New Zealand constitution

When Trevor Mallard read out a new, revised prayer at the start of parliament this year, I started writing about some of the questions it raised for me. It's taken a while to get it down, but I wonder whether we shouldn't be giving this some deeper thought

 Arguing about the prayer that open parliament each day is as old as parliament itself; it was the first order of business in the first session (after the election of the speaker) when New Zealand's new parliament opened in Auckland, May 1854.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer fears that the Government's response to a Supreme Court ruling may be "deeply offensive to the rule of law and a constitutional outrage." At the risk of challenging a legal Goliath, I must demur. 

Regular readers of my Pundit columns (all eight of you) will be aware that I am on occasion partial to uttering the odd cry of "won't someone please think of the Constitution!" Exhibit A.

The saga of family carers for the severely disabled is still being written, despite Parliament's attempts to put a full stop on it. It makes for a really interesting constitutional tale.

The story of the struggle of family carers of severely disabled individuals to get paid for the work that they do and the various court decisions, governmental policies and legislative enactments that it has inspired makes for a truly fascinating case study in how New Zealand's constitutional processes work.

Or, rather, some speculative ruminations on what will happen if Winston Peters holds the balance of power and won't commit to supporting either bloc in the House. 

Imagine, if you will, a scenario on September 21 where the provisional election results deliver a Parliament where National cannot form a majority even with ACT/United Future/Maori Party support, Labour cannot form a majority with Green/Mana-Internet Party support and Colin Craig's Conservatives fall short of the threshold.

If Andrew's constitutional blog leaves you wanting more, you won't be disappointed by this post and its attempt to spark some debate

While Andrew has written a post  superior to anything I can offer, I too am going to post on the report released yesterday by the Constitutional Advisory Panel... because it's my blog and I can. And anyway, it's the first government review I've ever submitted to, so I'm interested. And a little disappointed.