Legal Beagle: If we only had time
155 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
I would have presumed that they could have just counted the CIR the next day, but apparently the law states that preliminary results must be out that night, which I guess means about half again as many vote counters to count the referendum.
Yes, or we could amend the law to allow the votes to be left in a locked strong box and counted the following day. People want to know who their new Government is a.s.a.p. but I'm sure they can wait a day to find out the results of a CIR.
You've made some fair points but you characterise the argument for separating CIRs from elections as being somehow disingenuous.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think CIR's should be tied to the next available General/Local Body election per se; I just think that in this instance it would be more practicable and economical (despite some saying there is no cost saving) to run it with the General Election.
If the referendum is delayed, I doubt there'll be 1 million votes... maybe not half a mill?
Which is why my cold black cynical heart thinks there is skulduggery afoot. Look, I get it: If less than half a million turn out for a CIR (one not held with a General Election) then it will be easier for the government to dismiss the result as not definitive (esp. if the turnout is even less than the 350k who signed the petition).
And again I say: I support the current legislation and will vote against the CIR proposition BUT the promoters of that referendum have done what is legally required so I believe that in the interests of democracy we need to have the CIR (in a timely manner).the promoters of that referendum have done what is legally required
Or have they? It would be 'funny' if the new signatures were struck out as duplicates and they still didn't have the numbers!
-
what Steve Withers just said
Yeah, it's bizarre/appalling/sickening that a jury could accept the Section 59 defence in those instances. It defies logic, and yet because juries kept acquitting the new legislation became imperative.
Maybe we need similar legislation for the Police, since one jury at least thinks 4 policemen batoning and pepper spraying a prisoner for 20 minutes is 'reasonable'. And the judge is complicit ~ he doesn't think we can be trusted with seeing the 3 hour video. We might just skip to the juicy bits and not understand why the cops needed to do what they did.
-
A S,
It's that easy for the Chief Electoral Office to get extra funds? Really? I find that rather hard to believe. There's a reason that the Budget is handled in legislation.
Yes it is that easy. In fact it happens on an almost weekly basis. Where else do you think those random announcements of additional $ for various things get the money from? Most of those were never announced or planned for in the budget.
If the will to have a CIR is there obtaining the funding can be done very quickly, and very simply.
If anyone seriously believes that cabinet couldn't find an extra $10 or $20 mil for this if govt thought it would be of benefit to them, I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying.
-
And expanding on the whole politics as theatre meme, I wonder how many politicians and media folks secretly (and not so secretly) think voters are much like Mrs Guy Ritchie in this clip...
-
"And sometimes, Jeremy, I resist the urge to give snide comments like that the slap they deserve. Aren't you a lucky bugger that this is one of them?"
the slap? shut up and write.
-
This is covered in that document. More booths, more staff, more counters.
Well, Kyle, the Hunn/Smith Review of the General Election Process 1999 expressed concerns over the number of polling places, staff numbers and training, and whether voters and poll workers were 'confused' by the then relatively new MMP ballot. If those concerned haven't actually been addressed two full electoral cycles (and nine years) later, someone has 'plaining to do!
After all, there was no problem jamming the House into extreme urgency to pass a bill to protect Harry Dynhoven's arse. Hunn/Smith puts a pretty good case that proper resourcing to hire and train enough staff to properly staff polling places is critical. Not any kind of argument for abolishing MMP.
And since Clark is still banging the 'voter confusion' drum, I wonder if she's now planning to abolish STV for local body elections and elected health boards. I don't know if there's any empirical evidence to back this up, but some might argue that 'voter confusion' might have played a big part in the historically low turnout last time. Guess postal ballots aren't the participation magic bullet some would like to think, but that's a whole other kete of kai moana.
And could someone answer this (serious) question for me -- aren't there contingencies in place if, say, there's a snap election called or the Government loses confidence and supply? Isn't that always possible, if not likely?
-
the slap? shut up and write.
My pleasure. Don't fucking call me a party hack again, arse-wipe. If I'm wrong on a point of fact, please put me right. If you've got a counter argument, bring it on. Who knows, you might just change my mind.
But in case you haven't noticed, I get very cranky indeed about being called a liar or a party hack. Just assume that I'm always speaking on my own behalf, and arguing in good faith, and I'll repay the courtesy.
-
i meant write about the topic but if ya can't take criticism and you want to tell people you are going to slap them (idiot term )you've got to expect and deseve the odd 'fuck off'
grow up, look at your writing, accept the comment. You come across as a man widly in love with the national party so don't be suprised to here that as a criticism.
grow up.
-
look at your writing, accept the comment. You come across as a man wildly in love with the national party so don't be surprised to hear that as a criticism.
grow up.
I may be a voice in the wilderness here, but Craig's comments don't come across that way on my end. In fact, we're lucky he's still contributing here, given the number of people who've tried to paint him with the same brush as the average uninformed Kiwiblog troglodyte.
How accepting would you be of the 'cheering the team' comment directed at yourself?
-
Section 194(a) in the Crimes Act outlaws assulat on children. Section 59 offered a legal defence of reasonable force for purposes of correction. ... Assault on Children was never "legal".
False.
By analogy:
Section 209 of the Crimes Act outlaws kidnapping. Section 26 offers a legal defence of executing a lawful sentence to prison officials. Holding someone in prison against their will was never "legal".
or:
Section 196 of the Crimes Act outlaws assault. Section 32 offers a legal defence to a police officer arresting someone, and section 39 offers a legal defence to a police officer who uses reasonable force to effect that arrest. The police arresting people suspected of committing crimes has never been "legal".
This argument has always been a lie. And it was one of the reasons I got really annoyed with the pro-repeal crowd. They had plenty of great arguments to resort to without these falsehoods, yet they really didn't want to engage with anyone. Smacking children for the purposes of correction was always an assault, but it was legal.
-
Jeremy:
Take your own advice -- stick to the topic and avoid the snide and gratuitous accusations of bad faith. If you can't do that, don't be so damn precious when you get a reaction.
And WTF are you going on about with this: "You come across as a man widly in love with the national party so don't be suprised to here that as a criticism"? I've never kept on the downlow that I'm a member of the National Party, and was an officeholder in the Wellington Young Nats back in the 90's. And shock! horror! my POV on all kind of topics is ever so slightly rightward of your average PAS reader/contributor. I don't know if you've noticed, but PA isn't some kind of ideological circle jerk or Labour Party/left-wing country club where other POVs aren't welcome.
But a partisan hack? Please... if that's who I am on your planet, so be it. The reality is somewhat different.
-
OMG, I totally want to be able to smack bad parents!
(So I hope it's part of the general election, because that's the only kind I vote in from over here.)
-
And, Jeremy, if John Key agrees with me (and Mr. Edgeler and others on this thread) that the logistics argument against this CIR being held on E-Day is essentially bogus, isn't he a clever boy?
What a shame he didn't also recognise our wisdom on the bleeding Criminal Procedure Bill. If you think I'm a National Party hack, please check out my PAR piece on that subject. You can really tell I was cheering National on to support that abortion root and branch, can't you?
-
You can really tell I was cheering National on to support that abortion root and branch, can't you?
Don't tell Grant Dexter. That bill was an act as soon as it was first drafted.
-
__You can really tell I was cheering National on to support that abortion root and branch, can't you?__
Don't tell Grant Dexter. That bill was an act as soon as it was first drafted.
Shit, don't go putting that kind of thing in front of me at work. I've snorted my tea and people are staring.
-
Its worth bearing in mind that the Government is responsible for funding the Chief Electoral Office, and its worth remembering that the Chief Electoral Officer recommended a postal ballot in MARCH was because he didn't want to do an electoral referendum because he thought it would be too much hard work.
In other words, he couldn't be arsed even asking for funding to work a little harder. Parekura Horomia all over again.
Parliament could, if it so chooses, vote on a resolution requiring the voting period for a postal ballot to close on Election Day.
I love how PAS is all hi-falluting until it comes to senior public servants, and then feel free to talk up how crap they are, and they just get to sit there and take it.
As I understand it, parliament after 1999 passed a law to avoid having CIR and elections at the same time, because 1999 was a bit of a mess. Not just as an option if they couldn't do it at the same time, but as a preference. This was recommended by the select committee with multi-party representation, and voted on by parliament.
It's not the CEO not being arsed doing the work. Parliament passed to deal with this eventuality. He's recommended to cabinet, and they accepted his recommendation. If you want to bitch at anyone, go talk to 1999.
Annette King owned Bill English on Morning Report this morning. He was in it in the first half, but once she pointed out that he voted for the law that they were now implementing in 1999, he got flustered and had to fall back on "umm. Labour are blaming civil servants!". I think Sean Plunket had a big grin on his face listening to one interviewer flambe the other.
-
Don't tell Grant Dexter. That bill was an act as soon as it was first drafted.
Heh. I had to think about that twice before I got it.
-
Annette King owned Bill English on Morning Report this morning.
Meh... I'll give it another go, but I just zone out when King and English try to bellow over each other. But if you paraphrase is correct, it was a nice dodge on the part of Annette King. I had no idea electoral legislation was entrenched in 1999, nor do I think briefing notes have the status of legislation.
-
How accepting would you be of the 'cheering the team' comment directed at yourself.
If that's what you think that's something i will have to consider...but just to throw it back at me as some form of rebuttal is poor.
-
"How accepting would you be of the 'cheering the team' comment directed at yourself." - sam f
If that's what you think that's something i will have to consider...but just to throw it back at me as some form of rebuttal is poor.
-
"I've never kept on the downlow that I'm a member of the National Party, and was an officeholder in the Wellington Young Nats back in the 90's. And shock! horror! my POV on all kind of topics is ever so slightly rightward of your average PAS reader/contributor. I don't know if you've noticed, but PA isn't some kind of ideological circle jerk or Labour Party/left-wing country club where other POVs aren't welcome." - craig
Well I didn't know your past but it kind of stacks up to what I think..but I'm glad we've gone back to civil discussion.
Graeme has done a great job pointing out the rules but its hard for members of nick de angelos 'masses" not to look at what the rules are trying to promote and disagree with the rules and also question why we are revisting the question of child violence again...
hitting children is disgusting, hitting anyone is digusting..
and on the subject of hitting when anyone talks about slapping me (even conceptually) i get quite fucked off and defensive.
but for the record I've never belonged to a political party and I see this blog as a place of generally informed education and debate. If it has a left wing slant in anyones eyes that's possibly a critique on what stands for conservatism today.
-
As I understand it, parliament after 1999 passed a law to avoid having CIR and elections at the same time, because 1999 was a bit of a mess. Not just as an option if they couldn't do it at the same time, but as a preference.
If they'd wanted to do that, they'd have simply replaced the option of holding a vote at an election with postal voting.
Indeed, the law as amended specifically allows for Parliament to override the decision of the Cabinet to hold a postal ballot to require, if there's a snap election. Parliament can insist that the last day for sending in postal ballots on the referendum is the polling day. There is still a pretty strong presumption that the two should be held concurrently.
-
hitting children is disgusting, hitting anyone is digusting..
and on the subject of hitting when anyone talks about slapping me (even conceptually) i get quite fucked off and defensive.
Well, I am sincerely sorry if you a very strongly worded exception to your attack on my honesty as a physical threat. But do you get why I get offended and defensive in turn when accused of being any kind of National Party sock-puppet? That is a full frontal attack on my personal and professional integrity, and I'm just not going to wear it Jeremy.
-
Oh, and Jeremy as far as I'm concerned correspondence on this matter is at an end. You're either being obtuse or deliberately baiting me, and either way I'm not playing.
-
"That is a full frontal attack on my personal and professional integrity, and I'm just not going to wear it Jeremy."
It's hardly a scandal to note your strong National Party leanings , if you want poiltical integrity then earn it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.