As an aside, to add in that the website with all NZ's legislation has been tweaked to improve accessibility. See the bottom of http://t.co/V8sqO3kcNg
Blog in haste, repent at leisure.
Yes, Thu 2 April.
We agree on one thing: statute law does not cover all bases, and clarity is needed.
My inner purist thinks the Electoral Act should be amended to prohibit an MP standing in a by-election; my inner pragmatist tells me this is unlikely to happen.
I addressed the specific situation you posed,and I think that would be a matter of 'straightforward mechanics.'
However I'm saying that there may be many complicated scenarios that could arise, and it may well be that Privileges becomes involved.
In the last 24 hours we've seen Peters frame the debate in terms of whether he will decide to bring in a new MP or not. He's been very good at putting himself centre of the frame going back to (at least) the Antoinette Beck saga.
Thanks Sean - I accept that Electoral Commission are in good faith telling people that. However, they are not the arbiters of whether a vacancy is created or not.
Graeme Edgeler (asked on Twitter)
@philiplyth is it your view that the statement "Members' seats become vacant only as provided in Electoral Act 1993" is debatable?
I note that is the heading to s23 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 the whole of which is:
23 Members' seats become vacant only as provided in Electoral Act 1993
(1)The House has no power to make a member's seat become vacant by expelling the member (whether to discipline or punish the member, to protect the House by removing an unfit member, or for any reason or purpose) from membership of the House.
(2)Subsection (1) overrides any law to the contrary.
To answer the direct question, yes, I can see various MPs, past and present, being only too willing to debate the meaning depending on the circumstances. So it is certainly debatable.
I haven't yet gone back and read all the public domain documents and Hansard relating to that Act. S23 would be subject to interpretation. I doubt it would be justiciable in practical terms. Arguably for example, the meaning of "a member's seat" could be the subject of much argument before Privileges: if and when Peters is sworn in as the MP for Northland (assuming for a moment that is required), then is the list seat still his?
I do not purport to be an expert and I expect this questions will be addressed by Members in the coming weeks and a solution found.
Surely you mean “noting that the Official Count and the return of the writ are nearly two weeks away” ,
Oops, you are quite right Steve – mea culpa. Will get it fixed.
It's published, let it be.
Not sure whether the old scheme is online anywhere, but the international travel perk was always capped at the value of a return business class airfare to London. I cannot remember if explicitly stated as Air NZ, but back in the day fares were pretty standard between all airlines.
That's no longer the case. Yesterday I found Cathay Pacific offering as low as $3,400 each way.
What I am very surprised at is that Cabinet agreed to make this change at this time and in this way.
Thanks, I think, for the mention. I'm more of a WWDITS sort of guy.
To kick things off: overwhelmingly younger people do not participate and so their concerns are addressed less than those of the older generation who do.
People can encourage everybody under 30 to enrol. It's not hard. Anyone who is 17 now can "pre-enrol" and they'll be automatically transferred to the main roll the day they turn 18.
Factoid: anyone born 20 Sept 1996 and thus turns 18 on the day of the election, can vote as long as they have pre-enrolled.