Island Life by David Slack

New Zealand the way I want it? They can have New Zealand, I'm not moving back there. But that Aotearoa place sounds nice....

I intended to go tonight, but can't.

Is there a stream of consciousness, from tonight, issuing forth tomorrow on your blog site?

Is this the kind of thing one can legitimately go to 'unaccompanied' without looking a little lame?

Is this the kind of thing one can legitimately go to 'unaccompanied' without looking a little lame?

Of course. Come and say hello.

Of course. Come and say hello.

Ditto.

Judy, I can promise that at the very least the stuff on SPARC should make it into a post tomorrow.

Is this the kind of thing one can legitimately go to 'unaccompanied' without looking a little lame?

I think they call that going stag...or commando... or commando stag...

either way only paris hilton needs an entrouge to go somewhere and look how lame she is!

See you there!

So looking forward to hearing you tonight David, thanks for plugging it here and on Nat Rad.

I'm coming unaccompanied, if by unaccompanied you mean the Mr is staying home and caring for the bairn ;-)

Also there is some talk of trying to take some video, as Wellington did with Michael Cullen, so as long as the technical ducks are in a row you may be able to watch Judy!

Who could argue with that! I'm convinced.

I'm sure there will be plenty of liberal drinking in the PAS meet-up in Dunedin this even as well.

I'm sure there will be plenty of liberal drinking in the PAS meet-up in Dunedin this even as well.

Y'know, if it wasn't for this post, and iCal, I suspect I would have forgotten.

Umm, any lack of organisation tonight I blame Grant. For convenience sake.

I thought going commando meant you weren't wearing underwear.

WHatever floats your boat Mark, they're liberal. ANd they'll be drinking.

I'm a little scared it'll be too packed to reach the bar. Other than that, should be fun!

Andrew, please! Don't mistake a question for a 'come hither...'

David, thanks so much for speaking last night, it was fantastic and we have had lots of positive feedback. Look forward to some of your ideas making it into your blog posts.

For those who couldn't make it we are hoping to get some video up on the Facebook page and probably The Standard in the next few days, but there may have been some issues with the sound (interference with the radio frequency of the mic Lyn tells me) so I can't make any promises.

Big ups to everyone who came along and made it a success, if you want to make sure you get advance warning of future events please join the Facebook group 'Drinking Liberally NZ' or email me.

Wish I could have made it. Next time though

I'm sure there will be plenty of liberal drinking in the PAS meet-up in Dunedin this even as well.

Reports?

I'm sorry, I suspect your complimentary coffee didn't arrive. I did put through the order ...

Reports?

I'm sorry, I suspect your complimentary coffee didn't arrive. I did put through the order ...

A vote was had, and we decided that we didn't like you anymore, due to the lack of coffee. I spoke out in your defence, but only because my name was pulled out of the hat and I won the CD! Sweet.

Actually it was the quintessential Dunedin experience. Six people meet up and discover that they all know the same people. We drunk beer to cope with the trauma and gossiped about PA, the elections, what we've all done with our lives to that point.

Good fun, no doubt repeated soon. Thanks to Grant for making it happen.

And despite the lack of coffee, thanks to Russell for remembering us down here. Free Monteiths!

Reports?

I'm sorry, I suspect your complimentary coffee didn't arrive. I did put through the order ...

I put one on this morning's Hard News a couple of hours ago. Hopefully the coffee will turn up sooner or later.

I see Margaret Wilson is speaking at the next Drinking Liberally.

Can someone please ask the Madame Speaker why she does not require that members answer oral questions, instead allows them to merely address them?

It may be fun to hear a Minister insulting Gerry Brownlee, or Winston Peters exercising his wit, but it certainly isn't informative. When the Government refuses to answer a question, it is an insult to the public they are accountable to.

The problem isn't unique to the current Government; there is long precedent, but this Government has done nothing to change the situation.

Can someone please ask the Madame Speaker why she does not require that members answer oral questions, instead allows them to merely address them?

To be fair to Margaret Wilson (gag), that's not what Standing Order 377 requires:

**377 Contents of replies**

(1) An answer that seeks to address {emphasis added - not in original} the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.

(2) The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the
subject-matter of the question asked, and not contain—
(a) statements of facts and the names of any persons unless
they are strictly necessary to answer the question, or
(b) arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets or ironical
expressions, or
(c) discreditable references to the House or any member of
Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression.

(3) Replies shall not refer to proceedings in committee at meetings
closed to the public that have not yet been reported to the House or
(subject to Standing Order 111) to a case pending adjudication by
a court.

Now it's fair to argue that Wilson takes a broader view of what constitues "addressing" a question than she should, or even than other Speakers have in the past. I certainly think she tends to let some individuals (on all sides) get away with bloody murder.

But I think it's fair to say Ms. Wilson has said that you're always going to find members who don't feel a question has been answered to their satisfaction (and Ministers who don't think the question is in order in the first place, come to that), but that's a matter of political judgment. The Speaker's job is to apply standing orders and ensure the smooth running of the House.

It's been a while since I've read the standing orders...

and [may] not contain—

(b) arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets or ironical
expressions

Which would rule out a very large number of the answers the Government has given in the last term. It's a moot point anyway now, as there will very likely be a new speaker next term. I do hope the next one has more respect for the function of parliament, and a more demanding interpretation of the standing orders.

It's a moot point anyway now, as there will very likely be a new speaker next term

Very likely? Certainly, as Wilson is retiring. I do kind of agree with you that I hope whoever replaces Wilson will be a little less indulgent of bullshit. Seriously, any remember the last time Winston Peters raised a point of order that wasn't just a pretext to stand up and say something bitchy?

You expect any speaker to stop Winston from being bitchy? Wow, that's a pretty high standard to set ;-) Maybe Sean Plunkett should be the next Speaker then?