LAWS 206 - red-light theory - executive accountability.

Front

What does Dicey's red light theory propose?

Back

Dicey's red light theory proposes that in order to have checks and balances on the executive, the three branches of government must be seperate.

Front

What is a critisism of Dicey's red light theory?

Back

Because parliament and the executive are two fused branches of government (as parliament provides legislation that permits what actions the executive can/cannot take, but the executive controls parliament by having a majority in it), one critisim aimed at Dicey's red light theory is that such seperation of powers is not practical in NZ.

Front

How has Dicey's red light theory counteracted this critisism?

Back

One crucial aspect of Dicey's red light theory is that administrative law should function as a control on executive power via the courts. This means that even if the executive makes laws through parliament that invariably lead to excesive executive discretion (which is the antithisies of Dicey's ideals), the courts can still limit such executive discretion through judicial procedures/ judge-made laws.

Front

How has Dicey's counteraction of the arguements against his red-light theory been further counter-acted?

Back

While in theory Dicey's ideals may give power to the courts to supervise the executive, in practice, the courts have yet to hear a case in which they can limit the discretionary powers of the executive. In fact the only practical case is that of the ammendment to the equal pay Act in which the power of the fusion between executive and parliament was demonstrated when the executive declared parliament in a state of emergency in order to pass an ammendament to the equal pay Act within one day, without any influence of opposing parties/citizens.

Front

How can the executive put parliament in a state of emergency, and how does this demonstrate the power of the fusion between the executive and parliament?

Back

In order to put Parliament in a state of emergency, the executive needs a 51% majority vote in parliament. This demonstrates the power of the fusion between the executive and parliament as because the executive holds a majority in parliament, parliament can go in a state of emergency pretty easily.

Front

How does the fusion between parliament and the executive counteract, Dicey's arguement of having the executive in a sandbox and authorising the courts to punish the executive, if it acts outside of the sandbox (i.e outside of it's authority, as given to it by legislation)?

Back

The fusion between parliament and the executive leads to an ever expanding 'sandbox' to the point where there is no 'outside' that the courts can punish the executive for. In other words, because the executive can pass any legislation it wants through parliament, what boundaries are there to enforce by the courts? How can the courts hold the executive accountable if every legislation prohibiting parliament can be repealed by the executive in order to give itself the sheild to act however it pleases?

Front

Why was Dicey's red-light theory so determined on heavily regulating the state?

Back

Dicey's red light theory was proposed in an era where the state was not involved in education, healthcare etc. The states only purpose was national defence, which is why Dicey did not want the state to get involved in other areas of life.