Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks David. How'd you arrive at that page?
Don't know about him, but I make heavy use of the sidebar. Click on "questions for oral answer" in the frontpage "Quick Links", which takes you to the list, then click on it again (either at the top of the page, or in the side menu).
-
Now did anyone listen to Question Time to hear what the Minister said about her access to the SWIFTT database?
Nope - had a busy day. but it should be up on the website soon.
-
WTF indeed. Are they afraid he'll do a runner or something?
-
And while I'm embarrased to admit it, Gio has a point. I'm as hooked as anyone on cheap undies made in countries I know have less than ideal, to put it mildly, labour standards. Perhaps we all support slavery more than we'd like to own, George?
As I keep having to remind people: the definition of slavery is well-understood in international law. It means people who are owned, not people who are merely victims of poor labour standards. The language of the bill (and of the NZ Crimes Act) reflects that.
National voted last night that we should keep permitting goods made by slaves into the country. Oh, they said it was terrible and wrung their hands, but faced with a concrete opportunity to do something about it, they chose to do nothing (indeed, as george has pointed out, they chose not even to talk about it). If that is not support for slavery, what is?
-
And besides, when the choice presented itself to ratify the UN convention on children, Labour chose not to.
Que?
According to UNTC, NZ signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child on 1 October 1990, a month after it was opened for signature, and ratified it in 1993.
Methinks you're getting it confused with something else (the Disappearance Convention, perhaps?)
-
Provocation repeal drawn from the ballot. Woo-hoo!
-
Note that it can't really be argued that private schools repay X amount of their funding in income tax, since so many of them are actually run by charitable trusts.
Snobbery, like prize money for rich horse owners, apparently being a "charitable purpose".
The UK has the right idea on this: forcing those schools to actually behave like the charities they claim to be, and devote a significant portion of their space to the education of the poor and deserving. And oh, how they squeal about it.
-
Totally OT but somehow resonating for me-
National WILL NOT support Matariki as a public holiday.
And they support slavery.
Oh yes, they said they disapprove of it. but when push comes to shove, they're unwilling to actually do anythign about it.
Pricks.
-
Because everyone who attends a private school is a dirty rich prick, right Idiot?
I think it is utterly disingenuous to pretend that the children of the rich are more deserving of government assistance than disabled children. The former can always get a good education at a state school (though they may have to mingle with the peasants and won't get an early start in the old-boy network). The latter need help regardless.
-
I think Part 4 (2281 to 89) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 trumps the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act. It sets out the extremely limited circumstances in which tax information may be release, to whom and for what reason.
And is in turn trumped by s48 of the OIA. Such a request could of course be refused under s9(2)(a) (privacy) or s18(c)(i) as releasing the information would be contrary to another enactment - but it does not have to be. And where information is released in good faith under the OIA, no proceedings, civil or criminal, can be taken.
That's not to say it would be ethical. But it would be legal. And IMHO, this arrangement - you can withhold, but you do not have to - is one of the strengths of the Act.