It's called due process, Craig. The details are enbargoed, so you and I don't know why the extradition (which doesn't automatically require ministerial sign-off in the case of Australia) is delayed. Might be a very good reason.
Also: Gordon Campbell
..the same offence meant to justify Dotcom’s extradition – i.e. secondary copyright infringement as a criminal offence – is something that every member country of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade talks (except the US, but including New Zealand) has agreed to reject within the TPP negotiations? As elsewhere, the TPP member countries staunchly maintain that such actions constitute only a civil offence at worst, and not a criminal one..
Which, should the courts rule that Dotcom has committed a US offence with an NZ analogue, is reason to clarify the NZ law to reflect that view. I'd be interested to know National/Green/labour positions on this.
Andrew Geddis, who actually knows what he's talking about, comments on this.
But if Labour gets in and Dotcom subsequently gets to the end of the classic legal path, then Cunliffe's government will be under an obligation to "intervene" by reviewing all aspects of the situation and deciding whether to extradite. It's not like a trial where the courts' decision is final (barring pardons). The government becomes part of the process (unless they change the extradition laws, which they could of course do).
Yes, they have form for trying to foist wierdos on us. Why they thought the intelligent, liberal electorate of Welly Central would vote for Franks escapes me.
Possibly no mainstream nats want to run in a marginal seat, where losing is considered to be a personal failing. (Losing in ones opponent's safe seats being an accepted rite of passage for rising politicians).
English disease? You're seriously comparing a few thousand pissed up dudebros in ill fitting onesies to the ICF? If you chucked any of the English firms from back in the day out of the Caketin, they'd headbutt their way back in through the foundations.
Anyway, the way the UK fixed its football violence problem involved widespread availability of MDMA. Maybe we could legalise it just for major sporting events - it would also help ticket sales.
Wellington Central? Eh?
Grant Robertson has won the last two elections fair and square in a regular contest, as did Marian Hobbs before. Grant could even have survived the loss of all the ~5,700 Green party voters who didn't support James Shaw. (The interesting thing is that many *National* party voters must have given their electorate votes to Grant rather than Foster-Bell. I assume this is the liberalism / tax dodging conflict manifesting itself, or the sheer repulsiveness of the National candidate).
Morever, any shenanigans in Wellington Central (or any Labour/Green/Nat contest) would make absolutely no difference to the composition of parliament. If Grant lost, he'd be a Labour list MP for the Wellington area and National would be +1 electorate, -1 list.
The assumption is that National would be able to herd most of those 14,000 voters into the yards of whatever party they wished to favour*
Look! I made a sheep metaphor
One of the issues at the crux of Dotcom's extradition is the difference between criminal and civil copyright infringement.
In most of our laws this is pretty clear: not paying a bill is something for civil action, whilst obtaining goods by pretending you paid (like bouncing a cheque in old skool times) is fraud, and criminal.
Most criminal copyright infringement cases in NZ have involved deceit, such as selling fake DVDs, or a shop full of laptops built from one copy of Windows.
The Dotcom case wasn't like this - the rights holders knew what he was doing and could (and did) take action through takedown notices or if they felt he wasn't compliant, by suing in civil court.
It's possible to likely that the courts will agree and reject extradition on the grounds that Dotcom's conduct did not constitute the equivalent of criminal copyright violation in NZ. If not, a future government might well want to review our copyright law and clarify the limits of the criminal law. To discuss this pre-election is entirely legitimate politics.
If our next government were to move to change the law, it's entirely reasonable that they might also reject the extradition on the grounds of incompatibility with the changed NZ law. (Legally, if someone had a homosexual relationship in Tonga or some similarly neanderthal jurisdiction before 1986, they could be extradited by NZ based on the law then applying. They wouldn't be though, I hope).
[I just discovered the Cook Islands criminalizes (male) homosexuality. WTF? ]
Is your patron going to retire if he keeps polling zero, then?