4 ms·

Honestly, the entire MIQ program is a gross violation of the bill of rights and several international treaties. So I don't think the rule of law goes very far i

Honestly, the entire MIQ program is a gross violation of the bill of rights and several international treaties. So I don't think the rule of law goes very far in NZ as they seem to just handwave it away and most people in NZ couldn't care less because of the fear they have from living reasonably isolated for the past year and a half. NZers should expect to be on the hook for at least a few class action lawsuits for damages. For example people who have watched loved ones die on a video call because they haven't been rightfully allowed back into their country. It's going to cost in the long run but the dust hasn't settled yet. I'll be joining up for damages and a few months extra living costs placed on me before I could get a MIQ spot.

lcpriest 5y ago
I don't think the NZ bill of rights is applied the same way as other countries. > Section 4 specifically denies the Act any supremacy over other legislation. The section states that Courts looking at cases under the Act cannot implicitly repeal or revoke, or make invalid or ineffective, or decline to apply any provision of any statute made by parliament, whether before or after the Act was passed because it is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Bill_of_Rights_Act_1990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Bill_of_Rights_Act...
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  why would they include something like that? whats the point of such bill of rights, if it has no supremacy?
  - strontium_90 5y ago
    New Zealand’s unicameral parliament, has supremacy over all other parts of government [1] and cannot be overruled or contradicted by any prior parliament’s legislation … the bill of right’s drafting reflects this. As a consequence of New Zealand’s somewhat atypical political history (as a former British colony without a federation treaty or other founding constitutional document), it’s not really possible to entrench any legislation so it can’t be overruled by a normal majority of a subsequent parliament. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
  - TMWNN 5y ago
    As AmericanChopper said, it's mostly irrelevant in the legal sense. The most important part of stromtium_90's reply is the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the idea that no legislature can do something that a future legislature cannot undo. Every legislature, including the US Congress, follows this principle ... with the exception of the constitution/founding treaty/etc., which is the only thing that is superior to that legislature's power. New Zealand does not have such a document. Neither does the UK. So, theoretically, both countries' parliaments can do anything as long as the action complies with any treaties signed with other nations ... and, of course, the parliaments can always use whatever exit option the treaties provide, if necessary.
- aunty_helen 5y ago
  The way the legislation that gives the govt powers to enforce MIQ is written, is with respect to of the NZ bill of rights. That is, the legislation doesn't override the bill of rights but tries to work with it. So given that it hasn't worked out as planned and they have directly violated freedom of movement etc, they have some pretty major issues. This was how it was orignally written. I think they've tried to change it to install a CEO of MIQ which is the fall guy and absolves the govt now. However, this will all be sorted out when the lawsuit goes ahead next year from the Grounded Kiwis (mentioned in the article) and hopefully a win for justice here. Given every legal challenge so far has been lost by the govt or backed out of at the last minute, there's a fairly good chance if someone or a group persues it to the final ruling, there will be a case set for a class action follow up.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  The Bill of Rights Act in New Zealand is mostly irrelevant. It is an ordinary piece of legislation, and it places no restrictions whatsoever on what future legislation may or may not contain. Their early lockdowns were unlawful, but they fixed that in a few days with new legislation. A court actually ruled they were initially unlawful, but said that was OK because the government had good intentions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
janeroe 5y ago
> Honestly, the entire MIQ program is a gross violation of the bill of rights and several international treaties. So I don't think the rule of law goes very far in NZ as they seem to just handwave it away and most people in NZ couldn't care less because of the fear they have from living reasonably isolated for the past year and a half. But, but the Cato Institute says it's the freest country in the world. And the Heritage foundation places it in the list of the most economically free. No way those ratings are bollocks. P.S.: Interestingly, the latter puts Kazakhstan (where the president and his people shamelessly extort 40-60% share of every major business and enterprise) in the "mostly free" section. Makes one wonder about how those ratings are composed. And the description of Kyrgyzstan shows its authors don't understand what they are writing at all: > Former Prime Minister and ruling Social-Democratic Party of Kyrgyzstan member Sooronbai Jeenbekov defeated former President Almazbek Atambayev in 2017 elections that were the most competitive in the country’s history. It's equivalent to: > Former Vice President and ruling US Democratic Party member Joe Biden defeated former President Barack Obama in 2020 elections that were the most competitive in the country’s history.

lcpriest 5y ago

I don't think the NZ bill of rights is applied the same way as other countries. > Section 4 specifically denies the Act any supremacy over other legislation. The section states that Courts looking at cases under the Act cannot implicitly repeal or revoke, or make invalid or ineffective, or decline to apply any provision of any statute made by parliament, whether before or after the Act was passed because it is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Bill_of_Rights_Act_1990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Bill_of_Rights_Act...

inter_netuser 5y ago
why would they include something like that? whats the point of such bill of rights, if it has no supremacy?
- strontium_90 5y ago
  New Zealand’s unicameral parliament, has supremacy over all other parts of government [1] and cannot be overruled or contradicted by any prior parliament’s legislation … the bill of right’s drafting reflects this. As a consequence of New Zealand’s somewhat atypical political history (as a former British colony without a federation treaty or other founding constitutional document), it’s not really possible to entrench any legislation so it can’t be overruled by a normal majority of a subsequent parliament. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
- TMWNN 5y ago
  As AmericanChopper said, it's mostly irrelevant in the legal sense. The most important part of stromtium_90's reply is the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the idea that no legislature can do something that a future legislature cannot undo. Every legislature, including the US Congress, follows this principle ... with the exception of the constitution/founding treaty/etc., which is the only thing that is superior to that legislature's power. New Zealand does not have such a document. Neither does the UK. So, theoretically, both countries' parliaments can do anything as long as the action complies with any treaties signed with other nations ... and, of course, the parliaments can always use whatever exit option the treaties provide, if necessary.
aunty_helen 5y ago
The way the legislation that gives the govt powers to enforce MIQ is written, is with respect to of the NZ bill of rights. That is, the legislation doesn't override the bill of rights but tries to work with it. So given that it hasn't worked out as planned and they have directly violated freedom of movement etc, they have some pretty major issues. This was how it was orignally written. I think they've tried to change it to install a CEO of MIQ which is the fall guy and absolves the govt now. However, this will all be sorted out when the lawsuit goes ahead next year from the Grounded Kiwis (mentioned in the article) and hopefully a win for justice here. Given every legal challenge so far has been lost by the govt or backed out of at the last minute, there's a fairly good chance if someone or a group persues it to the final ruling, there will be a case set for a class action follow up.
AmericanChopper 5y ago
The Bill of Rights Act in New Zealand is mostly irrelevant. It is an ordinary piece of legislation, and it places no restrictions whatsoever on what future legislation may or may not contain. Their early lockdowns were unlawful, but they fixed that in a few days with new legislation. A court actually ruled they were initially unlawful, but said that was OK because the government had good intentions.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

janeroe 5y ago

> Honestly, the entire MIQ program is a gross violation of the bill of rights and several international treaties. So I don't think the rule of law goes very far in NZ as they seem to just handwave it away and most people in NZ couldn't care less because of the fear they have from living reasonably isolated for the past year and a half. But, but the Cato Institute says it's the freest country in the world. And the Heritage foundation places it in the list of the most economically free. No way those ratings are bollocks. P.S.: Interestingly, the latter puts Kazakhstan (where the president and his people shamelessly extort 40-60% share of every major business and enterprise) in the "mostly free" section. Makes one wonder about how those ratings are composed. And the description of Kyrgyzstan shows its authors don't understand what they are writing at all: > Former Prime Minister and ruling Social-Democratic Party of Kyrgyzstan member Sooronbai Jeenbekov defeated former President Almazbek Atambayev in 2017 elections that were the most competitive in the country’s history. It's equivalent to: > Former Vice President and ruling US Democratic Party member Joe Biden defeated former President Barack Obama in 2020 elections that were the most competitive in the country’s history.