Why do they persist with that ranking system? Does National do it too?
Because historically, 'it's always been done that way.' Particularly in the two largest parties, and in the Ministerial list. The ranking is so strong within the Ministry that when two or more Ministers are meeting, they do so in the highest ranking Minister's office.
That said, Labour, and I think National, are now relaxing to the point of having maybe 1/3 of the caucus unranked. And the Greens as far as I observe are much less hierarchical.
Somewhere in the commentary about the Australian election I heard that Australia is about to join the Security Council, which probably means their rep will get their instructions from Abbott. (Which will also mean no welcoming of refugees)
Australia is currently a Security Council member for a two-year term. What happens on 1 September is that it becomes President of the Security Council for a month. Which would explain why Obama was recently reported as being on the phone to Rudd.
And which raises the interesting question of what would the NZ Government be doing? After all we are close to the end of a decade-long campaign for another term on the Security Council, for the Jan 2015 - Dec 2016 term.
If NZ succeeds (and the term starts after our next election), what would our Government be doing if faced with a similar crisis?
I make no claims for my kitchen.
But the wonderful @cle0patra for a year or so blogged her foodie gadgets at http://beanslicer.wordpress.com/
May there be a meeting of minds.
Yeah, this is why I'd prefer to be Person Who Requires No Honorific Because Why Can't My Letter Just Be Addressed To My Full Name?
Reminds me of the late Rod Donald - not even 'Mr' for him, just the nine letters of his name, thank you.
I'd say it is past time to repeal the bit of the regulation (3A(c)vi) which requires that registration of a birth includes
information about the type of relationship (if any) between the parents at the time of the child's birth
If the info is not collected it cannot be reported.
Good to see the awareness of the upcoming redistribution of the boundaries. To note that Electoral Commission expects work to begin in about three months - first of all the Maori Electoral Option has to be completed, and that closes on 24 July.
Today I've asked Stats NZ to release to the web the meshblock population data, at the same time as they provide it to the Representation Commission. That will mean anyone who wants to make submissions or countersubmissions can be better informed.
In a couple of weeks I might ask Russell to host a Speakers post to highlight processes around redrawing the boundaries. It's been 7 years since it last happened.
I must be a Luddite. In our household the question is framed:
"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.