Leaders of the Opposition have had this fund for a while. It can be used for preparation-to-be-PM across any policy area, not just foreign policy and economics. It's only available to the leader of the largest opposition party, although there may be other facilities I'm unaware of for leaders of other parties.
Overseas travel by other non-Ministers can be met out of a party's general funding allocation (ie the money used to fund staff, pledge cards etc.) if approved by the Speaker.
The special Leader of Opposition overseas travel fund is up to $150000.
I'd be rather interested to hear from either of those two about their experience on the inside.
Well, except you're not going to hear of their experience. If Sia or Andrew (or Rob) had, for example, experienced their leadership calling a waiter a c***, there's no way it would appear in a post about their experience on the inside, while they're still inside.
Second, Muriel Newman was the deputy leader of ACT during the foreshore and seabed debate, when ACT DID vociferously argue against the legislation on the basis of the protection of private property rights:
Well, that's one way of looking at it, but here's Richard Prebble saying:
"Labour could say the foreshore, like the Queen's Chain, belongs to us all and no claim will be considered. ...
"I will be asking the ACT caucus, on Tuesday, for confirmation that we would vote with the Government if it brought in a package along the following lines:
· The law should confirm that foreshore and seabed are the Crown's, or held on grant from the Crown.
· That there is no future customary right in foreshore and seabeds.
ACT was all over the place on the proper response to Ngati Apa.
Graeme’s post is a classic example of berating our ancestors for not having the same world views that we do.
That's probably fair.
I will note that my bigger concern is the criminal offences that remain. I have a concern about the powers, but it's not as big.
peaking of decades, it’s been customary since the mid 80s to consult with Maori when you make policy changes that affect them. I’m assuming Graeme and Trevor M have a process in mind for doing that?
Radio New Zealand has just published a story, currently headlined Maori Party backs call to change 'racist' law.
Speaking of decades, it’s been customary since the mid 80s to consult with Maori when you make policy changes that affect them. I’m assuming Graeme and Trevor M have a process in mind for doing that?
I don't make policy changes.
The extent of consultation I'll be doing is this blog post, and the tweets I sent out about it. I don't like to assume people are or are not Māori based on things like Twitter handles or profile pics, but there have been a number of Māori who have indicated support, or thanked me for pointing it out.
Green MP Marama Davidson said the law breached human rights https://twitter.com/MaramaDavidson/status/683082142595723264
And Māori Party co-leader Marama Fox said she would "absolutely" support the repeal bill
You don't like to assume RTs or follows are endorsements, but I noticed a couple of others from Maori MPs.
The only people expressing concern have appeared to be non-Māori (although they were also the expressing most of the support as well).
But consultation itself isn't something I'll be doing. Mostly, I'm here to let people know (because most people don't) and make action easy (by making a draft of the bill available, so there's no excuse not to start the process.
Radio New Zealand led the 7am news with this issue.
when there's no news, random bloggers make news!
What sorts of resources are regular MPs given in order to draft Bills prior to them going into the ballot?
They can seek assistance from the Office of the Clerk for drafting. Parties also have funding for policy staff who can assist, and discretionary budgets that could be used for seeking outside advice if it was thought important.
Of course, there are many calls on the use of resources, so I can’t really see any opposition MP ever really drafting a bill which would sensibly create a republic. I’ve no idea how well Kevin Hague actually did with his adoption bill (it would take a bit of effort for me to get up to speed to be able to tell whether it worked), but I imagine that was a major effort on his part.
Much of the rest of the Maori Community Development Act seems antiquated as well. Not only does it not use macrons, the word it actually uses for the offence provisions is “Maoris”. It’s not quite on the same level, however. There’s been a review of the whole act going on for a while, but that seems to have stalled somewhat. I figured this was bad enough that a members bill dealing just with this would be justified.
EDIT: this news article from 2014 looks at some of the reasons for the delay of the review of the whole act. The Maori Community Development Act provides for some elements of self-government for Māori, but it is antiquated, and the Government started looking at updating it (and the role of Māori Wardens, which are created under the Act) in 2009. There was a Waitangi Tribunal claim about the process (should TPK be reviewing the Act, and possibly recommending changes that might diminish self-government etc.?). The Waitangi Tribunal thought not, and said any review would be better led by the Māori Council. Things seems to have stalled.
While the broader questions are complex, and will probably take time to work through, I thought the offences provisions were worth highlighting. The offence provisions are themselves part of the self-government process, as charges can be heard by Maori Committees, but these aren’t just local matters: the offences can also be prosecuted by police in the ordinary criminal courts. And to me, a law which criminalises people of a certain race for doing things that people of other races can do lawfully seems wrong. Maybe Māori will disagree, but I thought that this discrete issue was something that could be looked at while the broader questions wait in limbo. I also figured most people, including most Māori, would have no idea these laws existed.
And of course, even the self-government permitted in these sections is limited. The general prohibition of the possession of alcohol in Māori meeting places can be overridden by a Māori Committee, but still not if the purpose of that meeting is dancing.
“Daesh” because they hate it.