Show us your legal advice!
Well, the Government’s rhetoric regarding Zimbabwe has hardened significantly in the last few days. They’re certainly getting the headlines they want:
NZ to push for cricket ban
Clark steps up pressure over Zimbabwe tour
Tour pressure mounts as Government wants NZ Cricket to pull out
What could be better for a government under pressure than a big, stand-up fight with an international enemy that all New Zealanders despise? Rallying to the flag and all that…
Mark Sainsbury said on TV1 on Sunday night that this hardening rhetoric on Zimbabwe probably had something to do with National’s rise in the polls. David Farrar smells a similar rat:
If I was even more cynical than I am, I would suspect the Government doesn’t actually want to stop the cricket tour to Zimbabwe, it just wants to be able to keep banging on in public about how it is going to try and do something.
The Government keeps repeating the line, and journalists keep parroting it, that:
- It is powerless to stop the Black Caps’ tour of Zimbabwe, except if it takes draconian measures such as withdrawing the players’ passports.
- NZ Cricket will face a huge fine if the tour doesn’t go ahead.
This position rests on legal advice that the Government has yet to release. The legal advice relates to NZ Cricket’s future tours agreement with other national cricket boards. The agreement includes a “force majeuere” clause, which states that there are five circumstances under which not going on a tour is “acceptable non-compliance”, and thus not liable for the much-trumpeted $2.8 million fine. One of these circumstances is:
Any action taken by a governmental or public authority of any kind, including, without limitation, not granting a consent, exemption, approval or clearance or imposing any restriction or prohibition.
Now, I am no lawyer, but I would have thought that any self-respecting member of the legal professional could drive a truck through that clause. It is as wide open as the Lions’ back line. And if the Mugabe-backed Zimbabwe Cricket Union wants to dispute our government to court for a misinterpretation of this contract, then so much the better.
Let’s be clear: the only defence the Government has for its stance is that its legal advice tells it that this clause does not offer it with any reasonable steps for nixing the tour. Well, if that’s true, how about releasing that legal advice? Because, at the moment, that legal advice is seeming scarcely believable, and the Government’s position is seeming little more than posturing.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:41 am
fwog in some ways i agwee with you but in the end the peoples must go to these places to report back what they sees if you believe goff coff you believe anything
June 28th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Frog,
A quote from the the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (which I thought you were fans of):
“18.Freedom of movement—
(1)Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.
(2)Every New Zealand citizen has the right to enter New Zealand.
(3)Everyone has the right to leave New Zealand.
(4)No one who is not a New Zealand citizen and who is lawfully in New Zealand shall be required to leave New Zealand except under a decision taken on grounds prescribed by law.”
1. Given the only thing the Government can do is, basically, to withdraw the players’ passports (which would be illegal), then the decision is up to NZC.
2. Since the goverment won’t have done anything to stop them (because it can’t - remember the Cavaliers) the force majeuere clause won’t apply.
June 28th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Well, I disagree with your point number one. I think there *are* other things the Government could do. Watch this space.
The Indian Govt has shown (with respect to Pakistan) that revoking of passports is not required to invoke the force majeure clause; just a foreign policy position is. Furthermore, the ICC has explicitly stated that it recognises the right of governments to impose sporting sanctions, at no financial penalty to cricket boards.
June 29th, 2005 at 9:29 am
Why does the government not issue a travel advisory warning NZers to avoid travelling to Zim until the situation improves.
Then NZC has an out.