The authority concluded the publication of the decision was sufficient to mark the breach and no order was made.
Wow. Bet Hoskings was hiding under his bed terrified that an unfavourable decision was published.
If the BSA wanted to put up a big sign saying "WE ARE USELESS; SERVE NO PURPOSE; DO NOTHING FOR ANYONE' they could hardly have done so more eloquently.
Gormley has a few of these around the globe now
Up til now, we've happily been Gormless. Why should that change? (Even at a 'discount' $0.5m is dosh most chch artists can hardly dream of.)
Next thing will be trading commodified 'water futures' on the NZX. I.e. betting on the weather.
The blues were really good that year. Some people from not-auckland were worried this new commercial rugby setup was doomed to be onesided sweep with all the money, top players and coaches ending up in the blues.
Not so much this century. It's a national mystery.
Thanks Barnaby. You've encapsulated so much frustration and sadness.
Didn't the 2014 Labour Party election manifesto have much better policies (for example a special insurance court system) - and still got trounced? What's an Opposition to do when the citizenry vote against them?
Work harder? As stated, what we haven't seen is repeated hard determined questioning of the minister. All of these things should have been brought up again and again in the house. Media pick up on it, they become part of the story.
Then maybe we'd get a thorough debunking of the myth 'the rest of NZ' are paying heavily for Christchurch.
Maybe we'd get some scrutiny of the obscene slug-like convention centre Brownlee wants to be the heart of Chch. A business plan might even emerge.
Maybe the micro-managing decisions and the CCDU would be under the spotlight?
One of the strangest things in NZ politics over the last five years is the way National have maintained the reputation of being 'good managers' - despite most of their initiatives being moderate to massive flops.
Scarily, it's just possible the opposition would do worse :(
We need systemic change and bugger the centre.
I'm hoping enough of us will get on this train :)
enact stridently left policy on other issues that matter to the left.
Because poverty is something only the strident could possibly bother their little heads with?
Clever politics isn’t quite so patronising towards its base :)
There’s no reason a levy like that could not be distributed through a vehicle like NZ on Air, but with less control being ceded to boadcasters/publishers
Reckon it needs to be thought through a little better. NZ on Air has been a poor model in many ways.
And I feel ‘contestable funding’ generally is also a poor model – as pretty much anyone who’s tried to build a science career in NZ based on it will readily concede. Intermittent or project-based payment works ok for some things and some people. But it’s not going to give us reliable daily news- like eg RNZ.
On the same general topic: if anyone hasn't seen it, Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo is a completely 'new media' site, broadly focussed on US political news from left-of-centre. It's grown from one-man-blogging to a staff of about 20, I'd guess. Much of the appeal is the editorial comment - ranging from very insightful to bitingly sarcastic. In a vastly larger market, they've developed a subscriber model over the last two or three years - for stability and to supplement (what must have once been considerable, but is now likely declining) ad revenue. Here's the TPM pitch for subscribers.
for over 5 months after being given additional public prominence by the award win the book could be read, sold, shared and displayed completely free from any restrictions … yet the Board was still able to give it an R14 rating. … how would two-or-three months of free availability now prevent the Board from doing likewise?
Because then there’d be even more real evidence Into the River being freely available hasn’t harmed society and the sky hasn’t fallen?