP’s indeed every elected representative of our Deomocracy unanimously decided to abolish Democracy in New Zealand.

   We as ‘free people’ can not let this act be forgotten, and go unpunished. The dangerous precedent that has been set must be repealed. CERRA when it does finally get stripped of its power must be removed from New Zealand’s books. The obvious authoritarian nature of this most dangerous set of laws is the next time they decide to use it.

   During this initial application of CERRA there is no doubt that a few misdemeanours will occur, like the abandonment of heavy freight safety on our roads, but nothing of any real substance will happen. This time. The pathetic excuses for why CERRA was created are all too easily replicated and with a few flicks of a pen the Act will be refitted to manage whatever future event the powers that be deem needy of action. It is then that the true Dictatorial nature of CERRA and its children will be let loose on your neighbourhood.

   The creation of CERRA is nothing but Politicians unlocking a guncabinet, showing you that the guns are all safe, leaving the shells on the table, then walking away and feigning ignorance when the Homicide Detective begins inquiries.
9. KJT 9

   5 October 2010 at 11:26 am

   As my suggestion that we should have democracy on the open Labour ideas fest got negative voted. I am not sure that New Zealanders have any innate commitment to democracy anyway.
   • a human 9.1

     5 October 2010 at 12:22 pm

     that is a very confusing sentence. I am not sure of what you are referring to? link please
     • KJT 9.1.1

       5 October 2010 at 12:27 pm

       “Follow Switzerland and make New Zealand’s Government arrangements
       a democracy instead of a pretend one.
       We should control our country, not, 122 self appointed incompetents, the OECD or IMF, or a bunch of failed idealisations from a few true believers in neo-liberalism”.

       http://kjt-kt.blogspot.com/2010/10/prescription-for-new-zealand.html

       http://olnz.ideascale.com/
10. Dean Knight 10

    5 October 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Just to clarify. It’s not just Brownlee who has this power:

    http://www.laws179.co.nz/2010/10/chcheq-vast-power-but-for-whom.html
11. Nil Einne 11

    21 October 2010 at 12:33 am

    I agree that very likely few people have heard of CERRA so don’t know what it is or why it’s controversial. While the papers have largely condemnded it, they don’t really seem to have made much of a fuss. Definitely far less then the condemnation of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 where at one stage it was difficult not to be aware of it if you read the Herald (yet even with that I think a lot of people didn’t really know what it is about).

    BTW, in the same vein, in terms of political parties, I somewhat understand their POV. The reality is, even with the media criticism that has emerged, they would have been perceived by most as not caring about Canterbury, using the earthquake for political grandstanding, and other manners of ills since in truth most people aren’t really going to bother to understand why they opposed the bill or consider whether they might have a point.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 3 October 2010 at 10:24 am
2. The Standard: posted on 4 October 2010 at 1:01 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS