This morning on Morning Report, Gerry Brownlee said that he had lost confidence in the process New Zealand uses to form a government. According to Brownlee, the Governor-General had consulted only with the Prime Minister, and had not talked to other parties "when it became tight". His answer was a formalisation of the process in a written constitution.
Putting aside the facts that this is entirely driven by sour grapes over losing the election and that that "tightness" was a figment of the National Party's imagination, Brownlee has a point. Our constitutional processes in this area are inadequete. On paper, the Governor-General can choose whoever they want as Prime Minister, and while convention (backed by the practical fact of a government having to hold the confidence of the House) restrains them, in cases where the situation is "tight" and where multiple coalitions may be able to form a government, who the Governor-General decides to talk to can decide the issue.
But the problem really stems from the fact that our current process has things arse-backwards. As we saw, the government was formed and Ministers sworn in long before Parliament met and expressed confidence. This has to change. Both sovereignty and legitimacy should flow from below, from the people via an elected Parliament - not from above via the distant whim of the monarch. Parliament should meet and vote in a government, which then goes to the Governor-General for formalisation - not the other way round.
This can be accomodated within our present constitutional structure, with no necessary change in the law. All it would require would be for Parliament to meet sooner after the election - ideally before the 28 day expiry period for Ministers who failed to be re-elected. Alternatively, it would require an extension of that term (or simply the swearing in of new Ministers under s 6(2)(a) of the Constitution Act 1986) so that caretaker governments could continue to function during potentially protracted coalition negotiations.
Snap!
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I think the system worked as it should in the last election - if the Nats had stiched together confidence and supply with ACT/UF/NZF/MP then they could have gone to the G-G who would, I would have thought, been obliged to invite them to try and form a government.
ReplyDeleteBut there is both a real and perceived opportunity for abuse in the current system, and codification would help produce a system that not only works impartially, but can be seen to work impartially.
At it's simplest this could be to turn the rules in the Cabinet Manual into legislation. There could also be changes to the procedure - maybe the timing as you suggest, maybe changing the arbiter from the G-G to a proper Constitutional Court (Governor Generals, as well as being often thought to hold residual imperial loyalties, hold their office at the PM's behest).
The problem with all this is that it would be fairly pointless having a codified constitution if it could be changed at will by future governments - thus such legislation should really be entrenched by supermajority and referendum. In order to make this happen, a consensus is needed, which I can't see us getting in this parliament.
Rich: I was about to do a followup on exactly that point - if National had the numbers, they could have gone to the G-G themselves. But that would have required something more than hot air. Which is why I think its fair to characterise this as sour grapes.
ReplyDeleteIf we want impartiality, then the answer is simple: let Parliament vote. You can't get any clearer than that. It removes any chance of the G-G (or any other neutral umpire) interfering in the process to bias the result, and it makes it crystal clear where power really comes from.
Oh, and in case anyone was wondering: according to Wikipedia, the last time a monarch attempted to appoint a PM who did not hold the confidence of the House was 1834, when William IV dismissed Whig PM William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne and replaced him with the Tory Sir Robert Peel. The resulting government lasted a mere five months before Peel resigned and allowed Melbourne to resume office.
I expect that any similar appointment in New Zealand wouldn't last five days...
Brownlee's rantings are outrageous but their value is the insight they provide into the extent to which the National Party is prepared to trash our existing constitutional arrangements to grab power and implement a radical hard-right onslaught on working New Zealanders.
ReplyDeleteIf we truly value liberty and freedom we must never let this lot into office again.
What happens under the present system if a party asserts it has confidence, forms a government and immediately loses a confidence vote? Is there an automatic fresh election or will the other party get to try and form a government?
ReplyDeleteGerry has a mouth like a torn sack.Don will have to get him under control.
ReplyDeleteCould some kind person please explain to the Nats that in spite of all their efforts they LOST THE ELECTION could we just get on with running the country and cease this constant whinging .
I learnt many years ago that 'If ifs and buts were apples and nuts many a poor beggar would fill his guts' 'nuf said.
Actually I/S, Sir Alec Douglas Home was appointed by HM in the 60s without a mandate from the Conservative Party...
ReplyDeleteAccording to his Wikipedia entry, he was appointed according to the party's rules, which placed the selection of the party leader in the hands of the party's "elder statesmen" rather than MPs.
ReplyDeleteWhat's interesting is that he was a Lord, and disclaimed his Earldom and convinced someone in a safe seat to stand aside so he could be elected to the Commons after being appointed PM...
The biography of Alec Douglas-Home by D.R. Thorpe explains why Kinross and West Perthshire was available.
ReplyDelete"Two weeks after the Peerage Act had entered the statute book, events made a Home Premiership possible. Gilmour Leburn, MP for Kinross and West Perthshire had been walking on the moors when he collapsed and died. Although the local constituency association was to adopt George Younger as its candidate, the writ for the by-election was not to be moved during the recess. Not only was the machinery in place for Home to leave the House of Lords but there was a vacant constituency, one which could hardly have been better if it was handpicked".
George Younger, another Scot from an aristocratic family, stood aside so the Prime Minister could enter the House of Commons.
It did Younger's career no long term harm. He was a cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher.
I heard John Key this morning on Morning Report... OK... Now I want them to stop, National are starting to get very scary.
ReplyDeleteBetween Brownlee and Key and Brash and McCully, we have a picture of a party that is refusing to accept the election outcome, that is spinning further and further into an extremist right wing fantasy land, and is in deep denial about its increasing irrelevance to modern life in NZ.
Don Brash is seemingly completely incapable of bringing any common sense, a sense of reality or discipline to his party, and is is ineffectually presiding over a party that is dissappearing down its own rabbit hole to wonderland.
Anon: do you have a link to the John Key comments, or a time?
ReplyDeleteI also recommend this mornings interview with constitutional lawyer Professor Philip Joseph [MP3] on the topic.
Idiot: John Key was discussing the student loan scheme, not the constitution. But the point I am trying to make is that even now the election is over these guys are continuing to talk like scary wind up toys, repeatedly exhibiting a truely creepy doublethink depending on the issue and the audience.
ReplyDelete