Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Shirtcliffe et al declare for SM
No great surprise there. It will be interesting to see who slots in behind. ACT? John Key? The Herald? etc.
-
New Zealand's Terenzo Bozzone was too quick on the half-marathon leg to secure victory in the Texas half-ironman in Galveston yesterday.
It's just missing a comma, though even then it could still be better-phrased.
-
via a guy complaining about the choice of colours for this map
And you can add New Zealand to that map, so we shouldn't be too derisory.
Indeed, the US is one of the more restrictive countries in the world in respect of cousin marriage.
-
The Irish got rid of the Windsors in 64 pages of biggish print.
And the law creating a public holiday for the King's Birthday is still on the books?
The idea that enacting the constitution is all they did, is, I suspect, misplaced.
It only took New Zealand 30 pages to create a system of civil unions. It took 240 pages to give those full legal meaning.
-
Is this the right time to mention Panopticlick's browser uniqueness test?
Yes.
That is seriously awesome.
-
Perhaps someone should convince a masters or honours student at Vic ... to have a whack at drafting something for the research paper requirement
Now that's just mean. Did you miss the bit where I predicted it would be over 240 pages long?
-
It would seem to make sense if there was a 'conduct of referenda' Act which provided a central reference point for any time someone wanted to put up a bill which included referenda.
Absolutely. It's my intention to suggest this in my select committee submission on both the MMP referedum bill, and the upcoming electoral finance reform legislation.
We have the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act (based on the one-off used for the binding superannuation referendum in 1997) which says how to conduct postal votes. it shouldn't be too difficult to create a generic referendum/referendum advertising law based on the upcoming MMP rules.
-
We are serious about having a debate. The side avoiding the debate here are the monarchists.
Why would you want a debate with the Monarchist League, or monarchists generally? We are not going to have a republic when you convince the monarchists it's a good idea, we're going to have a republic when you convince everyone else it's a good idea.
You need a debate with 'average' New Zealanders: what do you want from your Government? Shouldn't your nation represent you better to the world? How would you like to see New Zealand's advance in the 21st century reflected in the way our society operates at a fundamental level?
-
If the bill had made it to select committee, wouldn't a lot of the weirder stuff you've mentioned been weeded out, leaving a better framework for constitutional change should someone decide to have another stab further down the line?
It may have, if the bill had made it out of select committee. But a select committee inquiry - rather than a debate on a bill - would be a better way of doing that.
But while there were problems with the content of the bill, the funnier - more serious - problems were with what wasn't in the bill.
Find out if the people, in general terms, want a republic, and then present the available models to Parliament?
A well-phrased poll will achieve that at a fraction of the cost. We already know how people feel about a republic. A fair proportion think it's a pretty good idea, but it's not a big deal or a pressing need for more than a smallish minority.
Get a few thousand people marching down Queen Street calling for an indigenous Head of State, like we had calling for Māori seats on the Auckland Super Council, and people might take notice. The Republic Movement mostly has the right idea. Convince people of the need for a republic first, and then go through the formal process.
Hold debates and public meetings, send out leaflets, call talkback and convince the listening public, sign petitions calling for meaningful steps toward a republic, and when you got a groundswell of support, get back to of us.
-
Which is what happens with member's bills. Unlike the government, opposition MPs don't have a large professional staff of analysts to work out all of what has to be done, or drafters to make sure the law actually does it without perverse consequences. And when you're looking at the sort of job which basically requires a royal commission (oh, the irony), that's a bit difficult.
Yes it is. Thus my quote:
This does, perhaps unfortunately, show that this debate is not going to be one that an individual MP can thrust onto the stage with a members' bill.
There are legislative steps an individual member of the Parliament could to move the process forward. A bill setting up a Citizens Assembly to look into it is one. And there are others. I'd have thought that a select committee inquiry would be a good way for an MP to make the first step.
The Maori Party got a constitutional review as part of it's confidence and supply agreement, I don't see why the Greens shouldn't get an inquiry into a Republic (or in a more closely balanced future Parliament, couldn't force a select committee inquiry of one, as Hone Harawira has into the effects of tobacco on Maori).
But this big bang route was simply hubris.