The only problem with this post is that it ignores rule 97 of New Zealand politics: If Murray McCully were involved in organising a fund-raising sausage sizzle for his local hospice, he would find a way to find it corruptly.
Of course, if rule 97 is in operation, the legitimacy of every cent of NZ's foreign aid is in question. So why don't we have any Taxpayer Union press releases about the Vanuatu Tourism Infrastructure Project, or the Pacific Regional Navigation Initiative, or the Tonga Police Development Programme?
She isn't a Herald reporter - she works for Newstalk ZB.
Yep – the “story” came down off the Herald website in remarkably quick time. It always was a cross-post from this still extant Newstalk ZB piece (http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/politics/nz-taxpayers-money-used-to-fund-clinton-foundation/ ).
But I’m guessing that with all the “synergies” and “cross platform content” stuff, editors actually checking that a story is accurate before posting it up takes second place to potential clicks.
No, but the opposition didn't object, and it would only have taken one.
So, the next time the opposition complains about select committee stages being skipped, we can compare the measure they are complaining about to Doocey's bill and if they are substantively the same simply point to this and tell them to go away. But if the measure isn't substantively the same, we can't. 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?
Statutory interpretation in light of similar auction laws, and the amendments to the Policing legislation needing to be explicit?
Did it really "need" to be explicit, or is it simply a case of Parliament taking the opportunity to avoid all doubt? The Police Act 1958 simply mandated that a "public auction" be used to sell lost property. The rewrite in 2008 then unpacks that mandated procedure in more detail to more specifically explain what it means in a modern context. That unpacking doesn't just say you can use the internet to sell stuff - it also states an auction may be "at premises open to the public". Do you think that this change means that, prior to it, the Police could auction property at premises NOT open to the public? If not, then why the "need" to be explicit about it?
By contrast, the Airports Authority Act confers a broad power to make bylaws "providing for the establishing and maintaining of facilities at the airport for the reception and storage of lost property, and ... providing for the sale by way of auction of any such property that is unclaimed". So it is for the Authority to determine the form of auction it will use, provided that it does not exceed the four corners of the empowering provision. And given that, as you say:
Selling some types of items at an online auction site is likely to increase the amount of money received for them, and when we’re talking about public assets (which unclaimed lost property is), giving those tasked with looking after those assets powers to best realise public benefit from them is good
why would a bylaw saying "Queenstown airport may sell lost property by way of an auction on the Trade Me website" be ultra vires?
This is good. Selling some types of items at an online auction site is likely to increase the amount of money received for them, and when we’re talking about public assets (which unclaimed lost property is), giving those tasked with looking after those assets powers to best realise public benefit from them is good.
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”?
This was a law change that National MP Chris Bishop was adamant was sufficiently controversial that inclusion in a statutes amendment bill was inappropriate …
If he really believed that, I wonder why he didn’t object to Seymour’s SOP, which would have prevented the SOP being adopted?
We will know that, next time the opposition complains that the government is passing laws without select committee scrutiny, what the standard is.
The SOP that added Doocey’s Bill to the Statutes Amendment Bill was not an opposition measure.
Because the defendant in Ms Grey's case was convicted of importing a class B drug after mailing the medpot to herself. Ms Grey then was successful in winning a discharge without conviction ... but I wouldn't count on this being the outcome every time (plus you still have to pay for a lawyer to defend you, and you lose the medpot!)
Of course, the Misuse of Drugs Act refers to controlled drugs being "lawfully obtained" in overseas jurisdictions, not "lawfully removed from" or "lawfully carried out of" them. So it isn't clear what the effect of these rules would be on people who take the risk of carrying medpot out of the US and then try to bring it into NZ!
Yeah - it's just that simple!
Caveat, but. In that interview Dunne mentioned that it may not be "lawful" to take medpot out of the US due to Federal law. Not sure if that was a warning to travelers ("you may be busted in the US") or an indication that NZ may not see it as being "lawfully obtained" overseas (and thus within the Misuse of Drugs Act exemption).
A case in which a judge discharged a woman who had mailed herself medical cannabis from the US, which might have slipped by, instead became the subject of serious legal debate.
Peter Dunne has confirmed in an interview with RNZ that my (and Sue Grey’s, the lawyer who argued the Nelson case, ) interpretation of the law is correct – if lawfully obtained overseas and used for therapeutic purposes, you can bring one months supply of medpot into NZ on your person (but not by mail, or for another person).