Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
He did well yesterday when Smith was flat out evading a direct question from Mallard re the ACC Chair.
He did do well, but I think this is a little harsh on Nick Smith. He was asked a supplementary question (so without notice) about an apparent inconsistency with a statement he'd made to NZPA supposedly saying the opposite.
He didn't remember exactly what he'd said to NZPA, and didn't have it in front of him; he could have said, I don't recall exactly what I said to NZPA, so I can't answer the question about whether there is an inconsistency in my two statements. That wouldn't have been all that helpful. So instead he basically answered "here is exactly what happened ...". This provided much more information to the House/public, and would enable others to determine whether there was an inconsistency.
Mallard seemed to think the more helpful response would have been to refuse to answer the question because he couldn't recall what he'd said. Which he did at the second attempt, while alluding to his belief that that wouldn't have been all that helpful, so had taken the other course.
A little while later Smith came into the House, and sought leave to table the NZPA report, claiming that Mallard had completely mis-characterised it, and that there was no inconsistency.
-
Eh? You mean all the MPs who are Maori are in Maori seats? There are plenty that aren't: Georgina Te Heu Heu? Meteria Turei? Parekura Horomia?
I understood him to mean all Māori Party MPs were MPs in Māori electorates, which is true.
I would note, however, that Parekura Horomia is the member of Parliament for Ikaroa-Rawhiti.
-
Aren't all Maori MPs in Maori electorate seats? Which means it couldn't survive without 'em.
Why? All the Maori electorate voters would have to go somewhere. Who's to say what what happen in Northland (or Gisborne, at least once Hormoia is gone) if the electorate demographics (and boundaries) changed because a large number of people were suddenly moved to the general roll...
-
Um, FPP is not MMP.
Quite right. A fact that I'm surprised eludes some members of Parliament.
-
What I'd like to know ... is why all these list members of Parliament, who were elected at-large and support proportional representation in Parliament, are now speaking out against a proposal to bring that sort of election to Auckland...
[p.s. I just switched over to the Parliament channel]
-
From Hansard:
12. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she agree that information released under the Official Information Act by the Department of Corrections indicates that not one of the 423 prisoners serving life sentences would have been stopped by the proposed “three strikes” law?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): If, when the member says “the proposed ‘three strikes’ law” he actually means the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, then the answer is yes.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she agree with her support party colleague David Garrett, who said in the first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill that the victims of 77 murderers in jail “would be alive today if, at the time they were killed, this bill had been enforced. That is not arguable; it is simply arithmetic.”, a myth that he is continuing to mislead the public with even after he received the same advice from her department that proves it is not true?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The bill is currently before the Law and Order Committee. I am sure that the committee, of which the member is deputy chair, will be able to take into account all those sorts of comments, and it may well bring about changes.
...
David Garrett: Can she confirm that the difference, in effect, between ACT’s “three strikes” bill and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is National’s addition of a requirement that an offender must, in addition to having been convicted of a listed offence, have been sentenced to imprisonment for at least 5 years?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There is clearly a difference between the ACT policy and the bill as it was first introduced. But after the select committee has finished with the bill, I am not sure what it will come back with, because that will be a matter for the select committee to determine.
-
The $70K figure comes from s111(1) of the current Local Electoral Act, which at the top end contemplates population tiers of 100,000 - 149,999 people, 150,000 - 249,999, and then 250,000 and over. Far under the size of the Auckland region.
Yes, but there are already Auckland-sized elections - the Auckland Regional Council is about the same size as the intended new Auckland City. Admittedly it's not at large, but DHB elections are.
Certainly, spending limits have always been aimed at advertising only. Other spending - polling, get out the vote, door-knocking etc. aren't included.
-
Banks is rich, and can buy the media time. Brown and Harvey don't have the same resources.
There is a spending limit of $70,000 in local elections of this size.
-
I thought Graeme would at least be accurate in his area of expertise: yes, s55 of the Act has an MP vacating their seat when they become a public servant.
But s3(2) of the Act specifically excludes board members from the definition of 'public servant'...
Thus my quote was "This section of the Electoral Act is as close as you get ..."
i.e. not close enough.
-
How do you know where the Local Boards are going to be?
He's got you there. I would think it highly likely that the Auckland CBD would get its own board. If you think it unlikely, then you don't think it needs one, and I'd be at a loss to see how it's short-sighted...
Or do you think it should have a community board because giving it a local board would be giving it too much power.
Thus ... the problem with Twitter :-)