Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/Fragment 100 01

< Wy

31.380Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion0 Teilen

Störung durch Adblocker erkannt!


Wikia ist eine gebührenfreie Seite, die sich durch Werbung finanziert. Benutzer, die Adblocker einsetzen, haben eine modifizierte Ansicht der Seite.

Wikia ist nicht verfügbar, wenn du weitere Modifikationen in dem Adblocker-Programm gemacht hast. Wenn du sie entfernst, dann wird die Seite ohne Probleme geladen.


Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 100, Zeilen: 1-19
Quelle: Griffith 2007
Seite(n): 58-59, Zeilen: 58:12-26 - 59:1-4
This is contrary to the traditional view that party caucuses are not regarded as

proceedings in Parliament even though they occur within its precincts.304 The decision in Rata has been criticised by David McGee, Clerk of the New Zealand House of Representatives who called it a “perverse interpretation”.305 Equally critical of the approach taken in Rata is PA Joseph, for whom the decision was “without precedent or support”. According to Joseph:

Caucus meetings do not qualify as “proceedings in Parliament”. Caucus does not transact the business of the House but is a party-political meeting for coordinating strategies that may or may not relate to proceedings in Parliament…The correct view is that political meetings are not proceedings in Parliament and lack protection of parliamentary privilege.306

In Huata v. Prebble & Anor,307 this traditional view was affirmed by the New Zealand Court of Appeal. At issue in Huata was the judicial review of provisions of the disqualification legislation which placed this process in the hands of the political party caucus to be operated by its leader with the agreement of two-thirds of the caucus members. The question for the Court of Appeal was whether the Parliament should have exclusive cognizance of the ‘reasonableness’ of this process, or was this justiciable matter? In support of judicial review, the joint judgment noted that the general position is that proceedings of a party’s caucus are [not proceedings of Parliament.]


304 Parliamentary Privilege Bill 1994 (NZ), p.9.

305 D, McGee, Parliament and Caucus, New Zealand Law Journal, April, 1997.

306 P.A.Joseph, Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, 2nd ed., Brookers, 2001, pp.402-3.

307 [2004] NZCA 147.

[Seite 58]

This is contrary to the traditional view that party caucuses are not regarded as proceedings in Parliament even though they occur within its precincts.207 The decision in Rata has been criticised by David McGee, Clerk of the New Zealand House of Representatives who called it a ‘perverse interpretation’.208 Equally critical of the approach taken in Rata is PA Joseph, for whom the decision was ‘without precedent or support’. According to Joseph:

Caucus meetings do not qualify as ‘proceedings in Parliament’. Caucus does not transact the business of the House but is a party-political meeting for coordinating strategies that may or may not relate to proceedings in Parliament….The correct view is that political meetings are not proceedings in Parliament and lack protection of parliamentary privilege.209

In Huata v Prebble & Anor210 this traditional view was affirmed by the New Zealand Court of Appeal. At issue in Huata was the judicial review of provisions of the disqualification legislation which placed this process in the hands of the political party caucus to be operated by its leader with the agreement of two-thirds of the caucus members. The question for the Court of Appeal was whether the Parliament should have

[Seite 59]

exclusive cognisance of the ‘reasonableness’ of this process, or was this a justiciable matter? In support of judicial review, the joint judgment noted that

the general position is that proceedings of a party’s caucus are not proceedings of Parliament.


207 Explanatory Note, Parliamentary Privilege Bill 1994 (NZ), p 9; R v Turnbull [1958] Tas SR 80 at 84.

208 D, McGee, ‘Parliament and Caucus’, New Zealand Law Journal, April 1997, p 138. According to McGee, ‘The Master’s conclusion that caucus is now legally an integral part of Parliament in New Zealand is a radical one indeed. As he acknowledges, this is not the view of textbook writers in New Zealand who have commented on the meaning of proceedings in Parliament (McGee, Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand (2nd ed., 1994), pp 69-70 and Joseph, Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand (1993), p 363). Nor is it the view in Canada (Maginot, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada (1982), p 87)’.

209 PA Joseph, Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, 2nd ed, Brookers, Wellington, 2001, pp 402-3.

210 [2004] NZCA 147.

Anmerkungen

Identisch bis in die Verweisstruktur. Die eigentliche Quelle bleibt ungenannt.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), Hindemith

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki