New World Order: Moving to a closer union with Australia

(Sorry, I know this article is slightly aged, but I thought it pertinent to post it and mention that we should get politically active to fight attempts at merger such as this. We need a fascist dictatorship like we need a hole in the head-and that’s where it’s heading. For information on New World Order goals, refer the e-book The Police State Road Map (2005) at policestateplanning.com).

Moving to a closer union with Australia
By Darise Ogden
Content supplied by NZ Lawyer Issue 56
NZ Lawyer is published by LexisNexis – Nz Lawyer Wednesday, 31 January 2007
In a report tabled in the Australian Parliament at the beginning of December, the Australian Federal Parliament’s Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended that the governments of Australia and New Zealand explore the possibility of a full union between the two countries.

Said the Committee (at para 3.7), “While Australia and New Zealand are of course two sovereign nations, it seems … that the strong ties between the two countries – the economic, cultural, migration, defence, governmental, and people-to-people linkages – suggest that an even closer relationship, including the possibility of union, is both desirable and realistic.”

The Committee also recommended that the Australian Government actively pursue with the New Zealand Government the institution of a common currency for New Zealand and Australia (despite the fact that both Governments have indicated that a common currency is not being considered at present), and the putting in place of appropriate equitable arrangements with respect to composing a resulting joint Reserve Bank Board.

The report, Harmonisation of legal systems: Within Australia and between Australia and New Zealand, makes 27 recommendations, with a number of them seeking to bring New Zealand and Australia closer together. Committee Chairman the Hon Peter Slipper MP said, “In this era of globalization, it makes sense for Australia and New Zealand to look at moving closer together and further aligning their regulatory frameworks.”

The Committee’s brief, which was referred by the Australian Attorney-General, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP, on 7 February 2005, was to inquire and report on the lack of harmonisation within Australia’s legal system and between the legal systems of New Zealand and Australia, with particular reference to the differences having the greatest impact on trade and commerce, and to see whether harmonisation might be possible.

During the inquiry, many justifications were advanced for pursuing legal harmonisation within Australia and between New Zealand and Australia. In particular, the Australian Department of Treasury informed the Committee that regulatory differentiation between New Zealand and Australia resulted in Australian companies incurring average costs of between $10,000 and $30,000 in providing securities prospectuses to potential New Zealand investors. Greater harmonisation between New Zealand and Australia, said the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in its submission, “has the potential to further increase the annual growth rate in trade between the two countries”.

While the focus of the report is clearly for the two countries to move towards a more harmonised union, the Committee did acknowledge (at para 2.17) that “the mere existence of differences between laws will not always mean that harmonisation of those laws is necessary or even desirable”. Furthermore, the Committee stated it agreed with the following comments made by the New Zealand Government in its submission:

“Differences between the legal systems of Australia and New Zealand are not a problem in themselves. The existence of such differences is the inevitable product of well-functioning democratic decision-making processes in each country, which reflect the preferences of stakeholders, and their effective voice in the law-making process.

“…But where differences cause significant costs, and in particular where they hinder trade and commerce or impair the effectiveness of regulatory regimes, options for coordination to address those concerns need to be considered, and the benefits weighed against the associated costs.”

Ultimately, said the Committee, the question of whether or not to harmonise “should be approached on a case-by-case basis and will always require a careful evaluation of the need, potential benefits, costs, and potential disadvantages” (para 2.18).

The other recommendations made in respect of harmonising New Zealand’s and Australia’s legal systems are that the Australian Government should:
# Invite the New Zealand Parliament to establish a trans-Tasman standing committee to monitor and report annually to each Parliament on appropriate measures to ensure ongoing harmonisation of the respective legal systems.
# Offer New Zealand Government ministers full membership of Australasian (currently Australian) ministerial councils.
# Propose to the New Zealand Government the legal harmonisation of the Australian and New Zealand banking regulation frameworks in order to foster a joint banking market.
# Wherever possible, seek to utilise the joint regulator model for legal harmonisation between Australia and New Zealand. The Committee was particularly impressed by the Australia-New Zealand Therapeutic Products Authority (“the first genuinely binational Australian and New Zealand body”), which they said exemplified the functionality and simplicity of the joint regulator model.
# Investigate with the New Zealand Government the feasibility of instituting a referred legislative responsibility mechanism between the two countries whereby:
# One Parliament can voluntarily cede legislative competency on a specific matter to the other Parliament for an agreed period; and
# The resulting regulatory framework could apply in each country.
# Discuss with the New Zealand Government the legal harmonisation of Australian and New Zealand legislation governing non-excludable implied warranties in consumer contracts.
# Propose to the New Zealand Government the legal harmonisation of the Australian and New Zealand telecommunications regulation frameworks with a view to fostering a joint telecommunications market.
# Propose to the New Zealand Government that a formal and regular ministerial-level dialogue on telecommunications regulation issues be established between the two countries with a particular focus on consultation prior to regulatory change in either country.
# Propose that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General or other appropriate forum undertake an investigation into the feasibility of establishing a trans-Tasman judicial commission to provide a comprehensive informational resource for the Australian and New Zealand judiciary in relation to Australian and New Zealand judicial decisions.
# Discuss with the New Zealand Government the trans-Tasman harmonisation of legal systems in respect of all matters relating to Australian harmonisation where there can be mutual benefit, with a special focus of the discussion on the goal of achieving a single trans-Tasman legal market.

To obtain a copy of the report, go to www.aph.gov.au

Posted in Uncategorized

Clare Swinney

Next Post

ROBERT FISK ON IRAQ, IRAN

Mon Feb 19 , 2007
https://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-fisk030306.htm ABC 3 March 2006 Somebody is trying to provoke a civil war in Iraq By Robert Fisk & Tony Jones Tony Jones: Well, Robert Fisk is one of the most experienced observers of the Middle East and in his latest book, ‘The Great War for Civilisation – the Conquest […]