Highlights a couple of the unplanned consequences of the current system,
I disagree. Entirely planned consequences, which were a clear policy choice subsequently confirmed by the recent Electoral Commission review of MMP.
Agree with the approach or not (and there are arguments both ways) this is not an accident.
Which I think means that he could resign, in order to install the next list MP, before the official return but after the polls have closed and by doing so he would not stand the risk of losing his place on the list if he were to lose, as it were?.
That's what I meant: after the voting, is fine, but if he resigns after the writ for the by-election is made official, he'd be resigning as the electorate MP, and then there'd have to be another by-election.
"Cray" or "Peak Cray".
Does knocking on a door, walking through it when opened from the other side, and making a statement of action – not a question – count as that?
There's some chance, yes. And a few other reasons as well. I didn't go into it deeply in my post given that he wasn't actually charged under that section.
It seems (let's await the report) Gerry Brownlee didn't (legally) get in trouble for not going through security screening, but for being in a security area without a boarding pass. Which is kind of funny, because it means he would have broken then law even if he had gone through security screening :-)
Keith, following answers are all as the answer would differ from the final result:
Scenario 1: IM would get two seats, National and Greens down one each.
Scenario 2: Maori Party gains one seat. Size of House increases to 122 (additional overhang).
Scenario 3: IM would get two seats, National and Greens down one each. Maori Party gains one seat. Size of House increases to 122 (additional overhang).
Scenario 4: Size of House decreases to 120 (no overhang caused by Dunne)
Scenario 5: IM would get two seats, Maori Party gains one seat, National and Greens down one each. Size of House stays same (121), but cause of overhang changes from Dunne to Maori Party.
Let’s then imagine some young New Zealander who goes over to Iraq/Syria, goes through an ISIS training camp, lugs an AK47 around the countryside, guards an ammunition dump, shoots at a bunch of Kurdish forces (not civilians) and then gets sick of it all and heads back to NZ.
Guarding an ammunition dump enhances the ability of ISIS to carry out terrorist acts.
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.