Yes, I noticed that. It'd be good to have a second opinion, though. Even if from a lawyer who knows lots about parliamentary process.
So... Matt Doocey's "Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill" was drawn from the ballot yesterday. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/proposed-members-bills/document/51HOOOCBallot201608251/members-bills-ballot-for-thursday-25-august-2016
To the best of my limited ability when comparing with the Companies Act, it seems to adjust the Companies Act so that when a Board sends an Annual Report to all shareholders, it has to be provided free of charge, clarifies that it can now be provided electronically if the shareholder agrees, and adjusts the ways in which the board is required to inform shareholders that they're entitled to receive those copies.
Is that typically statutes amendment stuff, or is it actually worthy of a Members' Bill?
That all means the TPP is functionally dead.
Pardon my cynicism, but I'm sure the TPP has been declared dead by its opponents, and then somehow re-risen, multiple times over the past several years. I'm not going to underestimate the potential for the world of US politics to somehow find a way, and I'll believe this zombie agreement is actually dead when I see it hanged, disembowelled, beheaded, quartered and incinerated beyond recognition.
is simply to reduce the mathematical possibility of non-government members bills from being randomly selected
Gerry Brownlee attempted to immediately progress this Bill to its Third Reading, which Winston Peters blocked for whatever reason.
This might have just been a damage control attempt by Brownlee, given the media coverage, whatever the reason that National stuffed it into the ballot beforehand.
I see Parliament's explanation is that "when a space on the Order Paper becomes available, a ballot is held to decide which members bill(s) will be introduced". Does this happen immediately, or does ballot-stuffing like this still delay any further Bills from being introduced for substantially longer, even if it goes through rapidly?
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.
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.
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...
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.