actually did refer to the “some people say the Terrorism Suppression Act is enough” line. He wrote it off as saying “that’s not our reading of it”.
Well, he can't have been talking about me. I never said that the Terrorism Suppression Act was enough. I took issue with his assertion that Australians who fight for ISIS commit a crime against Australian law, but New Zealanders who fight for ISIS do not commit a crime against New Zealand law.
I've no idea what the Prime Minister is proposing. I'll be able to form a view on whether that is necessary once he announces what he plans to do, and his reasons for doing it, however if his reason for doing whatever it is Cabinet decides it wants to do is that New Zealanders who fight for terrorist organisations don't commit crimes, it will be suspect.
First day back in the office and National are trying to push through ill-conceived legislation or alterations, under urgency...
First. Bloody. Day!
Actually not. Tomorrow is merely the first cabinet. Which, if/when it agrees with Key, will announce terms of reference to an inquiry into whether urgent legislation is needed. They're not going to pass it on the first day Parliament sits (all they'll do that day is be sworn in and elect a Speaker), and they're not doing that this week.
Sorry! Comments now allowed.
Graeme- legal question: does money paid to internal pollsters have to be declared under the Electoral Finance Act?
No. Declarations of expenditure under the Electoral Act relate to advertising expenditure. If a focus group was involved in making ads, that might count, but general polling? No.
But does that mean that Key should not have to answer any questions about Ede? That Collins should (almost) stay a minister? That Katherine Rich should stay on the HPA?
There hasn't been a question time in a while. Surely it's at least possible that this will come up? :-)
EDIT: And of course, the list of people being slammed and smeared as “hackers” included … Keith Ng.
What are the salient facts that mean that Keith is not a hacker? (especially as might distinguish him from from Cameron Slater and Jason Ede and the Labour Party website?)
Remember, the Espiner interview hinged on his point-blank, repeated refusal to answer a reasonable question about the conduct of a Minister of the Crown.
Why did Richard Worth have to go as a Minister?
I read earlier that Labour only won the party vote in five electorates. I’m not sure that’s true, but it feels it.
Te Tai Hauāuru
Te Tai Tokerau
Te Tai Tonga
So if it’s not what the story says, what is he being prosecuted for?
He is not being prosecuted. He is being sued.
Prediction: Slater will be successful in getting an injunction against "Rawshark".
That is my prediction too.