16 October 2006
Validating legislation - under urgency
NewstalkZB: Parliament in urgency over overspend
I extremely disappointed by the decision to pass validating legislation under urgency tomorrow.
You will see from previous posts, I don't consider that retrospective validating legislation is necessarily objectionable, although I'm not convinced that the validating legislation needed if the parties pay the money back.
However, there's no need to rush it through the House, without the ordinary notice and select committee scrutiny. No-one has yet seen a copy of the draft legislation. Despite requesting a copy under the OIA as a matter of urgency, I have not yet been able to obtain a copy of the Treasury advice which the Minister says requries this action.
Expediting this type of legislation leads to citizens distrusting our Parliament. If there are legitimate imperatives underlying the need for the legislation then the legislation will survive the democratic processes and scrutiny. The government ought to allow the country time to consider and assess these imperatives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Do you have any idea at all why the Government thinks this legislation is so important and urgent?
Perhaps surprisingly, I disagree. It took me a while, but I worked it out:
my thoughts are here:
http://www.sirhumphreys.com/lbj/2006/oct/16/the_answer
Urgency is the only defensible, constitutionally acceptable approach (although the legislation shouldn't change the rules in the future, or override the Darnton litigation).
I'm very interested in your take on my take.
Post a Comment