I listened with interest to Kim Hill's interview with Geoffrey Palmer this morning (Tuesday) about Justice Heron's curious decision to deny the Save Our Squadrons' Campaign bid to injunct the Government.
While Palmer may or may not lay claim to being an expert on constitutional law, it seems a little bizarre to call on a former Labour prime Minister to give an objective view on a legal challenge to the current Labour Government. Might it not have been better to have consulted any one of a number of other eminently qualified New Zealanders in the pursuit of a neutral opinion?
Palmer's powers of judgement must surely be questioned, even by the current Government, who have been processing a reinstatement of some measure of liens protection, which he so curiously repealed.
Palmer and Heron both seem to have a Claytons' view of the law, for a brief summary of their conclusions would say that the Minister of Defence need not necessarily maintain an Air Force to meet his obligation to raise and maintain an Air Force. Perhaps in their pursuit of transparency, they have both borrowed "clothes from the Emperor's wardrobe" and counsel from his deceitful advisers?