Here’s some examples of how National dealt with the same type of questioning from WP in the last term
And if Labour had objected, there's a good chance I'd have written a blog post supporting them.
I can't fix what happened in past Parliaments, but I can try to make sure it doesn't happen again!
Although the sentiment regarding open governance is right – the practical application is fraught with exceptions. Diarised medical appointments, meetings with ones personal lawyers over say, a property transaction, etc. etc.
Medical appointments are not ministerial.
I appreciate the self-referentiality of (presumably) the word “redacted” being redacted here, but I suspect it wasn’t intentional?
Withheld. Thanks :-)
James Shaw got 15% of the vote in Wellington Central, where the GP even got 21% of the party vote. So 6% of voters in that electorate were green voters who voted against the leader of the Greens. Any one of them who reads this, please explain your rationale!
They wanted to make sure that Nicola Willis wasn't elected, so strategically voted?
FYI I believe the next person on the Labour list is Angie Warren Clark, not Helen White.
So do I. I blame the fact it was 4:30 when I finished.
Does appear to be a low voter turn out.
Pretty high in world terms, and up on last time it seems. Almost 80%!
If that’s the case then does your model give us a better sense of what the swing nationally could mean or is that casting too long a bow?
I haven't gone nearly that far. Simple math, not full analysis :-)
The having to orally confirm your name aloud thing was new last time.
It was added into the Electoral Act by the Select Committee during an amendment law making other changes. It appears to have been a concern about the effect EasyVote cards had had on the process of voting. Before EasyVote cards, voters obviously had to ID themselves to polling staff. EasyVote cards weren’t legislated for (the Electoral Commission just decided they’d be a good idea to include in the voting pack thing), and this meant a change to how voting occurred, people could just hand over the card. Some National MPs are kind of republicans on this, and would, I think, like photo ID to be required, but they get pushed back hard on that by the Electoral Commission and other parties. This was what they got instead.
The Select Committee’s explanation was:
Confirmation of identity
We recommend the insertion of new clause 24 to amend section 167, to require each voter to verbally give or verbally confirm their name when being issued voting papers. If a person could not do this because they did not understand English or have a physical disability, they could use gestures or the assistance of a person accompanying them. This provision would address our concern about people not explicitly confirming their identity before voting, particularly those with an EasyVote card, who are not currently required to identify themselves verbally.
There has been no subsequent law change, but in the review of the 2014 election, the Select Committee noted:
Requirement for voter to verbally confirm their name
For the 2014 general election, Parliament enacted a new requirement for voters to verbally confirm their name before being issued with a voting paper. This process provided for additional confirmation from the voter about their identity as well as ensuring the accuracy of the marking of the roll. We would like to see the commission ensure that this requirement is being consistently followed by issuing officers at future elections. If it was not possible for a voter to verbally confirm their name because of disability or language difficulties, they could confirm their name by writing it or by affirming with gestures that their name as presented on the EasyVote card was correct.
source: SC Review of 2014 election
Benefit levels were quite deliberately set below subsistence level.
Still at this level, right (or is that just without kids)? Labour never reversed Richardson's benefit cuts, and still haven't promised to.
Do we have a separation of powers problem here?
The Army has an obligation to investigate allegations of war crimes.
The Police also have jurisdiction.
There may be a problem here (perhaps predetermination?) but I don't think it's a separation of powers issue. Investigating crimes is the job of the executive.