Share this page!

ᴅʀ ᴅᴇᴀɴ ᴋɴɪɢʜᴛ Profile picture
@drdeanknight
Mar 28 • 5 tweets • 2 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Sigh. #fastestlawmakerinthewest
An irony, too, that this emergency Henry VIII framework legislation drops the very week we are studying the virtues and vices of secondary legislation and the Regs Review committee’s scrutiny work. #LAWS321
Minister appearing before select committee now:

facebook.com/GASCNZ/videos/…
Being pressed on super short submission period by Greens, including why Parliament wasn't to be recalled after Easter to give more time for select committee.
Submission finished and submitted. #reckonsinflight 🤓 ImageImage

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with ᴅʀ ᴅᴇᴀɴ ᴋɴɪɢʜᴛ

ᴅʀ ᴅᴇᴀɴ ᴋɴɪɢʜᴛ Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @drdeanknight

ᴅʀ ᴅᴇᴀɴ ᴋɴɪɢʜᴛ Profile picture
Mar 28
Seriously?
A framework for emergency Orders-in-Council — overriding primary legislation — for large areas of the country for the next 5 years.
Just because this Bill borrows the framework for orders seen after the Canterbury earthquake doesn’t make it right either. Our understanding of emergency ministerial orders is much more sophisticated, esp in the light of the Covid regime.
Read 16 tweets
ᴅʀ ᴅᴇᴀɴ ᴋɴɪɢʜᴛ Profile picture
Nov 25, 2022
Catching up on constitutional developments while I’ve been deep in the marking cave.

And this one is a doozy — and perhaps concerning?

An SOP entrenching a point of policy (ownership/control of water assets) was agreed, ie 60% majority needed to repeal.
legislation.govt.nz/sop/members/20…
I make no comment on the underlying policy. However, constitutionally, this is unusual and doesn’t sit well with our current constitutional traditions. Manner-and-form entrenchment has, to date, been restricted to key electoral provisions and those with widespread public support.
In other words, enhanced protection is usually reserved for those matters “above politics”. And, awkwardly, the enhanced majority here is only 60%, not the standard 75% (reflecting SO270 I guess).
Read 13 tweets
ᴅʀ ᴅᴇᴀɴ ᴋɴɪɢʜᴛ Profile picture
Nov 24, 2022
Folk proclaiming that the sky is falling because of the Supremes’ declaration of inconsistency on the voting age might want to breathe and have a closer look at what went on first.
The outcome owes much to a tactical decision by the Attorney/Crown Law that backfired.

They put all their eggs in one basket — arguing the answer to exclusion of 16 and 17yos lay in the Bill of Rights protection of 18yos+ and entrenchment of 18yo+ voting made it hard to change.
There was no serious attempt to justify the discrimination — as section 5 demands — with public policy evidence and analysis. And the burden, as always, falls on the govt to do so.
Read 12 tweets
ᴅʀ ᴅᴇᴀɴ ᴋɴɪɢʜᴛ Profile picture
May 11, 2022
I know my view on this may ruffle some feathers amongst officers and lawyers. But it follows simply from the role of elected members as governors and their corresponding accountability to the public. 🧵 /1
Councillors, as elected members and members of the governing body, have a general right to receive any information held by the local authority, subject to very narrow limits. They are accountable at large and at the ballot box for the organisation and its operations. /2
The right to access information internally follows that accountability, as it does for ministers in central government. It’s a precious right that comes by dint of their office and role as local governors. /3
Read 18 tweets
ᴅʀ ᴅᴇᴀɴ ᴋɴɪɢʜᴛ Profile picture
Apr 20, 2022
Hmmm. I’ve just discovered that the release of the 12 Nov 2021 MoH internal memo was accompanied by the 22 Nov 2021 briefing from Bloomfield to Hipkins, ie more extensive advice following external peer review, Crown Law Office advice, etc.

health.govt.nz/system/files/d…
The briefing is 9pp long plus executive summary. The summary is below.
The body of the briefing follows: 1/3.
Read 7 tweets
ᴅʀ ᴅᴇᴀɴ ᴋɴɪɢʜᴛ Profile picture
Apr 19, 2022
For those interested in the implications of MoH’s advice re a revised risk assessment for MIQ/returnees in Nov 2021, it’s worth reading the memo in full.
In other words, memo:
(a) is nuanced;
(b) is about MIQ as universal/primary measure (still some public health role for MIQ);
(c) signals need for transition, incl to avoid seeding/residual risk;
(d) seeks advice on legal implications;
(e) seek approval for further policy work.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Send Email!

:(