"Draft" Hansard is published at http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Drafts/ They explain on the page:
"The draft transcript is the first draft of the Hansard for a sitting day. Each speech is added to the transcript about 2½ hours after it has been given in the House. Speeches are removed once they have been published as part of an Uncorrected Daily"
Thanks to both Graeme and Andrew . . . I am more inclined to Graeme's interpretation, but finer minds than mine will prevail.
To remind Cameron that it is less than 20 years ago that every contested vote was taken by MPs voting individually, trooping through the lobbies. Party votes are a recent and positive development IMHO
To pick up what Andrew said over at Pundit:
that sort of pragmatic, make-it-up-as-you-go reasoning is deeply unsatisfying to us lawyerly types
Yes, the intersection of politics and the law sees some particularly nasty messes. Annabel Young in her book on lobbying recounted an instance where Air NZ's lawyers gave up on the Regulations Review Committee because it did not behave in the judicial they expected.
If you are bigger or faster do not allow your size or speed to hurt other people … even if they are doing something “wrong”.
Maybe with a corollary, Don't assume that on a bike you can get away with stupidity.
Seen on Thorndon Quay, which has angle parking, a couple of weeks ago - motorist indicating to turn left into dockway of a building. Not one, not two, not three, but four cyclists zoomed past on the motorist's left without a care in the world.
Oh for the day when the Netherlands model of shared space is adopted here and respected by road users.
I once heard a trendy MP say at Parliament, I never thought I'd get sick of salmon. Now I know. To change the thread, has anyone noticed the dissonance between the upfront claim:
We stand behind our produce, our recipes and uncompromising service.
and the legal fineprint buried in the depths:
All representations, terms, warranties, guarantees, or conditions [blah blah blah] are excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. [much more legalness followed by] You expressly acknowledge and agree that My Food Bag does not assume any obligation or liability for any advice given, and that all such Products are accepted by you entirely at your risk.
Well that convinces me Nadia and Theresa "stand behind our produce". Yeah right.
Don't get me started on what the fine print says about allergies.
Coming late to this party, but . . .
I am looking forward to seeing the first weddings being celebrated on Saturday 1 June. (Is it inappropriate for me to note that is Queens Birthday?)
Given Parliamentary processes, plus the needs of the bureaucrats to get everything lined up (they might need a month or so) I think 1 June is achievable.
The issue at the top of people’s minds tends to be copyright over source material
Well yes, and Gareth Hughes' Member's Bill would address that. (I leave it to the reader to decide if the problem is solved.)
I'd be interested to hear from satirists (yes, looking at Lyndon, Jackson, Joshua and Steve) whether other changes to legislation should be proposed, around slander and libel. Feel free to take offline by emailing me (the little envelope icon at top right of this comment.)
It may not get the audience of something on TV1, but if it’s good enough and funny enough people will find it.
I'd be inclined to say if it is good enough, people will tell people about it. Viral, innit.
Ah, yes. I meant to include that in the post, so thanks.
Good to know that some real people, as opposed to a few politics anoraks like me, take an interest in the Proposed Bills page listing members bills in the ballot.