surprisingly there is also this
Graeme: Would you be of a mind to provide a precis of the progress of the matter through the Courts? I note the settlement was described as 'out-of-court' and that I can find only a few references online to Court proceedings.
As an aside, my recollection is that protests at Parliament were often allowed to proceed until shortly before nightfall (including one where students occupied the top of the main steps).
talking about sleeping
More humbug. This idea has graduated on this blog to the status of accepted fact from humble beginnings of 'what a reporter wrote.' Weeks after the event. Of course the lawyers who checked the article would know that they would be free from any lawsuit by members of the jury.
If it happened, then why was nothing done at the time? Not by the judge who rules the room, nor by the prosecutor, nor by the defence? Was the reporter like the emperor who was the only one would could see his marvellous New Clothes?
it is a huge business and in some places a corrupt one at that.
Humbug. The unspoken inference that lotto in New Zealand is corrupt bears no resemblance to the facts. There has been, IIRC, one instance of a dishonest retailer in NZ, which was dealt with fairly thoroughly at the time.
who has been known to buy a ticket on occasion
Back to informal votes in the CIR, I've just received this email:
The number of informals will be reported at the CIR.
Chief Electoral Officer
Sacha: that was Ian MacKay's optimism rather than mine. I just quoted.
I'm with Craig Ranapia's implied position (Swoon!) that
meaningful political action and policy debate.
are far better than sound and fury.
The question is how to get more people engaging, when the environment is one where anyone putting forward a view often immediately faces intense hostility from many? Who would bell the cat?
And likewise, who will start meaningful political action and policy debate to change the CIR Act? Just wondering.
There has only been one postal referendum in NZ's history. In 1997 NZ voted emphatically on Winston Peters' idea for Compulsory Retirement Savings.
80.3% of all people enrolled returned their votes with 91.8% voting No. Over 73% of all people on the electoral roll were against.
I'm not expecting a result that clear-cut this time.
But looking back that was an astounding turnout, virtually double that for local bodiy elections. Probably because the question was so straightforward.
tomorrow will almost see the first ballot
tomorrow will almost certainly see the first ballot.
Stupid Edit feature: why does The Standard have the only good Edit feature in town?
If 300,0000 vote NO
150,000 vote YES
700,000 spoil papers
Then the headline would be "60% says its a stupid question" and the No vote would be of no significance to anyone who matters
The Bill requires the Clerk of the House to only allow referendum questions which are not ambiguous, complex, leading or misleading.
On the matter, tomorrow will almost see the first ballot for Members Bills in over 18 months. Due to the esoteric operation of Parliament's rules, there were no ballots last year, only 2 bills drawn in 2007, and 2006 was the last year that was significant ballot action.
Couldn't CIR be kicked to the Law Society?
The Law Society often makes submissions on bills, focusing not on policy but on whether the bill as written would make workable law. They are quite picky as you'd expect. I don't know if CIR proposals are on their radar, I would hope so.
There are no CIR proposals for open for submissions on wording. There is one (only) CIR petition with wording approved and open for signature - the Unite petition on the minimum wage
I must make a point of keeping an eye out for any new proposals.