Unaffordable Housing. The biggest problem are thousands of immigrants pouring into Auckland every week bringing with them offshore currency to service NZ debt. Let me explain- the idiot management of our economy has left your beloved politicians with no other option but to flog New Zealand off. Selling NZ real estate to wealthy foreigners is the best export the idiots could come up with. The RMA, dodgy courts, greedy lawyers, red tape, sale of state owned assets by politicians with either screwed up left wing ideology or right wing election donations by corporate backroom dealers has left NZ in a mess. You voted them in, what are you going to do about it? An economy is like an ecosystem. The sale of state assets has left the NZ economy weaker, contributed to inflation, driven net disposable cash down, added to household debt, leaving the economy desperate for additional income. NZ has 2 key sources of fuel for its economy. Imported loan capital which the banks are pouring into mortgages and migrants wanting to buy a piece of NZ. That is what has driven up property values in Auckland. The GDP, GNP and fiscal reports show NZ bundled with debt. The sale of state assets was inclusive of very bad political management. All new money coming in to New Zealand is via the banking system either as interest bearing debt, foreign investment, or through migration which heads to Auckland in droves. As of January, 2015 the total New Zealand money supply (M3) was around $283.745 billion. Thus it can come as no surprise that New Zealand is presently around $244.5 billion in debt to overseas lenders.
NZ corrupt? http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/new-zealand-house-of-representatives.html
The Latimer House Principles
By Christopher Wingate
Commonwealth Agreements of which New Zealand is a signatory.
If a judge breaks rule (b) of the Latimer House Principles, then it’s only logical that the separation of powers doctrine must be suspended and parliament have the ability to review the judicial action the same way as the judiciary have the right by way of judicial review to investigate a decision by parliament.
These are the principles the crown have agreed on: (b) Judicial Accountability- Judges are accountable to the Constitution and to the law which they must apply honestly, independently and with integrity VII)
(a) Executive Accountability to Parliament Parliaments and governments should maintain high standards of accountability, transparency and responsibility in the conduct of all public business. Parliamentary procedures should provide adequate mechanisms to enforce the accountability of the executive to Parliament.
(b) Judicial Accountability Judges are accountable to the Constitution and to the law which they must apply honestly, independently and with integrity. The principles of judicial accountability and independence underpin public confidence in the judicial system and the importance of the judiciary as one of the three pillars upon which a responsible government relies.
In addition to providing proper procedures for the removal of judges on grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour that are required to support the principle of independence of the judiciary, any disciplinary procedures should be fairly and objectively administered. Disciplinary proceedings which might lead to the removal of a judicial officer should include appropriate safeguards to ensure fairness. VI)
Ethical Governance Ministers, Members of Parliament, judicial officers and public office holders in each jurisdiction should respectively develop, adopt and periodically review appropriate guidelines for ethical conduct. These should address the issue of conflict of interest, whether actual or perceived, with a view to enhancing transparency, accountability and public confidence. Some people believe human rights abuses are more common in dictatorships or theocracies than in democracies because freedom of speech and freedom of the press tend to uncover state orchestrated abuse and expose it. Nonetheless human rights abuses do also occur in democracies.
Human Rights in a Democracy vs Latimer House Rules.
Many suggest the basic problem in dealing with Human Rights is the lack of understanding of the basic laws of fiduciary control. International equity expert Professor Paul Finn has underlined, “the most fundamental fiduciary relationship in our society is manifestly that which exists between the community (the people) and the state, its agencies and [[officials]. " In equity a politician's fiduciary obligations not only comprise duties of good faith and loyalty, but also include duties of skill and competence in managing a country and its people.
It is widely agreed Government is a 'trust structure' created by people to manage the needs of society. The relationship between government and the governed is clearly a fiduciary one. Yet rules such as Sovereign Immunity or Crown and Judicial Immunity are now being targeted as the very the tools of oppression that are preventing those being abused from taking action against the person controlling the laws of a country. Originating from within the Courts of Equity, the fiduciary concept was partly designed to prevent those holding positions of power from abusing their authority.
Modern arguments suggest anyone accepting any judicial, political or government control over the interests of people requires moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust. Its conduct should therefore be judged by the most exacting fiduciary standards. The fiduciary relationship arises from the government’s ability to control people with the exercise of that power. In effect, if a government has the power to abolish any rights then they are burdened with the fiduciary duty to protect such an interest because the government would benefit from the exercise of its own discretion to extinguish rights which it alone had the power to dispose of.