Law Society – rule of law under threat

Written By: - Date published: 10:37 pm, November 11th, 2010 - 13 comments
Categories: radio - Tags: , , , ,

A fascinating interview on Nine to Noon this morning – Kathryn Ryan with Jonathan Temm, President of the Law Society, on what the Society sees as the government’s disturbing trend to pass laws that threaten the “rule of law” in New Zealand because they cut out  scrutiny from parliament, people and the courts. The specifics are the removal of the democratically elected Environment Council in Canterbury, the special earthquake legislation, and the rugby world cup legislation. It’s careful, timely, and important – here’s where you can listen to it here.

You can also hear the little General (Attorney that is) patronise Kathryn in response, having been dragged out of a meeting to try to hose it all down.

I think the Law Society should be congratulated for their principled stance. Somebody needs to be raising these issues regularly, especially with what we can expect to be a major onslaught on MMP in the next election. The last thing New Zealand needs is another single-party government that let loose the likes of Robert Muldoon, Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson. They did enormous damage, and these laws add to other disturbing hints that National would like to rule alone again.

13 comments on “Law Society – rule of law under threat ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. g says 1
    11 November 2010 at 11:07 pm

    i am curious as to how my brothers and sisters of the conservative persuasion feel about the current administration’s enthusiam for passing legislation (under a lot of urgency) and removing civil rights(silence). i understood that the right stood for less government. why is this not apparent?

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      11 November 2010 at 11:09 pm

      They’re asuming that in real life these new laws will never be applied to the toffs, only to the commoners.

    • Jum 1.2
      11 November 2010 at 11:19 pm

      Very good point, G says, unless that is the purpose of the huge increase in lawyers in parliament and gun-totin’ law enforcers on the streets facing up to the common folk who may dare to question this secretive and ‘authoritarian daddy state’ government now in control of New Zealand.

      KeyWolves in sheep’s Hide I say, to get in amongst the sheep.

  2. Colonial Viper 2
    11 November 2010 at 11:08 pm

    Agreed. Go the Law Society. Thank goodness someone in this country understands the danger and is still willing to speak out. Looks like Finlayson is determined to get himself a “Hall of Shame” mention in future constitutional law textbooks.

    • Cnr Joe 2.1
      12 November 2010 at 7:56 am

      yeah, as I listened to it I wondered what sort of legacy Findlayson was content to propogate here. Surely he’s got to live amongst the legal eagles in his future life? amongst those whose adherence to, (and understanding of ), the principles of law……………
      or has he got a villa in Hawaii?

  3. g says 3
    11 November 2010 at 11:30 pm

    i am really warming to kathryn ryan as an interviewer, her confidence and style have really come on in recent times and she isnt afraid to reask and pressure her interviewees but never that awkward aggro you get with others

  4. Theo Steel 4
    12 November 2010 at 10:30 am

    I’m “of the right”, I’m not happy, and I am beginning to become a little disillusioned with Finlayson.
    Though I am still impressed with most of his very good BORA analyses of laws (and his sometimes willingness to tell the Govt. when they are riding over people’s rights) but then vote for it anyway.

  5. Jim in Tokyo 5
    12 November 2010 at 10:58 am

    I was gripped and a little horrified listening to this interview yesterday. The law society stated their concerns elegantly and coherently, then Findlayson came on and made a complete fool of himself. If you strip away all his media training bluster, his basic argument was that the earthquake was a once in a lifetime event of such magnitude that it warranted throwing caution to the wind and the rule of law out the window. So when conversation inevitably turned to ECAN and the rugby world cup he’d undermined his position so badly that he was forced to turn nasty. What a chump.

  6. William Joyce 6
    12 November 2010 at 12:57 pm

    Just to repeat my comment from yesterday….
    I wonder, grudgingly giving Finlayson some benefit of the doubt, that he was being forced by cabinet responsibility, to defend these actions.
    Although defensive throughout the interview, he did seem to start to lose the plot only when being challenged about his own opinion and if he had expressed it to his fellow cabinet ministers.

    Perhaps he was being backed into defending what he knew, as a lawyer, was indefensible.

    Perhaps he was being forced to defend actions insisted upon by currency traders, woodwork teachers, economics hobbyists and Fed Farmers stooges.

  7. tc 7
    12 November 2010 at 3:54 pm

    Quite WJ you wonder just what future the likes of Findlayson, Power, Tolley, Smith etc are all carving out for themselves in terms of their legacies when and if they ever wander out into the real world as unlike Sideshow they’ll still have to ‘work’ for a living.

    I see Carter’s slinging his hook now his farm all sorted for water now thanks to the ECan dismissal.

  8. handle 8
    13 November 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Constitutional law experts signed an open letter condemning this government’s (second) power grab in Canterbury. We know the character of Brownlee and McCully (remember his firing as Tourism Minister in the 1990s) and neither of them are to be trusted with the exceptional powers they have been handed. This government have been abusing parliamentary urgency right from the beginning to take away democratic freedoms. Talk about nanny state.

    The Law Society’s concerns seem fair and the public deserve more than the contemptuous tone Finlayson lathered on in that interview. These born-to-rule idiots need to be reminded who serves who.

Links to post