Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Voting in an STV election, in reply to Brent Jackson,
It'd probably have to be tested on data taken from somewhere other than a real local election in New Zealand. Section 89 of the Local Electoral Act appears to say that all voting documents must be destroyed after 21 days of secure storage, or as long as it takes for any required recount. Presumably this includes electronic records of voting documents.
-
Legal Beagle: The law to make it easier…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Surely Cosgrove's luggage would have been the Airline's problem not the Airport's - and did he not take out travel insurance?
I've just watched his answer from Tuesday.
In his answer Nuk Korako claimed that it was "found by the relevant airport authorities". Even if he actually meant "airport authority" as the legal entity, it still doesn't explain how streamlining a process for the eventual sale of that property might have made any difference whatsoever for Clayton Cosgrove's ability to get his stuff back.
Answering question 2, he claims that he received "many emails, and even the Auckland Airport Authority" saying what a great idea it is... but this was in the response to his Bill -- not before it was authored.
He doesn't clearly indicate that anyone was suggesting anything to him before the Bill was authored. Nor is there any evidence that anyone who emailed him, including the Auckland Airport Authority, had actually comprehended how insignificant the change of the Bill would really be, or that it has nothing significant to do with being notified of one's own lost property.
Kris Faafoi asked (question 3) who had approached him before the Bill. Nuk Korako gave a convoluted non-answer mentioning the Auckland Airport Authority's contact afterwards. After a challenge about the question not having been answered, David Carter declared that it had been and the answer was Auckland Airport.
The full set of questions from Tuesday: http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/44680
-
Simon Bridges is on the record as saying that “a number of locals” talked to (Mr Korako) about the issue. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/310799/mp-bagged-over-lost-luggage-bill
As an elected Member of Parliament whose integrity is clearly assured by the position he holds, we’re obliged to take him at his word…….. that “a number of locals” cared so greatly about the obvious unfair inefficiencies being imposed, by this specific detail of existing law, on their respective nearby airport authorities.
-
Legal Beagle: The law to make it easier…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
It seems odd that somebody would go to the trouble of embarking on a political career and then turn it into being a bit of a general joke
When candidate selection is largely controlled by a committee operated by the party elite (pdf: page 36 onwards), a cynic might see it as an opportunity to get a $156k/year salary and various entitlements for a few years, as well as an esteemed status of having been an MP, which is potentially useful for people who might already be loaded with cash.
All that in exchange for sucking up to those Party elite, agreeing to ask patsy questions on demand, flying the Party flag, doing whatever else they're instructed to do, and generally being a placeholder to ensure that space won't be occupied by someone who could create unnecessary trouble by applying their own independent thought to issues while the real members of the caucus would rather get on with it.
-
I have another question: In practice, how much of Parliament's debating time is this Bill likely to use up before it's through the process and another Bill can be drawn? Assuming, at least, that it is dispatched as rapidly as possible through all its stages and one particular side of the house doesn't try to stall its progress...
-
Legal Beagle: The law to make it easier…, in reply to Paul Campbell,
Does the process actually require Nuk Korako to have even read the Bill with his name on the top? Or could the government's strategists simply have authored and stuffed it with his name on it, then given him a hasty 2 line summary when it was drawn?
Based on his complete mis-representation of its contents and significance, he seems either completely incompetent or completely ignorant of his own Bill, or perhaps both.
-
Nice summary, but you forgot to add the part about how you think this is a highly necessary Bill and that its robust debate is well worth the allocation of Parliament's limited resources.
-
Hard News: Stop acting like the law is…, in reply to Cameron Price,
Do you happen to know how Stats and MoJ measure or estimate the number of cannabis users to the point that such specific numbers can be derived to two decimal places of a percentage point?
-
Well, firstly, he doesn't know that. Secondly, it's not true – a number of people convicted as a result of last summer's expensive but newsworthy cannabis recovery operation identified themselves as medical cannabis users. And thirdly, a leader who has just hailed the role of Parliament shouldn't be in the next breath handing over the content of the law to police.
Also, even if it weren't true, and if Police could somehow be trusted, it's both unfair and rather disgusting for the PM to be condoning an approach whereby the quality of sick people's treatment is determined by the willingness that they, their family and friends have with breaking the law and risking prosecution... even if on paper.
-
Legal Beagle: Voting in an STV election, in reply to Steve Todd,
Consequently from (C) and at least when compared with something like FPP, I'd add (D): There is a much lessened incentive for potential candidates (and their parties) to conspire to reduce voters' choice by withdrawing candidacy for fear of splitting the vote against a mutually disliked opponent.