Andrew Geddis: University of Otago Law Professor on David Seymour's recent scandals and the possibility of executive orders

A belief economic pain is driving a dip in the polls for the right, rather than Coalition dynamics. 

Two polls out yesterday showed support dropping for Christopher Luxon as preferred Prime Minister, and the figures would let the left bloc form a Government. 

Luxon told reporters his team is focused on the job at hand, prioritising economic growth. 

He has rejected calls to act more like Donald Trump in signing executive orders, saying we have a different political system. 

University of Otago Law Professor Andrew Geddis told Kerre Woodham the US President is elected on a separate basis and has powers specific to the role that allow things like executive orders. 

He says that in New Zealand, the Prime Minister is the head of the executive branch but only insofar as Parliament lets them be.  

Geddis also notes that many of the things Trump is doing are flat out illegal, as he can’t use executive orders to overturn the Constitution.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carry Wood of morning's podcast from
News Talks.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
He'd be Christopher Luxon is rejecting Labour's calls for David
Seymour to be removed from cabinet after he drove a
car up the steps of Parliament at a fundraiser without
the Speaker's approval and wrote to police advocating for Philip Pulkinghorn,
who went on to be charged and found not guilty
of his wife's murder. The Prime Minister told Mike Cosking

(00:31):
he's responsible for all ministers in the cabinet and their
conduct and he's very conscious of that. He's also rejected
calls to act more like Donald Trump and signing executive orders,
saying we have a different political system. University of Otago
law professor Andrew Gettis joins us. Now, very good morning
to you. Yeah, good morning, carry There seems to be

(00:52):
a group of people with the New Zealand who believe
that it's a lack of will preventing Christopher Luxon from
signing order after order overdoing legislation the way Donald Trump
was seen to be doing so within the first few
hours of him coming to offers. Can you explain why
he cannot do that.

Speaker 3 (01:13):
So New Zealand is a different constitutional set up from
the United States. The United States elects its president on
a separate basis, and the president has powers of that
office that are set out in their constitution. And then
also the United States Congress has given the president more
specific powers to do things through these executive orders. New Zealand,

(01:37):
because we have a parliamentary based system, the Prime Minister
is the head of the executive branch, but only in
so far as Parliament lets him be that, as Parliament
puts him there. And so because of the different systems
and the different powers, the President of the United States
is allowed to do things offers own bat with regards
the law that in New Zealand our system just doesn't

(01:58):
allow for. The other thing though, to note is that
in the United States, a lot of the stuff Donald
Trump is doing is flatly illegal. So it's not just
that he has power to do stuff under the law.
He is now doing stuff way beyond what America's laws
allow for, and the courts are now starting to tell
him you just can't do this.

Speaker 2 (02:15):
That's right. They're scrambling to try and and shry and
prevent them from well, how does I sorry, I'm going
to go you Tom, But how does that? How does
that work? If he signs the order and the courts
say no, who wins?

Speaker 3 (02:30):
This is seriously the problem that has now emerging in
the United States because he take one example, he has
said that people who were born in the United States,
even though the Constitution guarantees them the citizenship, he has
signed in order to say that will no longer be
the case. The courts have now said you can't do that.
That's a lawful You cannot overturn the Constitution using the

(02:50):
executive order. He has now started to make comments along
the lines of, well, the courts cannot interfere with me
when I'm doing my job. So this could come down
to an arm wrestle between the courts and the presidency
as to who gets the final will say as to
how the country is run. And that's starting to completely
overturn how the United States operates as a system.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
Right, so under our system, we simply wouldn't get into
that situation. The Prime Minister Christopher Luxen had no ability
when he finally announced as coalition government, to just start
writing orders that would overturn previous legislation.

Speaker 3 (03:28):
No the executive branch. The primes cannot overturn an Act
of Parliament. That is simply one of the fundamental core
principles of our constitutional order. If he tried to do that,
he would be changing our entire system of government. I mean,
if he tried it, it would be literally a crisis.
We use that word a lot, but this would be
the crisis of our system.

Speaker 2 (03:49):
Right what he's shown no inclination of doing so. Now,
had he been elected sole party, you know, as j
Sinda a Dun's government was, would he have more power
than he has now or is it exactly the same?

Speaker 3 (04:04):
Well, and his legal powers will be the exactly the same.
But of course, if you are the leader of the
party that has a majority in Parliament, then you can
get your party MPs to make legislation however you want.
So in theory, just Sinda Odourn with a absolute majority
in parliament could have got Parliament to pass any law

(04:25):
she wanted. Yeah, it was sort of political calculation as
to what New Zealanders would accept that held her back.
So yes, if he had absolute majority power in parliament,
he could do more, subject to his political calculation as
to what New Zealanders will put up.

Speaker 2 (04:40):
With and to his ministers agreeing that that was the
way to go.

Speaker 3 (04:45):
Well, he'd have to get his members of Parliament to
go along with it, and cabinet to agree, et cetera,
et cetera. New Zealand is much more team based systeman's
case in the United States.

Speaker 2 (04:54):
So that was how just under a doone could make
the captains called ban oil and gas exploration, introduce three
waters in the lake exactly.

Speaker 3 (05:01):
So well, you know, basically that was the policy. She
then got her ministers to agree, he took it through parliament,
parst legislation, etc.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
So when it comes to David Seymour, people are saying, right,
he should be removed from parliament. He's just a troublemaker,
you know, that is some view, some people's view. He
can't sack the leader of another party, can he.

Speaker 3 (05:25):
No, So David Seymour wears a whole bunch of different
hats and this is kind of where things kind of
get a bit messy. He is the elected member of
Parliament for EPSOM and so he can only be removed
from that role if he's voted out by the voters
of EPSOM next election. He is also the leader of
the ACT Party because the ACT Party members and members

(05:46):
of Parliament want him to be the leader. Only the
ACT Party can get rid of him as the leader
of the ACT Party. He's also a minister in Chris
Luckson's government. He's a minister because Chris Luckson has formally
told the Governor General to make him a minister, and
Chris Luckson does have the power to remove that. Chris
Luckson could sack him, but Chris Luxon needs his votes

(06:08):
in Parliament in order to be able to be in government.
So there's a whole bunch of political reasons why Chris
Luckson basically can't do anything against David Seymour because if
he were to do so, it would put his government
literally at risk. We might need another election, et cetera,
et cetera.

Speaker 2 (06:27):
Right, so when people get frustrated at the slow rate
of change at how long it takes to get anything
done in New Zealand, really it's a protection for the
people of New Zealand pretty much.

Speaker 3 (06:42):
So, I mean, you have to remember how we ended
up with MMP. We ended up with MMP and multiple
parties and having to negotiate, et cetera, et cetera. Because
back in the nineteen eighties when we had first passed
the post and we had single party governments, we got
amazing amounts of change, and the public said, we don't
like how quickly this is all happening. We don't like

(07:04):
the fact that one party can do whatever it wants
and introduce any changes it wants. So we've got MMP
precisely to stop that from happening. So you know, you
need to be careful what you wish for. It you
wishing for one party that could do anything it wants
and introduce any law it wants with effectively no controls
on it. Well, that's fine as long as it's your

(07:26):
party doing what you want.

Speaker 2 (07:28):
What if it isn't, Yeah, exactly. I thank you very much, Andrew.
That's a really, really good explanation for those who are
wondering why things can't get done more swiftly, more quickly.
Andrew get us University of a Targo law professor, why
Christopher Luxen can't act like Trump, Why he can't just
get rid of ministers if he doesn't agree with what

(07:48):
they're doing and what they're saying. And I hope that
has been.

Speaker 1 (07:51):
Helpful for more from carry Wood and Mornings. Listen live
to news talks. It'd be from nine am weekdays, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio