Also the next time Chris Bishop says “X isn’t suitable for a Statutes Amendment Bill”, we can simply point to this, and tell him to go away?
why would a bylaw saying “Queenstown airport may sell lost property by way of an auction on the Trade Me website” be ultra vires?
I’m not saying it would. On balance, I agree with you. I’m think it would probably be lawful. Perhaps even highly probably so. The beauty of select committee consideration of legislation is that we can turn very high probabilities into certainties. And for me, that’s appropriately part of the test of when select committee consideration can be justifiably dispensed with: are we certain the legislation is flawless?
The SOP that added Doocey’s Bill to the Statutes Amendment Bill was not an opposition measure.
No, but the opposition didn't object, and it would only have taken one.
If he really believed that, I wonder why he didn’t object to Seymour’s SOP, which would have prevented the SOP being adopted?
Caucus collective whatever it is, and absence from the House at the time it happened.
What currently prevents an airport authority from making a bylaw under s.9 that allows for on-line auction sales? How is that not “providing for the sale by way of auction of any such property that is unclaimed”?
Statutory interpretation in light of similar auction laws, and the amendments to the Policing legislation needing to be explicit?
So, 2000 votes are cast. 1334 are needed to win. One candidate gets 1500. All the second preference votes are calculated and pro-rata shared into 166 votes (ie. 1500-1334) and then that amount of votes gets allocated for the next count.
Candidate one keeps 1334 of their votes. Which is made up on 1500 votes worth 0.889333... votes each (this is called the "keep value"). And 1500 votes worth 0.11666... votes get added to the second preference choices of each of the 1500 votes .
Before computers some elections have used the last 134 votes, or the a random 134 votes, but we don't. I think there was once a recount in an Australian election where the vote changed because different votes were counted last. But it cannot happen here.
IANAL. Is that what counts as ‘aggravated’?
The Assault is Aggravated because it was done with the intention of interfering with a police officer doing their duty.
Aggravated assaults also include assaults for the purpose of escaping or avoiding arrest.
putting the officer in hospital for two weeks?
That's another problem with some (although this time, not all) of the reporting. I understand the hospital stay lasted 15 hours, not 15 days.
And, of course, Delegat was it seems, originally charged with injuring with intent.
Also, Kingi isn't really in a position to argue his assault did not intend injury, given he admitted that when he pleaded guilty.
I’d also been puzzled as to why community detention wasn’t considered – but of course
I've replied via email.
…what does it seem when you weigh the sentencing in light of the true facts?
Still basically fine, to be honest. We do try to keep first-time 18 year-old defendants out of prison where possible.
To be honest, even with the higher charge with the three year max, a discharge without conviction still wasn’t totally impossible, as the discharge Hautahi Kingi ultimately received shows (his charge was assault with intent to injure, which is also 3 years max).
Is the Spinoff an independent blog or is there a media outlet (or NZ on Air) funding behind it?
It's not and a blog, and I don't believe there's another media outlet (or NZ on Air) funding it.
I don't see why an online outlet should become a Press Council member, especially if they come out with rulings like this.
Membership of the Press Council provides certain rights in court proceedings, that are not available to media outlets that aren't members of it or the BSA.
I, too, will be rank-ordering all the candidates – and putting the lowest number against my least-favoured candidate – for both the mayor and councillor elections.
You put the lowest number next to your *most*-favoured candidate!
I have a feeling, however, that the resistance you encountered at that meeting, was at least partly to do with the fact that the candidates instinctively felt that by answering your (great) question, they would be helping their opponent(s), perhaps at their own cost.
I assumed it was because they were scared of either: (1) appearing defeatist; or (2) scaring off voters who might vote for them, but are against the person they name.