I recall facilitating a “consensus” process once and being reminded by the participants that “consensus” isn’t the same as “agreement” or “unanimous”
Merriam-Webster gives unanimity as one of the definitions of consensus.
The consensus definition in wikipedia of consensus decision-making is Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual.
You are happy with what the EC has produced, whereas I feel it is mere tinkering, and does not alter the status quo. In fact, it make worsens it.
I am not happy with the EC's recommendations. I think we shouldn't have a threshold at all, and that if we do, it should be much lower than 4%.
There is only one way it would happen, if one party sees it in their short term electoral interests to have the process taken out of MP’s hands more substantively, such as another Royal Commission, to settle the issue of changes to MMP.
I am reasonably confident we'd get the same answers we got from the Electoral Commission.
My error. I think Labour got support for the use of urgency?
Slightly more support, but still not really:
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. Urgency is sought because, for the bill to be effective, it has to be passed before the next sitting day.
A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.
Ayes 69 Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Noes 48 New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Abstentions 1 Hunt.
Motion agreed to.
Actually, that was one case where opposition support was sought and obtained.
The following is copied directly from Hansard (.pdf):
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Labour 50; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.
Bill read a third time.
I'm not in a position to dispute "sought", but you're going to need to offer a heck of an argument to convince me that this constitutes "obtained".
I’m amazed the Military Manoeuvres Bill is running so high.
I believe it's Richard Prosser's speech about how New Zealand First will be voting against the bill based on the threat of a Finnish invasion. Not quite virulent, but people were trying to make it happen at the time.
So the actual transactions took place immediately before and just after handover to a new general secretary. Later, under the new secretary, a correct return was filed (who thought to do that? why did they decide it was best?).
The first (and most important) transaction occurred in April, with the handover a little over three months later.
The correct return was filed in May this year, approximately 8 months after the handover. I understand the decision to do so was made during the process of preparing the annual return of donations, due by April 30 for the previous calendar year. Whether it was something picked up internally, or by the party's auditor, I don't know.
I can well imagine the new part secretary having a reasonable excuse for not declaring a $226.83 donation, but he's not on the hook for the earlier ones, so wouldn't be the person investigated or charged for those if it went to the police: that would be the old party secretary.
And like I say, I'd much prefer that the party itself carried any legal liability for errors like this.
So they 230 number was arrived at purely to match Labour’s number?
Maybe 230 is the level at which you get a good bulk purchasing discount? Or that will fit in a certain area of casino floor that will be made available?
equally unconcerned if National has a little “Oh, but it’s so complicated” brain-fade about properly disclosing over $400K in donations, and (yet again) nobody gets prosecuted.
That was possibly the stupidest non-prosecution of the whole lot.
If National had been charged – and they should have been – I have every confidence that they’d have pleaded guilty.
I will also point to you to this story I wrote about the GST issue]], where I point out that the error didn’t just put National over the broadcasting limit, but put them over the Electoral Act spending limit as well, and resulted in them filing a false election expense return.
Craig, what I have had enough of is exquisitely detailed attempts to beat up a story about the Labour party finances masquerading as the PAS “legal beagle”. Graeme Edgeler has managed to find the time to craft almost 1350 words on this non-issue