Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
__You weren't prosecuted under the identical offence when it carried a $15 fine (max $150), why are you concerned that you would be now that it carries a $30 fine (max $300)?__
Fair point - though the figures you give are wrong if the news reports are anything to go by: add another 0 to all of them.
Different penalties for first offences and second offences. I'm presuming no-one who is concerned here (or about whom those who are here are concerned) has a previous conviction for truancy? If so, the fines are certainly as I describe them, and the law otherwise unchanged.
-
The repeal of S59 did not want to put definitions in because this would give licence for some punishments to be interpreted as OK. (Ideally it would read "No child should be hit ever".)
There were some who supported an explicit ban, but I think most who supported the bill did not want light smacking to be criminal. They were okay with the final result despite the law's drafting, not because of it, but mollified by the promise that the police would not prosecute inconsequential offending.
Why is that obvious caveat insufficient here? The law already makes truancy for good reasons illegal. This law just doubles the penalties, and allows the Ministry of Education, rather the schools(!) to bring prosecutions. It doesn't change the offence - exactly the same actions will be illegal after it as before it.
You weren't prosecuted under the identical offence when it carried a $15 fine (max $150), why are you concerned that you would be now that it carries a $30 fine (max $300)?
-
how cool would it be if the Obama girls were enrolled in a public school?
Don't they have top be? That's what happened to the Santos kids in The West Wing.
-
__The fines are aimed at those parents who just do not give a f&*k.__
One of the points of a select committee process is to ensure that legislation does in fact end up doing what it is supposed to. If the goal here is to target parents "just dont give a f&*k" the process would have ended up with a robust definition of what this might mean.
Ignoring my personal views on the truancy prosecution question, I find it interesting that <massively simplifying things> conservatives and liberals have swapped arguments for this debate.
In the debate over section 59, conservatives were pushing for a definition that meant they didn't have to rely on prosecutorial discretion to avoid conviction for light smacking. Liberals were quite happy to use the 'it might technically be illegal, but good parents have nothing to fear' line of argument.
It's now about potential prosecution of parents of school-phobics etc. And liberals want the law to recognise that certain actions shouldn't be illegal, and conservatives are happy to rely on the 'this is about sending a message to bad parents' line.
Is anyone who has this inconsistency in his or her position concerned about this?
-
sagenz - the EFA was not passed under urgency.
-
Also, the MyFreeview HD PVR (officially, they're calling it a "DTR" or digital television recorder, because that's the name that came up best in consumer research) should be in the shops today.
If only.
I've been to two stores already (DSE, JB Hi-Fi), and no-one can sell me a FreeVo.
-
On both their Houses!
**Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill
First Reading**Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill be now read a first time.
Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it not be appropriate for us to see this bill?
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. [Interruption] The bill is on the Table.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Speaking to the point of order, I say that a copy of this bill was made available to National Party members this morning before their caucus.
Gerry Brownlee: The bill was delivered to us halfway through our caucus this morning. One copy was given to me, and another copy was given to Dr Brash. There are only two copies on this side of the Table, and they were brought into the House just as Dr Cullen was about to speak. This debate should not progress until there are sufficient copies on the Table for every member to have an opportunity to read it.
Madam SPEAKER: I understand that copies of the bill are available for members on the Table.
Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave for the House to adjourn for 20 minutes while the bill is distributed.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes, there is. [Interruption] Members, please, we will preserve a little bit of respect and decorum.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Of course, when bills are moved for introduction and passing under urgency, they are tabled subsequent to the motion being approved.
[final emphasis added]
-
Also, the MyFreeview HD PVR (officially, they're calling it a "DTR" or digital television recorder, because that's the name that came up best in consumer research) should be in the shops today.
I'm trying to get the name FreeVo off the ground.
Who's with me?
-
Yes, you can make money off an asset by renting it out, that's stretching 'investment' a long way.
Really?
Isn't that what all those people with "investment properties" are trying to do?
-
I'd go with __out__ducted.
But for me, I really don't think my over-riding memory of OJ will be his fall. It probably will be his acting, and through his acting, his place in sport (as in 'there's that actor who got to be an actor because he was a cool football player').
It's kinda odd - maybe I didn't follow the trial closely enough?