Neutrality - no foreign bases. eg. 1 (3) of the Maltese constitution. Statement of non-alignment except perhaps Australia and Pacific, ie. Regional co-operation.
Some thoughts about not rushing in without sorting out the details first.
STARTING THE REFORM TIMETABLE
A) All iwi with mana whenua to assert such by way of boundary survey to establish Rohe and authorised by mutual acknowledgement of equal status between them and internal jurisdiction with a unified framework for furthering co-operation and common policy. [Territoriality of groups validated]
B) All groups within Rohe to be acknowledged and ratified internally according to mix of own tikanga with kaupapa of equal status between internal groups. [Constitutions of groups validated]
C) All groups to be separately constituted entities that are free from any Crown administered or sourced form of control, eg. accountable to themselves, others in the group or parts of group, and not accountable at all to Crown except through the unified body. [Legal independence from Crown signified]
D) Formal declaration of supercession by unified body that they are the legitimate successors to the Maori parties to the Treaty of Waitangi, holding in trust and within it's own constitution the authority to act on behalf of the people's soveriegn rights that are for the time being conditionally ceded to the Crown as a guardian of those rights: in matters where the Crown's actions are inconsistent with those conditions or in matters where those conditions could be improved by way of altering those conditions. [Actual independence from the Crown signified - beginning of constitutional fora]
E) Referendum (of sorts) within groups on declaration. [internal ratification process to effect independence]
F) Upon referendum confirmation a symbolic assertion of inherent territorial rights of groups by every group. [Act of independence]
G) Define territorial relationship with Crown through a constitutional process/negotiation.
H) Local body Maori seats legislation repealed and local government Acts amended to include the groups' territoriality, incl. all Maori forms of customary and freehold title into those jurisdictions.
Repeat entire process for Pakeha so everyone ends up in included in equally, mutually recognised units to take on the Crown.
Then have constitutional timetable for reforming the Crown, ie. central government along same lines as the above process with the step H being the repeal of maori seats along with the entire parliament to be replaced by a republican-style parliament with President and maybe more than one chamber.
This might be a side issue, or an over-complication, but a regional South Pacific court like the European Court (for human rights?) as the final appellate body as acknowledged in the constitution. Would take say 6 states to ratify to start process thus leaving Australia to come in on "our" terms if they are iffy. Could be sold to Australia as a retirement gig for crusty/vexing judges as it would be to us.
Also back-door trans-Tasman harmonisation and super-jurisdictional oversight, as it could have civil and criminal aegis, eg. financial matters, even trade matters and economic matters, on top of the human rights aspects and valuable tool to ensure credibility and scrutiny to "our bloc" as it were.
The court could only take appeals from a home court only by leave of the attorney-general on recommendation/leave of the final domestic court of appeal in cases of murder, cases after death sentence passed, any case whatsoever where all the justices concur.
Each country can nominate up to one justice per year but no more than 5 to be appointed in any one year. Four most populous member states (Australia 20m, PNG 4.5m, NZ 4.1m, Fiji 0.8m) to have right to appoint one each however.
Attorney-General may appoint one currently warranted member of the judiciary to sit on bench with the three (?) other justices - two not from that state and one of whom must be if not vacant.
But court can convene in any member state if requested by state's Attorney-General whereby all costs incidental to hearings will be met by that state.
Secretariat of the court located in Auckland (we can do that if Australia is slack!). Or perhaps civil in Auckland, criminal in Brisbane, everything else in Suva. Seats of the court also.
Funding? By population of member state? Right to bill member state for all costs?
After perusing the Argentine constitution these issues present themselves: 1. A judicial commission (a "council of magistracy" in Argentina) composed of cross-party legislators, experts, judges and lawyers that would, as per the Argentine constitution: "(3) It is empowered: 1. To select the candidates to the lower courts by public competition. 2. To issue proposals in binding lists of three candidates for the appointment of the judges of the lower courts. 3. To be in charge of the resources and to administer the budget assigned by law to the administration of justice. 4. To apply disciplinary measures to judges. 5. To decide the opening of the proceedings for the removal of judges, when appropriate to order their suspension, and to make the pertinent accusation. 6. To issue the rules about the judicial organization and all those necessary to ensure the independence of judges and the efficient administration of justice."
This arrangement would ensure the real independence of the judiciary from tinkering and threats by the government. eg. what Hon. Michael Cullen has been undermining judiciary in speeches etc. The dodgy system we have now of secret appointments, with no transparency or review mechanism must be changed.
Also the friction between the NZ Supreme Court and the government as exposed by the Chief Justice's comments to that British select committee last year (?) about under-resourcing. To quote from the Argetine Const. again:
"The Supreme Court shall issue its own internal regulations, and appoint its subordinate employees."
Let the Supreme Court choose their own staff. That combined with resources being allocated by a Judicial Commission/Council of Magistracy would be an improvement.
Citizens shall not be required under law, regulation or other order to carry or possess identification documents, cards, tags or other form of identification; and any license, registration, certificate or other form required, permitted or sought to be held by a citizen under law shall not be made into or construed as authorising a mode of compulsory identification contrary to the spirit of the aforementioned.
"...this shall not limit the State from issuing, recording, allocating or otherwise making provision for registrations, certificates, cards or other documents that may be used by a citizen despite that citizen not having applied for or knowing of its existence providing that the State makes a reasonable effort to inform that citizen or class of citizens generally of the nature and reason for that issuance."
So, for example a voter card or community card/pensioner card etc. can be issued to a citizen without their knowledge as long as the government explains what it is, how they can use it and why it's been issued to them. Similarly the State can allocate things to citizens like IRD numbers, voter numbers etc. But we get into privacy and rights to information here rather than just the documents themselves, so perhaps tack on:
"and that State shall ensure each such citizen has reasonable access to all the information contained in and directly connected to all of their particular registrations, certificates, cards or other documents."
The whole point here is to protect the British-style tradition of being a free individual in one's own country able to travel unmolested and trusted at face value v. the European-style facism of the humiliation and untrusted status of having compulsory ID that must be presented to State officials on their whim. We should safeguard against such excesses - esp. since the UK is demonstrating the fragility of those ancient common law rights by moving towards a more facist-style regime. The only people who should be open to be required to ever have to carry ID is non-citizens.
I NEED SOM EHELP YOU SEE BECAUSE I GOT THIS HERE PROBLEM! I ALWAYS GROW THIS ROTTEN, LURID CHEESE BY MY BUTTOCKS AND ON MY DIRTY STINKY! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME? AM I GOING TO DIE FROM IT? ANYWAY, THIS GUY TOLD ME IT REEKS LIKE ROTTEN ONIONS, MIXED, HE SAYS, WITH A SLIGHT TWINGE OF POOP! IMAGINE THAT BIT OF STINKY WOULD YA AND REALIZE THAT I NBEED LOTS A HELP!
PLEASE COME OVER TO MY WEBSITE, LOOK AT MY PEELED FLAPS, AND TELL ME WHAT'S WRONG PLEASE! THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH!
12 Comments:
Citizens only to bear arms/own firearms.
Neutrality - no foreign bases. eg. 1 (3) of the Maltese constitution. Statement of non-alignment except perhaps Australia and Pacific, ie. Regional co-operation.
Some thoughts about not rushing in without sorting out the details first.
STARTING THE REFORM TIMETABLE
A) All iwi with mana whenua to assert such by way of boundary survey to establish Rohe and authorised by mutual acknowledgement of equal status between them and internal jurisdiction with a unified framework for furthering co-operation and common policy. [Territoriality of groups validated]
B) All groups within Rohe to be acknowledged and ratified internally according to mix of own tikanga with kaupapa of equal status between internal groups. [Constitutions of groups validated]
C) All groups to be separately constituted entities that are free from any Crown administered or sourced form of control, eg. accountable to themselves, others in the group or parts of group, and not accountable at all to Crown except through the unified body. [Legal independence from Crown signified]
D) Formal declaration of supercession by unified body that they are the legitimate successors to the Maori parties to the Treaty of Waitangi, holding in trust and within it's own constitution the authority to act on behalf of the people's soveriegn rights that are for the time being conditionally ceded to the Crown as a guardian of those rights: in matters where the Crown's actions are inconsistent with those conditions or in matters where those conditions could be improved by way of altering those conditions. [Actual independence from the Crown signified - beginning of constitutional fora]
E) Referendum (of sorts) within groups on declaration. [internal ratification process to effect independence]
F) Upon referendum confirmation a symbolic assertion of inherent territorial rights of groups by every group. [Act of independence]
G) Define territorial relationship with Crown through a constitutional process/negotiation.
H) Local body Maori seats legislation repealed and local government Acts amended to include the groups' territoriality, incl. all Maori forms of customary and freehold title into those jurisdictions.
Repeat entire process for Pakeha so everyone ends up in included in equally, mutually recognised units to take on the Crown.
Then have constitutional timetable for reforming the Crown, ie. central government along same lines as the above process with the step H being the repeal of maori seats along with the entire parliament to be replaced by a republican-style parliament with President and maybe more than one chamber.
This might be a side issue, or an over-complication, but a regional South Pacific court like the European Court (for human rights?) as the final appellate body as acknowledged in the constitution. Would take say 6 states to ratify to start process thus leaving Australia to come in on "our" terms if they are iffy. Could be sold to Australia as a retirement gig for crusty/vexing judges as it would be to us.
Also back-door trans-Tasman harmonisation and super-jurisdictional oversight, as it could have civil and criminal aegis, eg. financial matters, even trade matters and economic matters, on top of the human rights aspects and valuable tool to ensure credibility and scrutiny to "our bloc" as it were.
The court could only take appeals from a home court only by leave of the attorney-general on recommendation/leave of the final domestic court of appeal in cases of murder, cases after death sentence passed, any case whatsoever where all the justices concur.
Each country can nominate up to one justice per year but no more than 5 to be appointed in any one year. Four most populous member states (Australia 20m, PNG 4.5m, NZ 4.1m, Fiji 0.8m) to have right to appoint one each however.
Attorney-General may appoint one currently warranted member of the judiciary to sit on bench with the three (?) other justices - two not from that state and one of whom must be if not vacant.
But court can convene in any member state if requested by state's Attorney-General whereby all costs incidental
to hearings will be met by that state.
Secretariat of the court located in Auckland (we can do that if Australia is slack!). Or perhaps civil in Auckland, criminal in Brisbane, everything else in Suva. Seats of the court also.
Funding? By population of member state? Right to bill member state for all costs?
Citizens only to be buried/interred on NZ soil. Bodies of dead foreigners to be repatriated.
One "official" language: Aotearoan. This would be all the English words and Maori words with no transliterations.
After perusing the Argentine constitution these issues present themselves:
1. A judicial commission (a "council of magistracy" in Argentina) composed of cross-party legislators, experts, judges and lawyers that would, as per the Argentine constitution:
"(3) It is empowered:
1. To select the candidates to the lower courts by public competition.
2. To issue proposals in binding lists of three candidates for the appointment of the judges of the lower courts.
3. To be in charge of the resources and to administer the budget assigned by law to the administration of justice.
4. To apply disciplinary measures to judges.
5. To decide the opening of the proceedings for the removal of judges, when appropriate to order their suspension, and to make the pertinent accusation.
6. To issue the rules about the judicial organization and all those necessary to ensure the independence of judges and the efficient administration of justice."
This arrangement would ensure the real independence of the judiciary from tinkering and threats by the government. eg. what Hon. Michael Cullen has been undermining judiciary in speeches etc. The dodgy system we have now of secret appointments, with no transparency or review mechanism must be changed.
Also the friction between the NZ Supreme Court and the government as exposed by the Chief Justice's comments to that British select committee last year (?) about under-resourcing. To quote from the Argetine Const. again:
"The Supreme Court shall issue its own internal regulations, and appoint its subordinate employees."
Let the Supreme Court choose their own staff. That combined with resources being allocated by a Judicial Commission/Council of Magistracy would be an improvement.
Citizens shall not be required under law, regulation or other order to carry or possess identification documents, cards, tags or other form of identification; and any license, registration, certificate or other form required, permitted or sought to be held by a citizen under law shall not be made into or construed as authorising a mode of compulsory identification contrary to the spirit of the aforementioned.
Additional to above:
"...this shall not limit the State from issuing, recording, allocating or otherwise making provision for registrations, certificates, cards or other documents that may be used by a citizen despite that citizen not having applied for or knowing of its existence providing that the State makes a reasonable effort to inform that citizen or class of citizens generally of the nature and reason for that issuance."
So, for example a voter card or community card/pensioner card etc. can be issued to a citizen without their knowledge as long as the government explains what it is, how they can use it and why it's been issued to them. Similarly the State can allocate things to citizens like IRD numbers, voter numbers etc. But we get into privacy and rights to information here rather than just the documents themselves, so perhaps tack on:
"and that State shall ensure each such citizen has reasonable access to all the information contained in and directly connected to all of their particular registrations, certificates, cards or other documents."
The whole point here is to protect the British-style tradition of being a free individual in one's own country able to travel unmolested and trusted at face value v. the European-style facism of the humiliation and untrusted status of having compulsory ID that must be presented to State officials on their whim. We should safeguard against such excesses - esp. since the UK is demonstrating the fragility of those ancient common law rights by moving towards a more facist-style regime. The only people who should be open to be required to ever have to carry ID is non-citizens.
HI THERE,
I NEED SOM EHELP YOU SEE BECAUSE I GOT THIS HERE PROBLEM! I ALWAYS GROW THIS ROTTEN, LURID CHEESE BY MY BUTTOCKS AND ON MY DIRTY STINKY! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME? AM I GOING TO DIE FROM IT? ANYWAY, THIS GUY TOLD ME IT REEKS LIKE ROTTEN ONIONS, MIXED, HE SAYS, WITH A SLIGHT TWINGE OF POOP! IMAGINE THAT BIT OF STINKY WOULD YA AND REALIZE THAT I NBEED LOTS A HELP!
PLEASE COME OVER TO MY WEBSITE, LOOK AT MY PEELED FLAPS, AND TELL ME WHAT'S WRONG PLEASE! THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH!
http://medicine.ucsd.edu/Clinicalimg/gu-scrotal-fistula.jpg
PEELED FLAPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
There are so many issues indeed. Wishing further discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home