Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Man you could have warned us
Agreed ... especially when there are statements like this:
When will the taxpayers of New Zealand be freed from having to watch hundreds of millions of public dollars being shovelled at Maori, who make up less than 15 per cent of the population? (In the 2006 Census, there were 565,329 people who identified with the Maori ethnic group, and 643,977 who were of Maori descent.)
Where on Earth was the sub? Writing 565,329 for 565,326 I can understand, but the number of New Zealanders of Māori descent was 721,431 - nearly 18%.
-
But it is school holidays, and it was better to leave it out than hogtie the grown-ups' conversation.
Of course, it's a legitimate decision to make, my point was that it wasn't one that was necessarily forced on you, and that the conversation wouldn't be hogtied.
At the beginning of the programme place a warning about the content; introduce the segment (and the video) with another warning; swear like sailors. I think you'd be on good footing before the BSA.
That said, I probably agree with the decision, I just think it is legitimately editorial, and you could have properly made the other one within the limits of our broadcasting regulation. Your suggestion that "we've had to do something completely different for the single daytime screening of the show" sounded like it was a management-imposed (not necessarily directly) ruling. If it's an official policy, then I think its restrictions are beyond those required by broadcasting standards.
And I'm going to have to record both versions now, aren't I?
-
Of course, we've had to do something completely different for the single daytime screening of the show.
I've been looking out for things like this following the introduction of 3plus1. TV3 has infomercials until 6am on a Saturday, but now only until 5am on a Sunday - because the time-delayed replay on 3plus1 would breach the Broadcasting Act prohibition on TV ads between 6am and midday on Sundays. I believe they stopped airing ads from 11pm on Maunday Thursday and Holy Saturday because of the limitations on Easter programming.
They'll have similar concerns to you over programming limits around programming classification - the requirement to air only G-rated programmes between 4pm and 7pm now commences at 3pm for TV3.
I'm a little surprise TVNZ hasn't concluded that Media7 is 'current affairs', and thus could be aired whenever as long as there are appropriate pre-programme and in-programme warnings.
-
-
Referenda are a little binary too, in 1992 the Swiss (78.7%) of them at least voted 49.7% yes and 50.3% no to joining the European economic area.
Representative democracy and parliamentary law-making are just as binary. How would it be any different if 49.7% of MPs voted yes, and 50.3% voted no on legislation that would mean Switzerland would join the European economic area?
-
That's a really interesting way of looking at it Angus:
ACT supports referendums on spending decisions so is hypocritical if it opposes referendums on selling decisions.
Labour supports referendums on selling decisions so is hypocritical if it opposes referendums on spending decisions.
-
Doing it this way is more fun, and gets an hour devoted solely to the topic, rather than a 10-minute call.
[Parliamentary procedure nerd alert]
The first reading debate of a member's bill is a 65-minute debate; and calls in the general debate are 5 minutes each, not 10.
-
On the more general issue, I would like to see a BORA check on referenda (because there's none at the moment).
Well, there is a check on binding referendums - because each binding referendum requires legislation to give it force, and that legislation is subject to a check (binding local referendums are subject to the Bill of Rights generally, and specifically under s 155(3)).
It's true that there isn't on CIRs, but I'm not sure it would actually make sense ... I'm not sure how a CIR can actually affect a right. We could have a CIR vote in favour of killing all blonde babies, but the rights of blonde babies to live wouldn't be impinged.
-
Well, I was more wondering whether Mallard's deep concern for tightly-drafted legislation was more a flag of convenience under which to (as Russell put it) "avoid talking about the issue."
Eminently possible; but I don't care why he came 'round, just that he has. And in his next stint in government, I'm going to hold him to it.
-
Um, yes... Isn't a select committee stage meant to work on "faults' in the legislation under consideration? Sorry for being a bitch on a Friday avo, but its not as if Mallard's had any problem voting to advance poorly drafted legislation before.
Minor errors, sure, but we've seen what happens when incredibly inept legislation gets to select committee - the entire debate gets side-tracked, and while you're fixing all the major problems, the more minor - but still important - problems go un-noticed and unfixed.
I did first point out the contrast between the actions in government and those in opposition, but personally, I much prefer that he's come out with this argument now, then not at all.
When Labour next gets into government I like the idea of being able to point to this and asking for consistency. It certainly beats the analogy we're going through here: you didn't support good legislative practice while in Government, why do you insist upon it now? Doesn't really strike me as a line of attack I want to be running.