Government House
Private Bag 39995
Wellington Mail Centre
Lower Hutt 5045
Governor General
Hon Anand Satyanand,
Dear Sir
I appreciate the fact that you have been a lawyer, Judge and Chief Ombudsmen’s so you’re credentials speak for them self. I however don’t shear your giftedness or confess to have anywhere near your level of understanding or knowledge of the law or structure to which you empowered and we are governed.
So I hope you will bear with me while I attempt to explain why I feel this Parliament is oppressing its people. I should also point out I have a learning disability you can read about on my webpage being http://graemea.snap.net.nz
This will come across throughout this letter while I attempt to convey my basic understanding and heart felt passion for seeing what’s right and just happen.
I believe the integrity of Parliament has slowly but surely been eroded away of late. Mainly this Government and its coalition partners are slowly but surely attacking the rights and freedoms of her Majesty subjects to a point that I feel it can no longer be ignored. It would also seem not even the opposition can stop them so you seem to be our only hope if you are able to help us.
The hypocrisy of this so called democracy is rather ironic given I believe this parliament more than any other has morally, ethically and legally overstepped the mark and acting in a very undemocratic manner on an umber of fronts.
I will first given you my argument, reasoning for presenting my case to you followed by what I hopping you might see the need to get involved on our behalf.
Remember it was reported the Government threaded Voluntary organization by removing their charity status if the are seen to be to political. As results some (NGO’s) None Government Organizations have backed of advocacy and gone into education. The changes to the Charities Act this still presents a problem for those charities that are dedicated lobby groups.
To me this amounts to an attempted gagging for those, Charities/NGO’s who might want to criticize any parties’ policies on behalf of those whom it might hurt and be unable to get a voice via any other means...
The changes to the Charities Act I believe is about creating a “climate of fear as National MP Bill English pointed out over Wellington Airport for refusing to display a billboard criticizing the Government because it is too politically sensitive.
Source:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10408681
I work in the NGO and Charities fields and can assure you many of them will be thinking twice before criticizing any parties’ policies in what could be deemed a political manner. That to me seems like a climate of fear and oppression.
The Electoral Finance Bill is yet again another attack on the freedom of speech and trying to muzzle people from getting their views across. The more I write this all down it seems we have gone to a dictatorship rather then leadership.
MPs pass law allowing pledge card spending
By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post, Wednesday, 21 November 2007
“Members of Parliament have voted themselves the power to dip into the public coffers to pay for material put out on the campaign trail in a move that has sparked more angry exchanges in Parliament.
“As a consequence, the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes Bill) allows parties to put out the same type of material next year without breaking the law and without breaking the strict financial cap on how much they can spend in an election year.
That sparked National Party accusations last night that Labour was corrupt and had "stolen" the 2005 election.
Parliament is expected to pass the Electoral Finance Bill before Christmas so the January 1 start date for its new election-year regulations can kick in.
Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4282161a6160.html
Let us not forget the fact that many of the parties did not want to repay the illegal spending and now passed a law to fix the problem as mentioned above.
So if the law does not suit Parliament, then they will change it and continue doing what they want anyway. Many of the ministers have been accused of not being honest as the snippets below will explain:
Labour ministers suffering from a strange phenomenon
A strange new type of amnesia is striking down Labour ministers left, right and centre. In some cases, it hits after they’ve been at ethnic events or interviewed by ethnic media, and in one case it seems to have hit everyday life. Its main symptoms include evasion, obfuscation and omission.
Source: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0709/S00116.htm
Let’s look at the scandals
Examples from Source: 1
Paintergate, speedgate, tennis-ballgate, front-bottomgate.
Examples from Source: 2
corngate, doonegate, pledgegate
Examples Source: 1
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3455/columnists/6629/another_closed_gate.html;jsessionid=1DFB65DBF62AF3BC17384D24FE66CA67
Examples Source: 2
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10408681
This Parliament can’t be trusted to set up an inquiry as proven by “the Ingram report' into Taito Phillip Field showed:
By engaging a respected Queen’s Counsel, she ensured that it would be tough for anyone to criticise the process. And indeed, no one has seriously charged that he whitewashed the affair. By giving him no other powers than you or I might have for looking into this, Clark ensured it would be tough for him to get to the bottom of matters. It was a tacit invitation to Field to ration his co-operation and, as the report makes tactfully clear, that’s exactly what he did.
Source: http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3455/columnists/6629/another_closed_gate.html;jsessionid=1DFB65DBF62AF3BC17384D24FE66CA67
The (Ingram's inquiry)The terms of reference the Prime Minister set for her ministerial inquiry into Taito Phillip Field's dealings have finally been exposed as a sham by the police decision to lay corruption charges.
Source: 5:00AM Saturday May 26, 2007By Fran O'Sullivan
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/index.cfm?c_id=1501207
That is a slap in the face of the so called integrity of Parliament; it was a waist of taxpayer’s money and a complete whitewash as the Government wanted.
So we have proven you can’t trust Parliament to set up an inquiry because they control the terms of reference slanting it to their favor if needed.
If Parliament does introduce a Code of Conducts which is long overdue can we really trust them to apply it or make it meaningful.
The Parliament was taken the power and control out of the people hands to the point they control everything and these is not longer any real avenue of redresses they don’t influence which is in my view a dangerous president.
I hope being a forever highly respected judge you will take offense to the next section but I feel it needs to be said.
Given the Privy Council was replaced by Supreme Court and Governments hand picks Judges as apposed to all of parliament is see this a very dangerous.
I actually think the people should choice the judges from lists a election time.
I don’t trust parliament at all to do this independently.
Not only that but I think the Privy Council should come after the Supreme Court as a last resort, not instead of. Let us not forget that Governments have been embarrassed by some Privy Council outcomes. The only place some people got real justice was overseas and now they are being denied that right by parliament.
Those issues alone deserved a referendum for the people to have their say which we were denied. Is this real dormancy?
What’s just as bad as that is the fact the Prime Minister decides who is a terrorist now and not judiciary.
Currently, the Prime Minister has the power to designate terrorist groups but they are reviewed after three years by the high court as a judicial safeguard.
Under the proposed amendments there will be no High Court review. This leaves the decision solely in the hands of the Prime Minister.
Source: High Court Bypassed Under New Anti-Terror Bill
Wednesday, 27 June 2007, 2:38 pmArticle: Joseph Barratt
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00368.htm
The problem is under the disguise of looking for terrorist people in lobby groups come under fire. I would not be at all surprised to find myself on that list so that the political parties have an excuse to spy on me knowing I am an advocate and very outspoken,
So my point is this Government and some of its coalition partners are trying to silence their critics, railroad the justice system and hinder peoples and organizations freedom of speech.
Don Brash has said that:
“Helen Clark’s Labour Government is quite simply the most corrupt government in New Zealand history”.
Source http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10396221
I agree with you on this one Don, so now she has come to my town I am going to tell her myself
Helen the lesson here is the more you try and silence your critics, the more you will make.
There is no way people like me will let this government, Lie, cheat and steal. Your way in power and think you can stay there. I would be saying the same about National if they tried to pull stunts like this or any other party.
Lie Reference, amnesia is striking down Labour minister’s e.g. Symptoms include evasion, obfuscation and omission.
Cheat Reference Ingram's inquiry teams of reference. Hider freedom of speech that could cities it, disadvantage other parties from having a fair go no matter who they are.
Steal Reference MPs pass law allowing pledge card spending
Even the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has criticizes this Government over it handing of treaty claims and the way it treats our indigenous people, yet knowing that after the report they still tried to sell of land under claim with the Treaty of Waitangi tribunal until protesters put a holt to that idea.
I am hoping after reading all the aforementioned you might consider taking some from of action like refusing to give royal assent to some Bills like the terrorist legislations that gives the PM the power, the Electoral Finance Bill, or any such Act/Bill that could jeopardize peoples freedoms and Rights. I would like you to consider if need be dissolving Parliament.
New Zealand needs either the New Zealand Bill of Rights or constitution that truly and ultimately protects people’s legitimate Rights to peacefully speak out and protest. That parliament is also held to a higher standard then that which we are seeing now. With the code of contact for MP’s I would like to see you oversee that because you are independent from parliament. In the same way you can withdrew ministerial warrants I think you should be able to withdraw MP’s right to be in parliament.
Two examples is again Taito Phillip Field, and Trevor Mallard punching Hon Tau Henare. I believe given the anti violence complains which I have seen you in on TV Trevor Mallard should have gone to the back bunches.
We clearly cant trust the Speaker of the house who is chosen by the government anyway. Rodney Hide made a complaint to the speaker that got nowhere.
…We can’t ignore the assault and pretend that Hon Trevor Mallard didn’t punch Hon Tau Henare in the head with a closed fist – not once, but reportedly repeatedly…
Source
http://www.act.org.nz/breach_of_privilege_complaint_against_hon_trevor_mallard
So this Goverments grip on power is ver strong at ever level to the point not even the oppesation can do anything.
I hope you are will to help restore the balance of power, Peoples rights and freedoms and provide us with a place of redress unhindered by the influences of Parliament.
Graeme Axford
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
57 comments:
No wonder some government departments no longer have any standards of integrity, let alone high ones. Look at the example set by parliament. They are to busy fighting and doing anything they can to stay in power. All the minor parties should be ashamed for supporting this as they are no better for allowing it to happen. A loving parent can’t smack there children yet MP’s can slug it out and use violence and still stay in cabinet. Great anti-violence message Helen Clark… Do as I say not as I do?
Yea, another blog Graham, your spelling like mine is crap LOL, but the points you make are great. You put it all together very well, so much for CYF saying you are not analytical. Everything I read of yours is very in depth. I noted CYF said you showed mistrust for government agencies. The fact is if they give you reason not to trust them then fair enough man.
Let’s face it IRD, ACC, CYF, Corrections have all been in new news due to bad dealings so anyone would be a stupid to trust them. Even some Winz staff stole some money…
In All Honesty why should we expect our Politicians to be any different to other nations politicians.
They are all cut from the same cloth, and those that rise to the top are there for what reason ...
To better the nation?
Look after it's people?
Protect our rights?
or was it to
Serve the Party?
Now lets face facts here folks, New Zealand has the Government that New Zealands Apathetic, Unatentive, Couldn't Careless Population allows.
Perhaps however enough people will realise this time that they are being trampled underfoot, (i doubt it) but let us all hope so. And spread the word that this may become so!
Go for it Graeme, you have my vote for PM anyday.
O my God, I had no idea things had got this bad you are right when you read all the facts you listed. God defend NZ against the MPs
I think you are totally 100% right lets see what the GG response to you is I trust you will publisg it?
You have helped me make up my mind to move the family to Aussie.
Helen Clark is a power and control Freak trying to stop people from speaking out against her...
Most persons want to get rid of MMP; Govt refuses to do so.
NZ has no Consitution. We are being dictated to. Do MP's not know they work for us, not themselves. Start closing our borders like most other countrys, clean up the mess we have before importing more trouble.
One dear lady got on tv one and bleated how she did not like it here, it is not what she was promised..
What of white south Africans complaining about not liking their State houses... How long is the list for NZers born here looking for any sort of house..
People immigrating to NZ are pushing House prices up, more traffic on the road, demanding higher wages/salaries putting a bigger gap between locals & imports.
Govt says we need them, What for,
the health systems etc, can not cope with what we already have here. Most imports do not give a stuff about other NZers.
Companys come here to rip us off, take, take, a pittance is sometimes offered to fund a local school activity or similar
The West Cost of the South Island, has the most minerals of any place in NZ. Does local Govt on The West Coast get a bean out of millions of dollars of product leaving here!
Nope, but every other hanger on including the Govt get their slice of the pie and have done so for about 100 yrs. It is not a wonder that a lot of West Coasters do not
have a 'Doormat complex' from
greedy big business stomping all over them. If said rip off artists tried the same in say Auckland, local Govt would get their cut
Has Trevor Mallard got a steer on SSC report?
Tuesday, 18 December 2007, 4:54 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
Gerry Brownlee MP
National Party State Services Spokesman
18 December 2007
Has Trevor Mallard got a steer on SSC report?
National Party State Services spokesman Gerry Brownlee says Trevor Mallard needs to explain why he waited until today to apologise to Environment Ministry whistleblower Erin Leigh.
“Has Mr Mallard been given a steer about what’s in the State Services Commission report examining ministerial meddling at the Environment Ministry?”
Mr Brownlee says today’s apology is a remarkable turnaround from December 5, when Mr Mallard said ‘I don’t think I need to apologise … I acted on advice’.
“What has happened since then?
“Both he and the Prime Minister said they were waiting for the outcome of the State Services Commission report into the appointment of Clare Curran before making a decision on apologies.
“But today in Parliament, Annette King said that she had not seen a draft of the SSC report into the debacle, and did not know when it would be released.
“It has been clear for weeks now that Mr Mallard defamed Ms Leigh, then refused to repeat the smear outside Parliament where he could be sued. His leader protected him and defended his decision.
“Trevor Mallard should explain why he suddenly felt compelled to apologise today, having strongly resisted the invitation to do so previously.”
ENDS
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0712/S00419.htm
Mallard pleads guilty to fighting, says sorry to consultant
4:42PM Tuesday December 18, 2007
Trevor Mallard will donate $500 to a Salvation Army drug and alcohol rehabilitation course and will serve no sentence. Photo / Alan Gibson
Cabinet Minister Trevor Mallard has moved to put a bad year behind him -pleading guilty to fighting in a public place and apologising to whistleblower Erin Leigh.
Mallard has come under fire on both issues and today sought to cauterise further political damage ahead of the Christmas break.
He accepted the fighting charge at a status hearing at Wellington District Court.
Wellington accountant Graham McCready had brought a private assault prosecution against Mallard in relation to the altercation he had with National MP Tau Henare in October after Mr Henare taunted him in Parliament about his private life.
Mallard pleaded not guilty to an assault charge, but today pleaded guilty to the lesser fighting charge and agreed to pay $500 to the Salvation Army's Bridge drug and alcohol programme.
Shortly after the conclusion of the hearing, Mallard apologised in Parliament to Ms Leigh, who he had been accused of unfairly attacking under parliamentary privilege.
Ms Leigh quit as a public relations contractor at the ministry last year following the appointment of communications contractor and would-be Labour MP Clare Curran, who was recommended by Climate Change Minister David Parker.
Her statements spurred Mallard to describe her as a "sad" individual and an incompetent worker.
However she was subsequently praised by two of her former bosses and by the ministry's chief executive Hugh Logan.
Mallard has been under strong opposition pressure to apologise to Ms Leigh and today did so.
"On reflection I now believe it was not wise to make those comments. I apologise to her."
Mallard refused to comment on his apology, but was more forthright on his court case.
"I'm really pleased we've got it over with by Christmas. Clearly I shouldn't have been involved in the fight to start with. I was involved in the fight and the matter is now finished."
Mallard pointed out that the conviction under the Summary Proceedings Act was not criminal.
"The charge is one of a lower level - a non-imprisonable offence - and while I'm clearly not proud of it, it's in a different category to assault which I was certainly not guilty of."
Mallard said he was not happy with how the incident had reflected on the Government.
In return for the guilty plea to the lesser charge, Mr McCready withdrew an application to lay a second assault charge over an incident last year in which Mr Mallard was alleged to have clipped National MP Bob Clarkson around the ears with a manila folder.
Mr McCready told reporters he had achieved what he had set out to do - show that people were equal in front of the law and that ordinary people had a right to call politicians to account.
Mr McCready, who was without counsel at today's hearing, accepted a trial would have been a mess and said he was glad to get a compromise that achieved his aims.
Mallard refused to bag Mr McCready, but said he was pleased to have finished dealing with him.
"I think a number of us who are MPs have had people who are fairly hard to work with over a period of time and Mr McCready is in that category. He's not the worst and I think I'm pleased to have finished dealing with him."
- NZPA
hi Graeme,
I have been giving this question some thought and have come to the conclusion that the Governor General will not pass comment upon your letter.
I agree that what New Zealand really Needs is an independent body that can objectively look at legislation, government departments, and those who work within these without partisanism or prejudice.
However neither the Governor General nor Her Majesty Elzabeth II could become involved in such a process.
CONSIDER:
The Role of the Governor General.
The Governor-General is the personal representative of Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand. Neither Queen Elizabeth nor the Governor-General takes an active or initiating role in the executive functions of government
Her Majestys representative is simply Her Representative in New Zealand. He or she does not have the executive power to write or reject legislation. The Governor General may of course make suggestions or propose alternatives. Yet again "by binding convention, the Head of State almost always acts on the advice of Ministers of the Crown."
Thus while it is claimed that the Governor General is non-partisan, in matters of the "business of Government" he or she is bound by the advice of the Ministers of the Crown. Therefore, even when the Governor General does not personally agree with legislation, he or she is bound to follow the advice of the Ministers.
So then while in theory "one of the distinctive features of our constitutional monarchy is that our Head of State is non-partisan." in reality he or she is bound by convention to follow the advice of the Crown Ministers. Thus the Governor General is not non-partisan but locked into the policies and advice of the current governing group, party or coalition.
Whether he will respond to your letter is I think doubtful. You see he must not only remain locked into the present system but must also appear to remain above and outside of the business of Government. When in fact the Office of Governor General is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the current governing group.
A Rubber Stamp
This purpose of this stamp is supposed to calm the informed masses by giving Royal Assent to Legislation. But as this Royal Assent must be given on Advice of the Ministers appointed by the Leader of the current Government (the Prime Sinister), that Assent is then totally biased toward the Government.
In closing, do not give up the fight. It is good that New Zealanders are willing to take these issues to the Highest levels, and continue to protest against "discrimination", "trampling of individual rights and freedom".
But sadly there is no independent non-partisan body to which any Citizen can lodge a complaint, that will then be taken seriously.
For all are appointed by Government, not the people. All are hooked into the system that ignores the majority with the vain-glorious excuse that every three years the people are able to speak.
cheers.
Hi nzMalcolmite,
I suspect you could be right however what would normally happen is I would get an acknowledgment of having written and an expiration of what the Governor General could or can’t do. This is the third time I have written to the new Governor General over the past few months and never received a repose or acknowledgment. A lot of what I have said is opinion but there is some point’s of law the Governor General can clarify. If anyone reads this and feels inclined could they copy and paste the letter and post it to the Governor General to see if they get an answer of any kind.
Cheers
Graeme Axford
hi Graeme,
Three times and not even one acknowledment of reciept would I think show that the Governor General is attempting to hold to the Convention.
May I suggest if you have not already done so.
Write another letter that simply asks, Why there has been no acknowledgement of the previous three.
If my understanding is correct, then such should elicit a response along the lines of the Governor General remaining outside the business of Government.
Cheers.
I have had an email asking me what I think the Governor General can do In simple terms He can refuse to sign off laws, remove the right for someone to be called a minister and dissolve parliament. That’s as much as the Governor General can do from what I understand. Apart from what’s mentioned above the Governor General does not have any input into the day to day running of the government or its departments in the same way ministers aren’t meant to. The CEO for a government department is chosen by the State Services Commission who is meant to be independent from the government. I would like to see the Governor General refuse to sign some of the legislation which breaches our human rights and if need be dissolve parliament for having tried to do so. There is of course another expiration required about what happens if a Government Department or CEO fails to perform which I will not go into at this point…
Cheers
Graeme Axford
hi Graeme you said,
"In simple terms He can refuse to sign off laws, remove the right for someone to be called a minister and dissolve parliament."
But there are "circumstances that must come about before the GG can do so.
For Example:
The Governor General cannot refuse to sign off on any law, that has been passed by the house of Parliament.
Consider:
The House as a whole, (all members) vote upon the proposed legislation.
That majority vote then determines whether or not the "proposal" is accepted (becomes law) or is rejected. By "convention" the GG must sign all Laws "passed" by the house.
Therein is the rubber stamp, as the Governor General only signs to give the legislation "Royal Assent."
Thus we see very clearly that it is never "just" the majority Governing party, group or coalition that "passes legislation". The "majority of members, (MP's), must give assent, for it to pass.
Having passed the House the GG rubber stamps it, nothing more.
What allows those "bills" to "pass" that weaken or destroy our human rights within New Zealand?
The Governing Group, or party?
Or is it the Majority of the then Members of Parliament?
The truth is, it is the Majority of Members who do this, not just the Governing Group.
There the first real danger exposed.
As we know from recent history and legislation passed by the Members of Parliament, the majority are not there to serve New Zealand and Her people, but their own agenda. If the members of parliament truely desired to serve New Zealand, and the New Zealand people, when the majority of the population says No, to any proposed legislation, the majority of Memebers would also say No!
Yet despite the people continually saying NO!, NO!, and NO again to many recent proposals, many "bills that the people did not want and do not want are now "law".
Undoubtedly some will contend that this year "they will go" for ignoring the will of the majority.
But this is nothing more than a fallacy, a utopian dream, for whether you, or I or any other likes it or not, the next Governing Group will continue to "push it's barrow" not the peoples.
Sure the Labor led Coalition may well become the "opposition" but the majority of Members within the House will still be the same people who voted for all those restrictions to every New Zealanders freedom of speech, action and human rights.
All that will change is the Guard, the members of the house will not because the New Zealand people will not!
The people choose to bury their
heads in the sand so nothing will change. The "new Guard" and the Members of Parliament will still continue to "laws" that the
majority of New Zealands people do not want!
What makes New Zealands Parliamentarians so dangerous and arrogant, is not the ideal of Democracy it is the igornace, and
carless attitude of the Majority of New Zealanders.
And so as the planet revolves once more toward another sunset, I will crawl back beneath my rock and await the future, perhaps kiwis will open their eyes this year. ( - do not hold your breath - for it remains very doubtfull.)
Cheers,
nzMalcolmite
hi again Graeme,
In your letter to the Governor General you said,
The Electoral Finance Bill is yet again another attack on the freedom of speech and trying to muzzle people from getting their views across.
Now, please do not get me wrong in this, I am not for this legislation. I firmly believe that all people whether individually or working as groups should be allowed to spend any amount that they desire or can raise on any issue, at any time. That includes our present political groups, and any that rise in the future.
But this is not the view of the Majority, for the "Majority" of New Zealanders it seems do not want to go down that road, which they see as he with the biggest budget then winning the argument. This is of course ridiculous however that is another matter. I wonder, given that most kiwis do not want to undergo the electioneering of big money,
Does the Electoral Finance Bill not attempt to redress the balance for all New Zealanders?
Consider:
Under the law those seeking election to the House are presently restricted in the amount that may be spent during that campaign to win the seat. New Zealanders do not wish to give political groups more freedom in this area.
Should then individual New Zealanders, and other interested groups be allowed to spend more than registered groups (political parties and individuals) during an election?
It seems to me that if we answer, Yes, they should - because not to do so is infringing our right to freedom of speech, then we must ask ourselves,
"Why are we not allowing the same freedom to the political parties and individuals?
Why is it that the majority do not want "unlimited spending by political parties" but will not accept the same restriction to themselves? That to me reeks of hypocrisy?
Does not the present law restrict the rights of "those with political aspirations" to spend what they can at election time? Surely this Electoral Finance Bill is only attempting to give balance to what is at present imbalanced - they can't - but I can.
cheers,
nzMalcolmite
Friday, May 11, 2007
Supreme Court v Privy Council (again)
Michael Reed QC thinks the David Bain decision is a slap in the face for the Supreme Court. What? Aside from Mr Reed getting rather annoyed he won't be getting anymore free trinkets to London, there is the issue taken by Not PC and Stephen Franks that our new Supreme Court is a lemon.
The reason for this, they claim, is that the bench of the Court of Appeal heard the same evidence about Bain's trail and rejected his appeal are the same bench who now sit on the Supreme Court:
Reed noted that two of the new, New Zealand Supreme Court members had heard "almost identical" evidence relating to the Bain case when, as members of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, they had dismissed the appeal.
And of course it follows that sitting on the Supreme Court the bench would've decided the case exactly the same way; moreover because the Privy Council isn't appointed by the Crown in Right of New Zealand, the Privy Council is independent, whereas the Supreme Court - which seems to regularly piss Michael Cullen off - isn't independent at all. Right.
And we'll just ignore that the fact that the Privy Council also denied leave to Bain for appeal in May 1996, and that the Law Lords have essentially washed their hands on the case and sent it back to New Zealand.
Peter Dunne, quoted in today's New Zealand Herald, is actually on the money - it's not the appeal structure, but the way in which evidence is presented in our courts.
The Bain case doesn't prove New Zealand needs the Privy Council to maintain the integrity of our justice system. It only proves that the issue of evidence in our courts is still a vexed one. We would do better to put our efforts into answering that question first rather than re-litigating the debate on the Privy Council.
The New Zealand Judicial Oath:
"I, [Full Name of Judge] swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law, in the office of [Queen's Judge]; and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of New Zealand without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God." [S18 Oaths and Declarations Act 1957]
With no accountability for their conduct after their judicial appointment, how many truly honour this solemn pledge?
http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz
SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND STRIKES ONE FOR PERSONAL LIBERTIES
Dateline: 25 May 2007
In a split-decision handed down this month, the Supreme Court upheld the right to peaceful protests while disavowing the use of criminal statutes to prosecute those exercising freedom of expression. Chief Justice Elias was joined by Justices Blanchard and Tipping in the matter of Brooker v Police SC 40/2005 in holding that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 that guaranteed freedom of expression "to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form" superseded privacy concerns where there clearly was no harassment and annoyance to the public.
In a democratic ruling, each Justice provided extensive legal rationale for the way they ruled. Chief Justice Elias offered the most analytical and cogent legal reasoning, laying out a legal roadmap on what may and may not warrant criminal charges of disorderly conduct. The Chief Justice denounced the lower Court's reliance on disorderly conduct being the antonym for "orderly", thereby extending to anything that was not orderly; definitions that included not "well-behaved". This semantic escapade gravitated to a ' peaceful protest' amounting to an attack on the subject's "dignity" when it assisted the police prosecution of the appellant (who was convicted for protesting in front of a police constable's house). The Chief Justice was almost scathing in criticism of Appeal Court Justice Young and High Court Justice John Hansen for not focusing on fundamental questions such as whether Mr. Brooker's behavior was "disruptive of public order?" During the substantive proceedings there was no evidence that any member of the public was even irritated by the protest other than the police constable who was the subject of the protest. Justices Young and Hansen's approach had been to focus on the constable's loss of privacy because her house happened to be close to the road, as well as the fact that Mr. Brooker knocked on her door before putting up his placard.
Justice Blanchard seconded the Chief Justice and, in obvious answer to the dissenters, said "The exercise of the s14 right (freedom of expression) in the form of a protest is not confined to non-residential streets." Justice Tipping was the most understated in his treatment of the lower court rulings, saying "Bearing in mind the significance of the right to freedom of expression and all other issues, I do not consider that it was possible for the trail judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Brooker's behavior disturbed public order to the necessary extent."
Justices McGrath and Thomas dissented, with McGrath claiming that issues of "public order" and "privacy" overrode citizens' statutory rights to freedom of expression. Justice Thomas, on the other hand, launched into a diatribe of 48 pages (almost half of the entire judgment) criticizing everything from the tone and time of the protest (9:30 am) to the fact that it was on a residential street - even arguing that the lower court judges whose decision was on appeal should be allowed to weigh-in given the closeness of the decision.
Contrary to his visceral opinion that sought to curtail civl liberties, Justice Ted Thomas was long considered a more moderate to liberal member of the Court, harking back to the days of Lord Cooke. But with this he has likely delivered his last judgment. Thomas has not heard a case recently and will be forced into mandatory retirement at the end of the year.
The core issue in this Supreme Court appeal involved a protest by Alistair Patrick Brooker in front of Police Constable Fiona Croft's house, both of Greymouth. Mr. Brooker believed Constable Croft had acted in an unlawful and harassing manner toward him. She had obtained a search warrant which the police then attempted to execute at Mr. Brooker's house late on a Saturday night. The warrant sought forensic examination of a car that was not on the property. Since the search was ostensibly for the purposes of a court hearing that Monday, and no forensic tests could be run that quickly, Mr. Brooker alleged that the search warrant was an abuse of police power used to harass and intimidate him. His protest involved subsequently knocking on Constable Croft's door at 9:20 am and proceeding to sing and play a protest song on his guitar on the street in front of the house. The constable said this invaded her privacy because she was sleeping (she worked the night shift). Mr. Brooker also placed a sign on the street that read "No More Bogus Warrants". While it was alleged he sang at a pitch louder than a talking voice, he used no amplifier for his voice or instrument. The police were called by the constable and responded within 15 minutes. On orders of the police, Mr. Brooker moved his car that was parked on the grass along the roadway but, when he returned moments later to continue his protest, he was arrested.
This case was heard by the Supreme Court on 7 December 2005, yet the decision only came down on 7 May 2007.
There has been considerable focus on the New Zealand Court system since the Privy Council was abolished in 2005. Brooker v Police was viewed as a watershed test case of democratic principles for New Zealand and is being analysed by democracies around the world. There has been much recent criticism directed at the parochial aspects that have governed the lower courts for too long. The loss of the Privy Council, where as many as 60% of the New Zealand judgments had been overturned, was considered a loss that imperiled New Zealand's place as a law abiding society in the free world. With this judgment, the Supreme Court has advanced its legal framework toward a mature place among the established democracies. Judge Elias perhaps said it best, "Imprecision in the criminal law which leaves it to judges to identify what is deserving of penalty is inconsistent with the rule of law for reasons also identified by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Danzig Legislative Decrees Case." #
Hi Grayham, I hope you publish the GGs reply should you get one. I hope you enjoy this and it gives you some ideas, go visit Ruth Dyson and Peter Hughes at Home, I would even join you so yell out when or if you are up this way.
Put the time and place on the bolgs and I will meet there and for the frist time.
The Head of State of New Zealand (Queen Elizabeth II) who is represented by the Governor-General.
The Governor-General is appointed by the Sovereign on the Prime Minster's recommendation for a term of five years.
The Governor-General exercises the Queen's royal powers (prerogative powers) which are found in the Letters Patent 1983. The Governor-General's main constitutional function is to invite the Leader of the majority party to form a government. The Governor-General is also able to make regulations and his or her assent is required for all Bills passed by the House of Representatives before they can become law. He or she also holds the figurehead position of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
The Governor-General is required by constitutional convention to follow the advice of ministers. This means the Governor-General does what the Government advises him or her to do. Although there could be situations where the Governor-General could be required to exercise independent judgement, this has not happened for a long time.
I think you all need to read this:
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2001/legal_system.html
In New Zealand, the Attorney-General is the chief law officer and primary legal advisor of the New Zealand government. Historically, the post could be held either by a politician or by a senior jurist, but today, it is invariably held by a member of Parliament. The Attorney-General attends Cabinet, but the post is not the same as the Minister of Justice. The Attorney-General has departmental responsibility for the Crown Law Office, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the Serious Fraud Office. By tradition, persons appointed to the position of Attorney-General have almost invariably been lawyers. Only two former Attorneys-General have not been lawyers, most recently Dr Michael Cullen who held the post in 2005, and again from 2006. Cullen's appointment was controversial at the time because of his non-legal background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General
Next we have:
Attorney-General to report to Parliament where Bill appears to be inconsistent with Bill of Rights—
Where any Bill is introduced into the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General shall,—
(a) In the case of a Government Bill, on the introduction of that Bill; or
(b) In any other case, as soon as practicable after the introduction of the Bill,—
bring to the attention of the House of Representatives any provision in the Bill that appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights.
Copy this link and Paste it into your addrss bar and click enter
www.hrc.co.nz/hrc/worddocs/BILL%20OF%20RIGHTS%201990%20-%20Full%20printable%20version.doc
Hi Graeme, Atfer having read your web-page and blogs, this seems to support what you are saying...
Police lay 40 charges against Taito Phillip Field
3:08PM Friday November 23, 2007
Taito Phillip Field case:Timeline
MP Field granted temporary reprieve
MP Taito Phillip Field has been charged with 15 counts of bribery and 25 counts of attempting to pervert justice.
A High Court ruling in October cleared the way for police to prosecute him for bribery and corruption.
Field has denied any wrongdoing, and his lawyer Simativa Perese says his client remains optimistic about his chances.
"Now the matters are in court, it's inappropriate to go into the basis for that. But that is a matter of public record - that he's maintained his innocence and asserted his innocence," Mr Perese said.
Mr Perese said the charges were filed a couple of days ago.
"It was served on us on Wednesday so it's certainly not a surprise."
He is due to appear in the Manukau District Court at 10am on Monday where a date for a depositions hearing will be set.
"He won't be arrested and required to plead. He will agree to a bail condition that he not associate with any witnesses. It's really a way for Mr Field to progress this matter so that if he has to go to a trial it's all resolved hopefully before the next election," Mr Perese said.
Mr Field would continue with the Court of Appeal issue "as to whether or not the granting of leave in the first place was correct," he said.
The charges centre on allegations Mr Field gave immigration assistance in return for free or low-cost labour on properties he owned in Samoa, South Auckland and Wellington. Click here for a timeline of the case
When granting the leave, Chief High Court Judge Tony Randerson said there was a strong public interest in allowing a prosecution so the charges could be tested in court.
"There can be no question that the allegations made against [Mr Field] are extremely serious in that they strike at the heart of the administration of a Government and the integrity of members of Parliament," he said in October.
Because the corruption and bribery charges related to a member of Parliament, leave from the High Court was needed to prosecute to ensure charges were not politically motivated or influenced, and to weigh up the public interest in the charges being laid. The offence carries a prison term of up to seven years.
The High Court decision did not affect Mr Field's position as a member of Parliament or as Mangere's electorate MP, but if he is convicted he cannot stand.
He was suspended from the Labour Party caucus in February and resigned from the party soon after to become an Independent MP.
Those trying to get a new Christian Party off the ground are waiting for Mr Field's case to be resolved to decide if he will play a part.
Christian party Future New Zealand leader Gordon Copeland is standing beside Mr Field.
The independent MP said the political relationship between Mr Field and the Future New Zealand party would be decided by the court case.
"We will start to get Taito's side of the story," Mr Copeland said.
He said whether the case was completed before the next election was up to the courts.
- NEWSTALK ZB, NZ HERALD STAFF, NZPA
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10477945
O come on Graham the Governor General is a good friend of Helen Clark's thats why she choise him.
He will ot want to help you for that reason. She does look after her own.
HRS Queen Elizabeth II
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
England
Wednesday 16 January 2008.
Dear beloved Queen Elizabeth II and Royal Family who are always in our harts and prayers,
I have been trying to get a hold of your representative in New Zealand the
Governor General, Hon Anand Satyanand to make a complaint but unable to get an acknowledgment let along a reply after three months of trying.
Could you please be so kind as to pass this letter onto him and insist on answers for me to the many questions and concerns outlined below?
We your loyal subjects have had our freedom and rights eroded away with a number of legislatives changes. Example lost the right to go to the Privy
Council. The Government only not the whole parliament picks the judges for the New Supreme Court.
Our Prime Minister decides who is classified as a terrorist not the judiciary etc.. This letter to the Governor General expands on all of this and worries me the system is open to abuse by a corrupt Government.
Thank you so much and my God bless the Queen and Royal Family.
Yours truly,
Graeme Axford
--------------------------------
I copied the letter sent to the Governor General which has gone unanswered 4 months later.
Ridicule and Denigrate Parliament... Before It's Too Late!
27 June 2007 12:01:00
"Members of the media who use images of Parliament in session to embarrass MPs will now be guilty of contempt of Parliament," fumes Bernard Darnton, leader of the Libertarianz Party. "This is a completely unacceptable breach of media freedom. What next, a ban on cartoons which embarrass MPs? Editorials? Letters to the Editor?"
"The transparency of democracy demands that members of the press and public alike should be able to witness Parliament in session and record it for posterity," explains Darnton. "If Members of Parliament act childishly in a way that lends itself to ridicule, then the public has an absolute right to know. In fact, it may become impossible to film some politicians at all!"
"It is surprising to see the Green party backing these restrictions on free speech, given Sue Kedgeley's wise remarks that 'without freedom of speech in our Parliament, we would not have a functioning democracy'."
"Add to this the chilling effect of the threat of jail terms for making fun of Parliament. One is reminded of China or Soviet Russia," Darnton said. "The new rules forbid the media from using images of Parliament in session for 'satire, ridicule or denigration'. Yet with this attack on freedom of expression, Parliament is worthy only of ridicule and denigration."
ENDS
For more information contact:
Bernard Darnton
Libertarianz Leader
Phone 021 324 466 / 04 586 2182
Email: bernard.darnton@libertarianz.org.nz
Libertarianz: More Freedom, Less Government
http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/?libzpr=466
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
England
Tuesday 22 January 2008
Dear Queen
I wrote to you on Wednesday 16 January 2008, concerning your representative in New Zealand, the Governor General, Hon Anand Satyanand lack of response to a letter copied to him a number of times over four months.
Both my letters to you and the Governor General can be found on a link on my webpage http://graemea.snap.net.nz in the blog section called, Government NZ.
I did in fact ring Government House because there fax run out of paper while sending them another copy of the letter you should have received as aforementioned.
I pointed out to who I believed was the Secretary I was getting annoyed given I had not received and acknowledgment let alone reply after four months.
I also pointed out if this continued as well as having contacted the queen I would camp out at Government House in Wellington until I get my questions answered.
Today I was rang up by the diplomatic protection squad asking about my trip to Wellington to protest if my letters were ignored any longer. I was also questioned about my firearms renewal application and how many guns I have.
The person I spoke to was Ross Hubbard who I believe is based in the Wellington Central Police Station.
I want to make a point; the emphasis to who I believe was the Secretary at Government house was not on me wanting to go to Wellington but more the need for the reply so I would not have to venture up that way.
If the Hon Anand Satyanand found the time to pass my letter onto the diplomatic protection squad why could he have not simply answered it then my trip to Wellington would not be needed, thus any so called threat that I posed by going avoided. I object to the way and approach the Governor General has taken in handled these matters as outlined above and expect a apology from him.
I am an advocate not a terrorist believing in the freedom of speech and peoples rights to protest peacefully within the law as I have done before without any problems until now it seems. I also believe in people’s right to ask questions of others in power and expect to be treated with respect.
Back in 1999 I have the pleasure of corresponding with The Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Hardie Boys, GNZM, GCMG, QSO who was the Governor General of the time.
I also went to our parliament at the beehive to protest over the changes in the licensing system with great success. You can see the evidence of this on my webpage http://graemea.sanp.net.nz in the Photo link section. This was covered before and after the event on radio, with John Banks, television and in the Newspapers.
Is this not an example of what I have been saying, what has New Zealand come to when even your right to protest and question things brings you under suspicion and could potentially give you the label of a terrorist?
I aspect the Governor General, Hon Anand Satyanand to explain himself for not only not answering my questions after four months but also why he thinks I am a danger for insisting he do his job.
I am dismayed by what has happened within New Zealand and more so by the Governor Generals only response through the diplomatic protection squad.
I am outraged and have to question his role and usefulness given the things as outlined in this letter.
So if I need to go to Wellington to get an answer I surely will and if that makes me a terrorist so be it.
It’s ironic, that our so called representatives limit out rights and freedoms while trying to protect themselves. Example laws on parliament filming for the media reporting to the public on their activities of whom they are meant to be working for and accountable to. What I am getting at is the simple fact the Governor General is more then happy for our freedoms to be taken away but when anyone questions him about them, I get further oppressed which seems like the Governor General is supporting parliament more the your subjects who he is meant to be helping. Whose side is he really on?
I hope Her Majesty ponders the reason for my actions and why more then ever we need a Governor General who is not afraid to answer and ask the hard questions when required for the public and to parliament.
Graeme Axford
WTF has this country come to, OMG Graeme u know how 2 get noticed LOL
Keep it up defend wot was ur feeland
It seems terrorism has spread to the West Coast. A well known local entity is the latest contender for this title. It also seems; that the Governor General does not reply to his mail anymore. As such, our homespun terrorist told his minions that if he did not get an answer soon (or polite words thereof) he was going to go up to Wellington and camp on his lawn until the Queen’s rep replys. Our Western hero will also be doing parking up on the steps of Parliament over some other issues
The Man of the Hour was contacted by a goon from the political cop shop in Wellington and informed officially he was a terrorist and threatened over any gun license renewal….After our super hero did some checking, he found that this was not some sort of Nigerian scam, but some morons who have changed from pointing guns at kids in cars and buses to pointing their stink fingers at a well known advocate of the oppressed in the Grey District and other parts, north and south.
I call them morons, because if they had done their homework, they would have found out our two-wheeled wonder has a clean record and eats MP’s for breakfast.
Our latest Terrorist or is it Tourist attraction, now? Helen’s Hatchet Squad would not even rate a mention, while being dispatched along with a tinny of the cold stuff to warm up.
These drongos went on a fishing expedition for a sardine. They hooked Easy Rider of the Eastern ward and about to find out their sardine is a hungry great white shark and their butts are on the menu.
Graeme if they can’t attack what you are saying because it is the truth they will attack you personally. They will call you mad or a fanatic for writing to the queen.
The will mock you and try and dig up dirt and if you come up clean they will make some up. They control the media and have the resources to get their story out.
Perception right or wrong is everything, and if they can’t find anything bad to say about you they will make it up. The MPs will not help you and none of them would want to be seen criticizing the Governor General, who they need to support them by doing nothing.
In short this is a battle you can not win on your own, so say the word and we will be at the ready to help.
I agree with the above the MPs would wont to stay out of these issues incase it comes back to bite them. Why create more problems for yourself especially as if you leave the Governor General alone he won’t bother you either. Helen Clark appointed him as a safe bet.
The MPs themselves want to keep doing what they are doing so it’s in their best interest to keep quite. So Helen picks the judges for the Supreme Court, speaker of the house, both Attorney and Governor Generals, removed the Privy counsel, and silenced her critics with the Electoral Finance Bill. She can bribe the coalition partners into submission if they want to shear the power with her, we are screwed no one can stop her now. Did you ever consider she put her friend the Governor General into complaining about you? Then she can say you are a crackpot and complain about anyone or anything. Remember it’s the same diplomatic protection squad that looks after both the Prime Minister and Governor General, how cozy is that? The simple facts seem to be if the Governor General just answered Graham’s letter he would go away from what I read. The problem now is if he answers will the reply be of substance or waffle, avoiding the hard questions. I hope you publish the replies so we can all judge for ourselves. I say bring on the republic and a constitution with teeth. Given the Governor General lack of concern for his people as Graham has stated by what’s been happening, why should be keep him for window dressing purposes. He is clearly of no use to his people. They call them self-serving I think It seems the Governor General and MPs support each other in the role at the expense of the public.
Has everyone missed the obvious way to silence Graeme in a way that would make them look good? Offer Graeme a job at CYFS under mainstream as he clearly wanted. It’s a win-win for everyone he has a go at. So that would get him off everyone’s back and doing what he wants so by accepting and pulling down his webpage and blogs we all win. I work in the public service and would rather have someone like Graeme on my side then against me from what I read. I can’t help but agree with a lot of Graeme’s points and would have thought he was far to dangerous to take on given his quick thinking etc.. How dumb can you all be thinking he would be easy pickings?
The Diplomatic Protection Squad, set onto the local "terrorist".
What the hell is so threatening about asking for a simple response to a letter? Are four requests more threatening than One?
What is the life-threatening act in writing umpteen times to the same person?
Where is the "threat"?
Are we to take it that "camping on your doorstep" is a threat to assualt or injury?
OK, I can see the possibility of such leading to some type of physical action in extreme emotional circumstances.
However in this case surely the previous months of writing clearly show that Graeme prefers the pen to the sword.
Perhaps more importantly who was it exactly that passed the last letter to the Diplomatic Protection Squad, while making a complaint? The Governor General or one of those who assist him?
After all a complaint had to be made by someone to initiate such a respone?
What a Load of absolute paranoid rubbish!!
If this is the best that those in authority can come up with in response to genuine "complaints and questions" from the Citizens of New Zealand then it is definitely time for the people of New Zealand to stand up and say enough!!
Now then New Zealand,
This year is OUR TIME!
Do Not Bury Your Head in the sand, GET OUT AND VOTE!!
Do not allow these bully boy THREATS to dissuade you Graeme.
Cheers,
Well you are the talk of the West Coast now Graeme, the word has got around. So what does you gun license has to do with letter writing. Both of them have impact when sent and involves using your fingers, one for the pen or trigger. Both have a strong impact when they reach their target. Maybe the letter is mightier then the gun now and not just the sword. LOL, what a bloody joke. Why does the Governor General not simply answer the letter?
OF SPEECH
There is no statute or positive rule of the common law recognising and protecting freedom of speech and expression in New Zealand. The principle is that anyone may say and publish what he chooses without prior licence or approval (film censorship affords an exception), but he is liable to be punished if he infringes the law. Freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press, exists in this country simply because the exceptions to it are limited. It is less extensive than in the United States, where the provision of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and the press tends to be more valued in cases where it conflicts with other principles, for instance, the right to a fair trial. Moreover, toleration of unpopular views in critical times is probably less than in England. Our civil liberties record in wartime is not admirable.
Almost everyone would accept that there must be some legal restrictions on freedom of speech. In peacetime in New Zealand the main restrictions may be grouped under the heads of sedition, indecency, breach of the peace, defamation, and contempt of Court.
The law of sedition prohibits essentially only the advocacy of violence or disobedience to law. It is not sedition to urge any change in the law or the constitution, however radical. The right of jury trial in sedition cases was taken away in 1951, but the power thus given to prosecute summarily was not used and the right of jury trial was restored in 1960.
The law relating to indecent publications is dealt with in the article Censorship of Books. Under breach of the peace may be included the offence of blasphemous libel. The essence of this crime is the use of offensive language likely to provoke others to a breach of the peace. The expression in good faith and in decent language of any opinion whatever on any religious subject is declared lawful. The last known prosecution for blasphemous libel in New Zealand was in 1922, the defendant being acquitted.
As well as being civil wrongs, libel and slander are criminal offences, although slander is criminal only if spoken within the hearing of 12 or more persons at a public meeting or in a public place, or if it is broadcast. Unlike in civil cases, truth is not always a defence to criminal defamation. It is necessary to show that the matter was true, or was believed on reasonable grounds to be true, and also that the publication was for the public benefit.
While any decision of the Court may be freely criticised on its merits, it is contempt of Court and punishable to attribute bias or improper motives to Judges or Magistrates, since this would tend to lessen confidence in the impartial administration of justice. In recent times, however, the best known application of contempt of Court has been to prevent publication of anything that may prejudice the right of an accused person to a fair trial. It is liability to proceedings for contempt of Court that legally prevents a newspaper from commenting on a crime once a charge has been laid. The concept of contempt of Court is broad and could be used oppressively, but it has undoubtedly had a salutary effect in maintaining the purity and quality of justice.
The converse of freedom of speech is freedom to be silent, something almost as important in a free society. One aspect is the privilege against self-incrimination, which means that no one may be required in or out of Court to disclose anything that may subject him to criminal liability. In a few cases, where full disclosure is regarded as of paramount importance, the law does require it to be made. In that event it is almost always provided that nothing so disclosed may be used as the basis of a prosecution.
There is also the absence of any legal duty to inform on others or, in general, to answer questions put by the police or other authorities except in Court proceedings. In some democracies, for instance, in England and Victoria, an offence known as misprision of felony can be used, although it rarely is, to punish failure to give information to the police concerning more serious crimes. The matter is left in New Zealand to the judgment and sense of responsibility of the individual.
by Bruce James Cameron, B.A., LL.M., Legal Adviser, Department of Justice, Wellington.
I agree with most of what Graeme is saying.
It is interesting how MPs hide behind Parliamentary Privilege to accuse people of all sorts of things. I think some MPs misuse Parliamentary Privilege for example comments about whistleblower Erin Leigh from the Environment Ministry just to name one of many. Trevor Mallard labeling her as "sad" and incompetent. The power and control freaks in Wellington what it all there own way so they can say anything and the public very little. I think the Governor General needs to be more outspoken when our freedoms are put at risk with the misuse of power. He is meant to stop the abuse of people not sit by and watch it happen as he has been doing.You will be the next one who is talked about under Parliamentary Privilege if you keep on going Graeme...
Governor Generals of NZ. Since they made a Bishop of the C of E one, the
title & position of Governor General
has been somewhat jaded to the point, of:' what's the point of having one!'
More like 'paper authority.'
More lately, it feels the bottom of the barrel the Governor general pickers was well and truly scraped right through and the dust underneath was sucked into the job
Who is the latest one? What he good at, other than hibernating. Since the wankers who are blocking any sort of freedom in this country as well as got rid of the Knighthoods system and replaced it with tinsel
and sham.
This govt tells us we need more imigrants. This govt cannot clean up ongoing problems, so why import more. most other countries are slamming the doors. So should NZ, like years ago.
Does anyone in NZ want MMP!
We have no constitution in NZ.
Our PM has gone power-mad and well beyond the used by date.
Parliament has gone to the pack, how much hissy fits and spitting cat sessions as well as impromptu
fist-i-cuffs can on take, especially night after nignt on the news. The local paper had some 'save the snail,' turkeys
putting slogans and such like crap all over Clark's Electial Office, as well as a photo of some of these gonks climbing all over the front of her building.
Planed protest. Defacing property and climbing all over it is criminal trespass and defacing property. Crimes in the NZ Law statutes books. Peaceful protest, my arse! What the fuck are they protesting about anyway. Those bloody snails turn up about 5 minutes after on a site just proposed or in the news as a new coal mine. At that rate, there are hundreds of the flamin things. Most likely soon out populate the other two lots of pests here; possums and tourists. Sorry tourists, but you will try to drive on the wrong side or pinch all the road. instead take some time out, come and see our latest Terrorist attraction. Fees still to be worked out.
If these super cops want him as a Terrorist, he should be entitled to full salary and perks. If snr govt bean counters are breeding like rats and demanding higher salaries and huge golden handshakes, surely
our born and bred West Coast terrorist , should get more pay than them. Heck, they already offered the job to a bunch of maori
and such like in the wop-wops somewhere in the north island. They turned it down. With the fuzz using live ammo and the hours one would have to practice dragging a tin mug across jail bars, could be a bit of a put -off. Hey what job is perfect.
Anyway, it would do until a better position comes along, say governor general or such like. I hear the position is becoming vacant.
That's an easy number, collect yer pay-n-perks, salute the Queens picture(not with two fingers or three if you are into metric).
Sit back and do bugger all. Jeepers, the other deadbeat didn't ever bother to answer his mail, did you know about that? You just have to remember a few things for the position,as a rep for the Queen:
Queen & Fred Mercury as well as Dame Edna, along with drag queens.
(even though certain Aussies recently thought a certain "wink wink, nudge, nudge say no more," certain local P.M. might be one)!
The real one lives in Pomville.
Good luck with your new job.
GOVERNMENT HOUSE
28 January 2008
Dear Mr Axford
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your letters Her Majesty the Queen and to His Excellency the Governor-General, the Hon Anand Satyanand, in which you expressed concern about a variety of issues.
One of the distinctive features of our type of democracy - constitutional monarchy - is that our Head of State is non-partisan. Neither Queen Elizabeth nor her personal representative in New Zealand, the Governor-General, takes an active or initiating role in the executive functions of government - by binding convention, the Head of State or her representative always acts on the advice of his Ministers.
I regret to advise you that what you ask is not something with which the Governor-General can properly become involved.
Yours sincerely
Don Smith
Acting Official Secretary
After reading the reply from Govt House from his Nibs, nib-pusher,
I am impressed. A fancy letter that said it all! Sweet fanny all.
Why does NZ need a Gov Gen who can not do anything? Give the job to an MP, say Damien O'Conner, most of them do nothing, and show more style and flair for such.
Or sack the Bum! turn the joint into a homeless shelter or flog it to overseas buyers. Why not, the arseholes are flogging NZ off bit by bit! Then, maybe give the bum a job mowing lawns if he is so worried about campers on it.
Wow by the look of the letter you got from the Governor General, it seems that they got the assistant's assistant and chief pencil sharpener to write you a letter. Maybe they can not write at all and dragged some one off the street to write it.
What a harem of pussies.
You want an apology. Interesting, took months to get the last reply via the underling's underpants, by the time they learn what that word means, will take at least a year
calculated on recent time it took to send dismissive-missive they sent you. Murphys law, inlaws, his wife and shack full of kids, the big question out of Hitch hikers Guide to the Galaxy. It is either one year or not at all.
Add him to your wankers list.
Let's become a republic as there is no point having the GG and Queen if they are a lapdog or kiss-ass for the ministers.
So the GG is saying parliament can do what it wants and he has to follow their lead.
Given how long you waited for a reply it seem they did not put as much effort into the response in kind as you did trying to explain things. Mind you he is a good friend of Helen Cark?
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
England
February 5th 2008
Dear Her Majesty the Queen
I have finally received a letter from your representative in New Zealand the Governor General, Hon Anand Satyanand dated 28 January 2008.
I have written a response to which I would be grateful if you could insure I get a more fulfilling reply and honest effort on his part.
I am very disappointed with Hon Anand Satyanand answers and the fact he set the Diplomatic Protection Squad onto me for simply asking questions and insuring I get an answer.
I ask questions of those who are meant to be serving us and if that makes me a terrorist, then so be it.
I have been doing this for over 10 years and up until now never had a problem.
Would ou mind keeping an eye on my blog as all letter and replies from or to the Governor General will be posted on it from now on, the address is
http://government-nz.blogspot.com/
Yours sincerely
Graeme Axford
View the Governor General reply by click on the link below
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51598728@N00/2237927739/sizes/l/
Government House
Private Bag 39995
Wellington Mail Centre
Lower Hutt 5045
Governor General
Hon Anand Satyanand,
Dear Governor General
I am somewhat disappointed by your lackluster one sided response which I consider a fog off as I will soon explain.
I think you might have missed the point of what I was asking; my understanding is you can refuse to give royal assent to new laws meaning they do not come into force until you sign them off in simple terms or you can dissolve Parliament and remove ministerial warrants, I believe. If I am wrong can you explain why?
I am not asking you to lobby parliament or get involved in areas you are unable to go within the workings of parliament or the law making process, but to make a stand when our freedoms or Rights are at risk by simply refusing to give royal assent to such laws or take other Action as aforementioned within your powers and duties under the law.
Example, when this parliament dumped the Privy Council in favor for the Supreme Court, I believe the Governor General had to OK that move and could have refused, by not giving royal assent, because of the implications to all New Zealanders. While you take advice of ministers I do not believe you are compelled to follow should you wish to disagree with them and this is why.
“Geoffrey Palmer, speaking on the second reading of the Constitution Bill, (from the Hansard, 3 December 1986) confirmed Phillip Joseph's view that the right to refuse the Royal assent exists only in exceptional circumstances”
Sourse http://www.holdenrepublic.org.nz/labels/Assent.html
I noted in the reply you failed to mention this which suggests to me you have no intention on ever considering doing this. So either Geoffrey Palmer, and Phillip Joseph are wrong in which case I would like you to tell me why, or you have only mentioned the side of the debate to favour the Governor Generals
reluckdance to do anything about such issues when they arise.
I think that dumping the Privy Council could have been justified as exceptional circumstances given the wider public interest. While I accept a majority of parliament was needed for this to happen I still don’t believe it is right given some decisions made in New Zealand Courts and parliament were challenged through the Privy Council and overturned.
The Privy Council is far enough removed from New Zealand therefore in my view more neutral given they would not be influenced by the newspaper or media coverage over here and have a wider pool of judges.
The Privy Council helped David Bain and so many others who could not get justice within New Zealand.
The Wellington, NZ - LawFuel - The Law Newswire pointed out they believe the David Bane case “Slaps Judiciary in the Face” with the Privy Council overturning it, while pointing out other facts and issues in relation to the New Zealand supreme court.
Friday, 11 May 2007, 8:15 am
Press Release: LawFuel
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00190.htm
Both Michael Reed QC and stephen Franks think the new “Supreme Court is a lemon” http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=115
I think two of the judges who heard the David Bane case are on the new Supreme Court. The Privy Council had embarrassed our Government and Courts quite a few times so I am not surprised they wanted to get rid of it quick smart.
If the Government had gone for a referendum before wipeing the Privy Council or even kept the Privy Council as the last possible step after the supreme Court I might have agreed with the idea.
The Privy Council debate is one of many lately like the Electoral Finance Bill, so called anti-terrorism laws, used to spy on legitimate protesters like me etc…
Getting back to how you can help, I have read the debate for and against and figured given your legal background and experience and the fact you are the Governor General might be able to clear this matter up for once and for all about what you can or can’t really do.
THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE: DEMOCRACY
The Queen reigns . . .
That basic equation and the democratic character of the main conventions appear clearly in relation to the powers of the Queen and Governor-General under the law. Thus they may appoint Ministers and other holders of important offices (such as the Judges, the Defence Chiefs, the Ombudsmen, and the Controller and Auditor-General), they may dismiss them (following certain procedures), they may summon and dissolve Parliaments, they may assent - or not - to Bills passed through the House, and they may agree - or not - to proposed regulations and Orders submitted to them by the Executive Council and Ministers.
The Cabinet Manual
ON THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW ZEALAND: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The Rt Hon Sir Kenneth Keith, 1990, updated 2001
http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/cabinet/manual/intro.html
That seems very clear to me and if it is wrong why have you not got it corrected to be more accurate, again you failed to mention or acknowledge these aspects of your position, that makes me think you can not be trusted as the Governor General, and serve Her Majesty the Queen and subject very well at all.
So what are you really saying to me given this is add odds with your response, is there nothing you can do or more to the point is it simply a matter of you not wanting to do anything when exceptional circumstances exist if you can.
While I have used the Privy councell debate other freedoms and Right have come under attack with like the Electoral Finance Bill etc…
I have heard the debate for and againt your position and the crys of people calling for a republic and need for a written constitution to pretect its citizens as you clearly can’t or unwilling to do so. For the first time ever I am beginning to see why these people think your position should be redundant given it serves no real practical purpose apart from wasting taxpayer money under the pretense you are there for us.
I do apologize to Her Majesty the Queen for having to say that but I see it as the truth given what has been happening. I am a loyal royalist but if that means we lose our freedoms and Rights it’s a price I am not willing to pay like so many others, I hope you understand and can step in and help.
Yours Sincerely
Graeme Axford
I think the Governor Generals reply is a joke, he did not even try and answer you.... great letter back to him lets see if he can be more upfornt and honest with the next reply...
The Governor General needs to realize Graeme will not give up and if needed too could camp out in his doorstep. So why not make an honest effort at answering Graeme this time and save yourself the trouble and extra work of letter writing and worrying when he might turn up. The Governor General only has himself to blame by trying to avoid questions Graeme has asked and thinking he will get away with not telling the full truth.
This Governor General is in for a hard road ahead he eh keeps this kind of behavior up and should be ashamed of himself as he is embarrassing the Queen and himself….
Lets see how man moths it take him to answer your letter Graeme and what kind of answer he gives, hopefully you will get more then a page from an offside. This Governor General Helen Clark’s friend ( it seems) will go down in history as the worst-ever and most useless waste of time and money. The Queen needed to be more careful who she employs...
April 03, 2006
First Desi Viceroy of KiwistanNewsIn some exciting news, New Zealand’s next Governor General is going to be a desi, Judge Anand Satyanand [Thanks 3rd Eye]. Satyanand was born and raised in New Zealand (his parents were Indo-Fijians) and last held the job of the Parliament’s ombudsman. I think he’s the first desi Governor General outside of a South Asian country.
Lord of the sheep, a true sepia mutton-ier!
You do realize what this means, don’t you? A desi is (nominally) in charge of the great country of New Zealand. He could veto all their new laws, order the government to dissolve, or command their army to invade Australia! Well, not really, it’s a symbolic position now, but it wasn’t always.
The Governor General is a vestigial organ left over from when the Empire became the Commonwealth. It’s the old Imperial Viceroy job; in India, Mountbatten simply switched titles with Independence. Once upon a time, it was a very powerful position:
Governors-General notionally hold the prerogative powers of the monarch he is representing, and also hold the executive power of the country to which he is assigned. This means that the Governor-General has the power to certify or veto law (Royal Assent), and is also the head of the armed forces in his territory… Because of the Governor-General’s control of the military in the territory, the post was as much a military appointment as a civil one.
The Governor-General may exercise almost all the reserve powers of the Monarch. Except in rare cases, the Governor-General only acts in accordance with constitutional convention and upon the advice of the Prime Minister. A rare and controversial case of a Governor General independently exercising his authority occurred in 1975, when the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. [Link]
And even though the role is largely ceremonial today, it’s an important symbolic position:
The governor general officiates at state functions such as the opening of the parliament, signs off on laws and appoints judges and commissioned officers in the military. [Link]
The position used to be held by British royalty. Now it is held by a citizen of the state in question, who is selected by the home government:
The convention was gradually established throughout the Commonwealth that the Governor-General (or Governor General) is a citizen of the country concerned, and is appointed on the advice of the government of that country, with no input from the British government. [Link]
As such, it is very significant that the New Zealand government chose a desi man to represent the country as its symbolic head. Interestingly, this is actually part of a trend away from choosing white men to fill the post towards choosing women and minorities, presumably as a gesture of inclusion:
Until the early 1970s the post of governor general was the preserve of members of the British nobility, with the first indigenous Maori New Zealander, Sir Paul Reeves, appointed in the 1980s. [Link]
LAST year Canada appointed its first black governor-general, Haiti-born Michaelle Jean, the third woman in the job, replacing Adrienne Clarkson. Now New Zealand is to get its first governor-general of Asian descent. Ethnic Indian judge Anand Satyanand will replace Silvia Cartwright when her five-year term expires in August. Until now, New Zealand governors-general have been of European or Maori descent and two of the past three have been women. Prime Minister Helen Clark said Satyanand, whose parents migrated to New Zealand from Fiji, had close ties with Asia and the Pacific, Opposition National Party leader Don Brash lauded the appointment and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters added his approval, saying the judge was “well acquainted with the nuances of our evolving nation while respectful of our traditions and mixed heritages”. No one asked where had all the white men gone.
Diasporic desis represent on the other side of the world!
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003228.html
It seems to me given the Governor Generals response he might not know what he is meant to be doing. Graeme on the other hand having checked up on the links he provided does. It could be Graeme would make a better Governor General then Anand Satyanand" It‘s ironic given Graeme’s literacy skills as prevalent in his webpage he went to such lengths to express himself. Yet Anand Satyanand with his more academic, legal background and experience clearly went to little effort to respond. You see MR Satyanand what’s the point of all that knowledge and experience which helped you get the Governor Generals job if you don’t use it. If I was you I would answer Graeme’s questions because hopefully you are not stupid enough to think he will let you away with avoiding a truthful more in-depth answer.
well it seems the Governor General went out of his way to be helpful in respoce to Graeme's questions and concerns NOT, What a lazy responce from someone who could have, and should of done far better... shame on you Anand Satyanand... you are a disgrace...
I note people put the word Hon before Anand Satyanand name. They should change this to Hor instead.
He sits on his hands while our rights and freedoms are taken which Graeme has pointed out. The only person who seems to have New Zealanders best interest at heart making Graeme the honorable one. I hope the Queen fires Anand Satyanand for being a slack ass looser at his job. Forget God Save the Queen he needs to save us first from her useless representative.
I hope he finds this insulting like we do the reply he gave to Graeme. I was going to say answer but you could hardly call the crap letter that. I would not wipe my ass with it.
He is a Government lackey enjoying the high life at our expense in more ways then one.
Its time for a republic…
GOVERNOR GENERAL CONDEMNS RACISM???
26 May, 2007.
The Honourable Anand Satyanand,
Governor General of New Zealand.
Dear Sir,
Over the last eighteen months we have written to you and the Queen re the concerns over the Te Roroa Claim. We have been extremely disappointed you have failed to reply to our latest letters on this matter. It is of great concern to our many member and the public at large with little means of expressing our concerns.
Surely it is of concern to the Governor General, when a claim involving freehold titled land taken from an innocent New Zealand citizen, shows signs of being taken unlawfully by the Crown on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen.
Further to this claim, it has now been found the Maori Affairs Select Committee's report back to Parliament on the Te Roroa Settlement Bill with their recommendation has only informed Parliament of the Submission's supporting this Bill. They have completely omitted all Submissions opposing this claim by non-Maori (9 in total).
Not only has the Crown continually tampered with the documents to obtain land unlawfully for this claim on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, it has now allowed the Maori Affairs Select Committee to present an extremely "racist" report/recommendation on the Te Roroa Settlement Bill in Te Roroa's favour for Parliament to assess and pass this Bill.
Sir, while it seems you show little interest in how this claim has been handled, we can only bring it to your attention once again.
As this Bill is to have its final reading this week, I have sent you a copy of a letter to; "All the Political Party Leaders" for your information. Further information can be found on, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
Sir, is this the way we want New Zealand???
Yours sincerely,
Ross Baker.
Chairman, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
cc. Prime Minister, The Rt Hon Helen Clark.
27 May, 2007.
The Honourable Anand Satyanand,
Governor General of New Zealand.
Dear Sir,
Further to my email dated the 26 June 2007. From the article below, it shows you have very strong views on a fair "racially balanced" trial, therefore you must condemn the Maori Affairs Select Committee as it had eight Maori members and only one non-Maori member who has acted for Ngai Tahu in many of their claims against the Crown. This fact is clearly shown in their report/recommendation when this committee completely disregarded all opposing non-Maori Submissions in the report/recommendation to Parliament.
Bills before Parliament must not be passed based on "racially biased" reports/recommendations, as in this instance.
Yours sincerely,
Ross Baker.
Chairman, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
cc. Prime Minister, Rt Hon Helen Clark.
Court Case Postponed due to Lack of Maori on Jury List : 10th August 1993.
Judge A Satyanand postponed the Court trial until the 27th September 1993 as he said there was a lack of Maori people on the jury list.
An item in the Dargaville Times reads - Judge refuses trial because of lack of Maori on list. A district court judge refused to allow the trial of Northland farmers Allan Titford and Don Harrison to go ahead because of a lack of Maori on a jury list. Titford and Harrison were to appear before Judge Anand Satyanand and a jury in Whangarei District Court on August 10, charged with assault. However, the judge said it was necessary that the jury chosen for the trial should be seen as an entirely orthodox jury. For there to be a jury panel from which a large number of people with a Maori background where barred would be wrong, he said. The judge refused to allow the trial to proceed because Titford had gained publicity over a dispute he had with local Maori over a piece of land he owned at Maunganui Bluff on Northland’s west coast north of Dargaville. Titford had appeared in the media over the past few years when he had put forward views in opposition to those of local Maori. An error in compiling the jury list for the Whangarei court meant that only people from the Whangarei electorate were included. People enrolled in the Northern Maori and Hobson electorates who lived within 30 kilometres of Whangarei were excluded from the list. Judge Satyanand refused to allow the trial to go ahead, even though both accused were prepared for the case to proceed.
http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/GovernorGeneralRacist.htm
One month on and know answer from the Governor General to the letter dated February 5th 2008.
Lets see how long it takes and how much if any effort he puts into the reply. The last reply shows the Governor General up for the joke and con he really is and the queen should be embarrassed given he is meant to be representing her. That last answer is an insult to the public and queen whose interests the Governor General is meant to be overseeing. God Save the Queen and public from this Governor General, it sounds like he is in it for a free ride and good lifestyle but not the work ethic. For all the good he has been we might as well not have a Governor General as he clearly insult our intelligence given his reply’s. I got more answers from google and given the Governor General was a former judge he could have put more thought and effort into his letter. Lazy prick..
Still no reply to my letter in response to Governor General
Hon Anand Satyanand dated February 5th 2008 which come as no surprise really. I have written to Governor Generals before and always been happy with the responses until now. Not only does Anand Satyanand take longer to answer his replies are not worth the paper they are written on. In trying to fog me of you really made a fool of yourself given my response. So yet again I will ring government house and point out if a reply does not come soon I will protest out side government house and the beehive, so yes Diplomatic Protection Squad to save you ringing again it will be soon. If the Governor General replies I will not needed to leave Greymouth therefore issues resolved. By the way my protest are legal and peaceful as the past have proven.
Hillary Clinton in a recent interview said; 'If a nuclear holocaust happened, only 2 things would crawl
out from the rubble, cockroaches and Helen Clark!"
Isn't it great that Americans love her as much as we do!
In a recent unofficial poll as to which Govt Dept lies the most to individuals and the NZ public, CYFS was way out in front.
ACC was second, IRD, Winz and Housing NZ were all about equal for third.
I guess that makes them all a bunch of prize pricks with cyfs at the top of the pile of poo they shovel or fork out.
I wonder is the reluctance to reply because of the coming ELECTION and not wanting to set the flock on an open can of Worms?
Or is this Governor General the most useless?
Again instead of a simple reply that clearly states his intent or lack there of we are all deafened by the silence.
One Down, many to go
The controversial Electoral Finance Act was repealed in Parliament on Tuesday night and, with the exception of the Greens, MPs seemed relieved to be rid of it.
MPs voted 112 to nine in favour of throwing out the controversial piece of legislation, which was brought in by the previous government in 2007.
Parliament will work through new election campaign finance reform in time for the election in 2011.
When the Bill passed into law in December 2007 it did so by a comfortable majority of 63 votes to 57.
Source TVNZ
Maybe there is some hope for other changes yet.
Graeme,
Have you received acknowledgement or reply yet?
I only ask as I note with interest that within weeks of the anouncement of the reinstitution of Awards from Her Majesty, the GG of NZ is in london recieving his Knighthood.
Says a lot that a man who cannot treat one individual with some respect and common human decency is so damn fast at gratifying his own ego!!cheers.
Well lets hope the queen has a word to him about the letter I sent her becuse he would not answer...
Sir Satyanand responded via someone elses but did not give any clear answers to the question..
So I am no wirse now then when I started apart from this fact, he is in my view the worst GG we have ever had and blieve me I have written to them all as is my right..
The others gave real responses...
When will you post again ? Been looking forward to this !
Very soon we are working on Something now LOL
Post a Comment