Posts by Phil Lyth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I pointed it out in my written submission on the bill. And in my oral submission.
Must remember to get up before I go to bed, if I ever want to be ahead of Edgler.
-
Put it another way: if Parliament back in 1993 had put a constraint of a fixed number of electorates on MMP (say 65, in the same way it has said 90 for SM) while keeping the principles for South Island and Maori seats, then over time there would be considerably larger North Island seats.
There would be today 16 South Island seats, average population 57,500, seven Maori seats, and only 42 North Island seats, with an average population 64,000.
North Island seats would be 12% larger, making a mockery of equal voting power.
-
Parliament has already declared that if we adopt Supplementary Member as our voting system, it will have 90 electorate MPs and 30 list MPs
I haven't been following this closely over the last few months, but it seems Parliament has made two contradictary statements in Schedule 2 of the Electoral Referendum Act.
First as above, and also saying that for all alternative voting systems:
The principles for determining the number of members of Parliament who represent Māori electorates will not change.
The principle of a fixed number of general electorate seats for the South Island will not change.With these two principles, and population changes, the composition of Parliament has changed from 60 general and 5 Maori electorates in 1999 to 63 and 7 today.
The two principles are incompatible with a static 90+30 SM system. Unless perhaps National is thinking of allowing widely varying quotas for South Island and North Island seats.
-
Lianne Dalziel has blogged on copyright and the use of urgency, including Curran's role.
Worth a read IMHO.
-
And just as you can't sue the government for demolishing your quake-affected building using civil defence powers.
In other news, while the UFB bill is still at select committee, two parties are calling for amendments to reach bi-partisan support.
Labour's Clare Curran last Thursday:
Phil Goff has written to the Prime Minister today requesting his engagement to achieve a consensus on the Bill and work through the amendments needed to ensure bi-partisan support.
Greens' Gareth Hughes this afternoon:
I’d like to propose a UFB truce – opposition parties won’t attack the Government for not rushing to deliver on their broadband plan if the Government takes a pause and works constructively with other parties to develop durable and broadly-supported legislation.
-
Hard News: Time to get a grip, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Having worked for list MPs, I can say:
1) They (at least some of them) work damn hard on constituency cases
2) I heard one MP's out-of-Parliament-secretary (OOPS) say, 'My goodness, for years I bagged MPs, but now I see how hard this one works.'Just saying
-
Graeme, can you comment on what appear to be hugely excessive delays in the Courts. Power is promoting these changes to speed things up. But is it just a case of an administrative shambles?
Anyone can track the lack of progress of cases. For example, the former ACC manager who was sentenced yesterday for accepting bribes: took 11 months from coming into the public eye till sentencing.
Justice delayed is justice denied and all that. Why are the Courts not dealing fast - and fair - instead of being the last vestige of Gliding On?
-
Legal Beagle: Hidden in plain sight, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
That there was a jury in the manslaughter(?) charge against the police officer against whom a private prosecution was brought for the death of Stephen Wallace probably allayed the anger of the family more than a judge-directed acquittal ever could.
Exactly. The whanau may not have liked the verdict, but I suggest they could more readily accept it from a jury of twelve good men (and women) picked at random.
-
Very very late to the party. Australia has precedent for waiving immunity (not that I know that there is any for the Aussies sworn in as NZ cops.) A few years ago, they did so in the case of a diplomat's partner who stabbed someone in a Wellington bar IIRC. Case went to trial, conviction, and imprisonment.
-
I cannot see the reason for a judge alone trial being anything other than “the trial is likely to take three months, and the chance that with a jury that it would be more complicated, and take longer, and possibly have to be abandoned would be substantially higher than normal”
In recent times a jury coped with a three month trial and delivered a verdict - 6 March - 5 June 2009 in Christchurch. That was the Bain retrial. I am only mentioning the length, not making any comment about what happened.