" The bogey of corporations being able to sue governments is not only overblown, but corporations can do that now, without a TPP.'
The example of Australia causes some confusion, since Philip Morris has tried both approaches there.
The High Court (their Supreme Court) ruled that the government didn't breach the constitution and acquire their ( intellectual ) property ( without compensation) when it legislated to mandate plain packaging for tobacco products. This was in 2012.
The Australian Free Trade network says:
The Philip Morris tobacco company is currently suing the Australian government over its tobacco plain packaging legislation, using an obscure 1993 Hong Kong- Australia investment treaty. Philip Morris is actually a US-based company, but could not sue under the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, because public opposition kept this clause out of the agreement. Philip Morris rearranged its assets to become a Hong Kong investor in order to use an obscure treaty.
So it would more correct to say, they may sue under existing laws but they havent won.
And NZ without a written constitution doesnt seem to be in that category.
But if you were trying to mislead ....
Penny Bright is well known for her disruptions to Council meetings
"A veteran protester, who is linked with the Occupy movement, hijacked an Auckland Council meeting this morning, temporarily delaying the meeting and prompting police to be called."
That was 2012, and then there was 2006 ( when Hubbard was mayor)
Graeme you should get up to Auckland more often, my local Library has a security guard most afternoons
Interesting how a similar situation has played out Melbourne.
An MP is accused of a crime which could means he could get kicked out of parliament. The government only has a one seat majority so depend on his vote.
At first the prosecution rolled up all the offences into one charge ( he was using his MPs fuel card and vehicle for long distance trips soley for his hardware shop) and then with the MP pleading guilty would apply for diversion so no conviction would be entered.
Unfortunately the judge hearing the case wasnt have a bar of the stitch up and refused to consider diversion.
So back to the MP pleading not guilty to all the charges, but then the Public prosecutor saying there is no reasonable chance of conviction and then not offering any evidence, so MP walks away scott free.
Perhaps some of the files from the police were lost and not passed on to the prosecutors ?
Heres a 4 bedr terrace house for sale in Fentiman Rd SW8- a few streets from Bonnington Squre
Only a cool 1.8 mill - pounds
No Governor General refused assent in 300 years /
"In the period during which Britain had such powers (1854-1947) it blocked important legislation on a number of occasions. The power of royal assent was used to prevent thirteen pieces of legislation from 1856 to 1910."
To me the numbers dont add up
. They got 230 poker machines last time, which they dont have to give back, when the smaller convention center is subsumed by the new one.
So the actual number of machines for the new larger centre is 560
The cynic in me would suggest the online version , after all these years, might have been adjusted to remove any stain on the reporters credibility.
Does the library copy of the printed version match ?
That would be an intriguing investigation ?
A million RTDs a day seem to trump any conscience votes of Mps ?
If I was a cunning MP I would introduce an amendment taxing RTDs on sugar content as well as alcohol content.
Ive looked at each election since 1999 and gave probabilities based number of final quotients between 110 and 120 allocated to National.
Thus the result is 0.4 x 0.4 x 0.5 x 0.6 x0.6 = 0.036 , which is the chance of it happening in 5 independent elections.
Roughly the same as 5 heads in a row. ???
I accept that being a larger party National ( or Labour) has more chances but apparently the Sante Lague method is chosen so as not to favour larger parties ( as opposed to D'Hondt method gives similar results too, but favours larger parties)
Here is actual quotients for 2002 when National got a very low 22% but still snagged the final seat.
We can see Labour had 9 quotients from 100+ while National had 5. The party to miss out in this election was United Future . Something like 25 votes making the difference