OnPoint by Keith Ng

Read Post

OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But Shorter and With More Swearing

227 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 10 Newer→ Last

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to James W,

    Also, unless conservatives know someone who’s in the position of caring for a disabled person, they don’t care.

    Stuff off.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2990 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac,

    Ominous. Arrogant Governance. Serious assault on the people of NZ. Nearly 9,000 visits to Andrew Geddis's post on Pundit.
    And on the MSM? Nothing. (I think it got a mention on National Radio news on Saturday then silence.)
    What to do about it.

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 58 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 2024 posts Report Reply

  • Ana Simkiss,

    The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty/supremacy is precisely that, a doctrine. It's not enshrined in law. The Courts could, in a suitable case, actually strike down legislation as being unconstitutional.

    Please explain. This is not my understanding.

    Freemans Bay • Since Nov 2006 • 121 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    Sorry Graeme, you are right. Wrote in haste. But it comes under Justice which is why appointment to it comes under Judith Collins.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 2024 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Ana Simkiss,

    Please explain. This is not my understanding

    Short explanation- we don't have a written constitution. So parliamentary sovereignty is just as a much a loose arrangement of precedent and custom as judicial independence... ?

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 1457 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Ana Simkiss,

    Please explain. This is not my understanding.

    The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy was created by the Courts.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2990 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Today’s adventures in RIS redaction …

    Simon Bridges flatly denies Moana Mackey’s claim that the legal advice on amendments to the Crown Minerals Act (which somehow needs correcting a month after it was passed) was that they were in breach of international law.

    But the minister cannot explain why the legal advice he is referring to was deleted from the Regulatory Impact Statement. (from about 2.00)

    Seriously?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18656 posts Report Reply

  • James W, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    Stuff off.

    I would've thought my subsequent suggestion of kneecapping children showed I was exaggerating for comic effect, but I guess not.

    Since Jul 2008 • 124 posts Report Reply

  • Keith Ng, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    However it would seem he has voted for it anyway.

    Well, he's a member of Cabinet, so he has to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_collective_responsibility

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 530 posts Report Reply

  • Ana Simkiss, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    You are right that the constitution is unwritten, but to overturn the principle of parliamentary sovereignty would violate the most fundamental principle of that constitution.

    Put another way, a court overturning Parliament-made law for violating the constitution would itself be violating the contstitution.

    (prepares for Edgeler schooling on constitutional law)

    Freemans Bay • Since Nov 2006 • 121 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Holloway,

    There's also a .doc file here with a few more metadata fields (author etc.) but unfortunately no edit history,

    http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/regulatory-impact-statement-government-response-family-carers-case.doc

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Mar 2009 • 7 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    That statement from the Human Rights Commission also notes the contrasting approach in the Australian Budget which legislated and funded the National Disability Insurance Scheme. If we had one of those we wouldn't be squabbling around the edges for proper support for families and wouldn't have two completely different disability support systems (under ACC family care funding is quite normal). It would be nationwide, equitable and hopefully adequate. We could have even funded it from not doing the Budget cuts to the ACC levy.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 2024 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Russell Brown,

    I wanted to throw something at the radio when Bridges announced all they were doing was to ‘criminalise … criminal damage and unlawful interference’.
    FFS. “Criminal damage and unlawful interference” are already criminal by virtue of being, y’know, criminal and/or unlawful.
    What the law actually DOES is make it a serious crime for a navigator to take a vessel – or permit it to become (because this could happen quite innocently, or by virtue of the exploration vessel deliberately altering course towards a protest vessel, or indeed, any vessel) – within 500m of any aspect of a drilling operation.
    And that’s … quite likely in breach of international understandings on shipping regulation, but who cares, because it will only be used to silence dissent, and not against anyone else.
    Increasingly, ministers are not telling us the true story (cough, Collins, ‘no consensus’, splutter ‘not the votes’ huh? Please just say “WE DO NOT SUPPORT changing the electoral act?”)

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 1457 posts Report Reply

  • JacksonP, in reply to Cecelia,

    This is an important point. I'm a carer now for my husband who is sinking deeper and deeper into dementia. We are being helped by a variety of organisations both public and charity-based. They are all stretched - aged care is a growth area - but I've found them good so far.

    Wishing you and your husband all the best Cecelia. My grandfather provided care for my grandmother in similar circumstances.

    This latest cynical act by the government is shameful. I am ashamed. Now what?

    Auckland • Since Mar 2011 • 2117 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Keith Ng,

    Well, he’s a member of Cabinet, so he has to:

    ... swallow a few dead rats?
    Yeah. But I think this one may have been poisoned.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 1457 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed, in reply to Ianmac,

    Ominous. Arrogant Governance. Serious assault on the people of NZ. Nearly 9,000 visits to Andrew Geddis’s post on Pundit.
    And on the MSM? Nothing. (I think it got a mention on National Radio news on Saturday then silence.)
    What to do about it.

    Mentioned in passing on Stuff. The Granny was a bit better, but not headline stuff.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4135 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    <BLOODY BIG I WAS A DISTRACTED LOON TODAY EDIT IN THE INTERESTS OF GETTING SOMEONE’S NAME RIGHT FINALLY.>

    Claire Browning’s Pundit column on Geddis, the Crown Minerals Act and various other elisions of democracy is worth reading.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18656 posts Report Reply

  • Mick Rose, in reply to Graham Dunster,

    I fear wide screen TV's and iPhones will rule the day for some days yet.

    The problem is less the hideous bunch of clowns currently in power than the number of our fellow citizens who are enamoured with them. It's not as if Key and co's ruthless "pragmatism", lack of vision and moral-bankruptcy haven't been apparent for a very long time. And I don't see the situation changing in a hurry - there's a steady outflow of left-leaning political/financial refugees together with a balancing inflow of monied conservative-voting immigrants - so things look surprisingly rosy for Mr Key.

    And while I respect and admire a small number of our current crop of MPs … really, who in their right mind would want to be part of that grotesque dysfunctional circus?

    Since Oct 2010 • 4 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Queen of Thorns also responds to Geddis in her inimitable style:

    I’d just like to end with a little thought experiment for the class: imagine that Labour were in power and passed any legislation – say, to plant more native trees on public land, or to make it illegal to waterboard people – and then said “but you can’t see the advice we’ve made this decision on, and you can never ever challenge it.”

    Oh, and passed it under urgency.

    Just imagine it. The Kiwiblog commentariat would shit themselves. W****O**’s servers would probably explode. You’d hear Cactus Kate’s screams all the way across the Pacific.

    Add this to Sky City’s 35-year protection clause and our whole constitution just got taken out back and shot in the head, and National’s turned the corpse into a ventriloquist’s doll and is assuring us that democracy is just resting after a rather vigorous squawk.

    I tried to point out something similar last week to some Kiwiblog regulars who were gamely insisting that Key and Joyce should be congratulated for "getting the job done" with the deeply compromised process of the SkyCity conference centre shemozzle. No luck, I'm afraid. They just weren't seeing it.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18656 posts Report Reply

  • Tristan,

    And Tony Ryall has the gall to crow about it!

    from his twitter...
    @TonyRyallMP
    Tonight NZ becomes only 3rd country in world to pay wages to some family carers of disabled adults. $92m over 4 years.

    and
    ‏@TonyRyallMP
    Wow! Labour and Greens vote against supporting parents who care for adult disabled children. Shameful after all their promises 2000-8!

    yes the opposition voted against you terminating the human rights of a large group of people and then removing thier recourse!...WHAT A DICK!

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 194 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew C, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    The manipulative dishonesty of it's opponents and the disingenuous outrage

    Not sure its all been one way in that regard Tom. I went to a meeting about the Unitary Plan in Beachhaven about a week ago, and the officers there still, despite being repeatedly told by members of the public present that 3 stories was possible, tried really really hard to stick to the line it was only 2.

    Maybe my definition of "genuinely consult" is different to yours...

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 143 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant, in reply to Peter Graham,

    Does anyone know why the redacted parts couldn't be got by an OIA request?

    You can try, but they will likely withhold it as legal advice. That withholding ground is one of the stronger ones, and it would take an exceptionally strong public interest, or an implicit waiver of advice by Ministers discussing its contents (difficult if they don't give speeches on the bill) to winkle it out of them.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1627 posts Report Reply

  • Sue,

    what the fucking fuck!
    this is WRONG and yes i actually yelled at my computer

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 469 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Andrew C,

    Not sure its all been one way in that regard Tom. I went to a meeting about the Unitary Plan in Beachhaven about a week ago, and the officers there still, despite being repeatedly told by members of the public present that 3 stories was possible, tried really really hard to stick to the line it was only 2.

    This is a confusing issue. The defined exceptions that make an extra two metres possible in mixed housing zones aren’t actually part of the Unitary Plan, but are essentially the same resource consent rules that allow basement and attic extensions under the current rules: proximity to boundary, shade, etc. They're not intended to permit three-storey devlopments.

    (NB: Suburbs like Mt Eden already have plenty of buildings higher than this in what will be mixed housing zones. There's currently no upper restriction, subject to the rules.)

    I think the council is explaining this poorly, but I don’t think there has been intent to deceive. In terms of the Unitary Plan, they're actually right. Ben Ross explains.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18656 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.