Case Withdrawn
It’s all officially over.
The case has been withdrawn - a victim of Labour’s egregious retrospective legislation. My legal advice says that there is no chance that the case can succeed since October’s hurried retrospective legislation legalised all Parliamentary Service spending for the year in question.
My initial premise, when I filed the case in June, was that a constitutionally limited government was not above the law. What this case has done is disprove that. There are no limits. The government is above the law. We are entirely reliant on the character of the people who populate Parliament. And if that thought doesn’t momentarily lower the temperature of your blood, it should.
January 21st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Shows you how corrupt New Zealand really is. And what should’ve been the biggest issue in New Zealand this decade or even two decades is hopelessly ignored by New Zealanders, who’ve blindly followed the government. If this happened anywhere else in the Western World, it would be huge news. It was the NZ equivalent of Watergate. Only in third world banana republics/dictatorships would this be so ignored as here.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:38 am
Darnton - we still thank you for your hard work on this; now we all still need to make sure this isn’t forgotten come the next election.
So does any party have the balls to make the (retrospective) repeal of the retrospective validation part of their election platform?
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:31 am
It is sad really. I was rooting for you to win the case, but now it has become an inevitable victim of Labour’s continue path to complete and utter dictatorship. And if anyone doesn’t believe they are heading that way I suggest they compare Labour to dictators. There are massive similarities. To quote Callum, “Only in third world banana republics/dictatorships would this be so ignored as here.” he is 100% right.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Disgusting that a government can do this. You’re wrong though that we’re entirely dependent on the character of the people who populate Parliament. It’s worse than that. Rather, we’re entirely reliant on the population having what James Buchanan called a “constitutional spirit”. A Constitution, whether written or unwritten, cannot enforce itself; it relies on the voting public caring that it be enforced. If all that mattered were the character of the people in Parliament, voting them out would be a relatively simple matter. When nobody cares that the Constitution is tossed aside at the convenience of the governing party, we have a rather more difficult problem.
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Thanks for your efforts here, it is disquieting how little reaction there has been to this case (as NZ rockets further down to into grubby little banana republicdom).
Speaking as an Ex-Pat it was fantastic to see someone take the politicians to task over this.
It’s a shame about the retroactive legislation but that highlights the problem with the lack of accountability or checks in NZ.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:29 am
“Labour’s continue path to complete and utter dictatorship.”
“It was the NZ equivalent of Watergate.”
Ahhh, the hyperbole! Fantastic.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:44 am
Bernard
This wont be forgotten, after all we can all now ask regularly whether the money has been paid back - and nobody should stop asking questions about this right up to election day.
You’ve done a sterling job, more than the so-called Opposition ever did.
Libertyscott