“A comment too newsworthy not to be elevated to its own post. For background, see Shattering analysis of Shaw’s nil carbon dreams and the Brill essays at the end. Incidentally, if you’re a National MP, please raise questions in the House about this egregious move. — RT
The mooted Climate Commission does not exist and may never be authorised by Parliament. The House has referred the Bill (which proposes the establishment of such an agency) to a Select Committee, which must recommend whether the Bill be allowed to advance to a Second Reading and, if so, whether it be amended.
The Committee has asked for evidence and submissions from the public. It has not yet begun its hearings, which will probably occupy much of the next three months. Hundreds of submissions have focused on the make-up of the Commission (if any) and critiqued Clause 5H which sets out the six strengths the Commission should possess. Many propose amendments to the six nominated characteristics. Their insights are yet to be considered.
Because there is such an obvious need for Commission members to be entirely independent from Minister Shaw, the Bill provides for the establishment of a Nominating Committee of five persons who are to call for expressions of interest and vet nominees before making final recommendations to the Minister. Mr Shaw cannot ask the Governor-General to appoint anyone unless she has already been approved by the Nominating Committee and has then survived a process of consulting with all political parties.
We should bear in mind that all these layers of process and protection were drafted by Mr Shaw himself. The Minister says he earnestly wants the Bill to receive bi-partisan support.
What, then, is the explanation for the Minister’s out-of-the-blue statement that anyone who hopes to serve on the Commission must nominate themselves by last weekend? This ignores the process laid down in Shaw’s Bill. It sets out pages of description and includes requirements for expertise in many things not mentioned in the draft legislation. It appears to be some sort of coup whereby the Minister hijacks the Commission before Parliament even decides whether it wants to create such a thing.
Views: 121
This is a total disregard for Parliamentary and proper process – an indication that to achieve their ideological aims this Coalition will trample over any convention or democratic practise.
Makes me angry.
Cannot see a Constitutionalist like Winston letting this go on. Brett
Brett,
I was once a supporter of Mr Peters, but have recently become somewhat disenchanted with his political performance. Much as I would love to see him pursue a Constitutionalist course, I have no confidence he would actually do that.
AK, a long trail is littered with such concern trolls, but politicking is for other fora, not here. I was meaning he is our last best hope, no personal predictions. Except he knows his stuff. Brett
National however I think, just made a new Climate spokesman……