ECan Act “constitutionally repugnant”

by frog

… constitutionally repugnant…

…contains elements of subterfuge…

…a constitutional affront…

…simply unacceptable…

…failed the legal requirement that the law should be general and forward-looking, not retrospective…

…denied all the equal protection of the law…

…either gratuitous or disingenuous…

…does nothing to promote respect for the law…

…a disproportionate response to the issues…

The bleatings of an embittered sacked Environment Canterbury councillor, perhaps?

No, these references to Nick Smith’s and Rodney Hide’s ECan Act were all made by Professor Philip Joseph of the University of Canterbury Law Faculty.

Joseph is a public law expert and the author of the leading text Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand. He is an adviser to several government organisations, including parliamentary select committees, the Law Commission, and government departments. In 2004 he was conferred with a Doctor of Laws degree for his work.

His opinion is that the ECan Act is such a constitutional affront that the Government should repeal it and start again.

Of course they won’t, because they have no respect for due process and democracy. By Nick Smith’s own admission, he sacked the elected ECan councillors and cancelled the October elections because he was “wary of the outcome” of the elections.

frog says

Published in Environment & Resource Management | Justice & Democracy by frog on Thu, May 20th, 2010   

Tags: , , , , ,

More posts by | more about frog