Legal Beagle: He is Henry the Eighth, he is
197 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
Great comment from sammy on DimPost:
What strange priorities New Zealanders have. We must be ever vigilant against attacks on the hotel mini-bar, but Ministers can help themselves to all the power they can handle.
-
I suppose Labour deserves some small credit for, apparently, requiring the term of the legislation to be reduced from a barely credible five years to two -- but, otherwise: loyal Opposition? Hardly.
-
And the Greens managed to get the OIA applied to the new Commission - but the threat to the equivalent LGOIMA stands. Easy enough to shuffle contentious decisions to a less transparent part of the system - just as the new Auckland arrangements create some discrepancies in official information obligations. None of this is accidental.
-
I miss Sue and Nandor.
Yes, agreed. Their leaving may well have been their foresight.
-
Can anyone here shed any light on this for me? Some New Brighton council housing tenants were evicted from their properties on Tuesday afternoon. The evictions were reported by both the Herald and Stuff
However, the two sources report the story rather differently. The Herald quotes Chch city councillor Chrissie Williams as saying that the properties were unsafe; while Stuff says the properties had been inspected and "green stickered", and quotes the same councillor as saying the evictions were "inhumane".
My understanding of the Residential Tenancies Act is that if a property is damaged to the point it is uninhabitable, the landlord (the council) still must give the tenant 7 days notice (s53). I can't quite believe that this is covered by the state of emergency, because I can't believe a private landlord would be allowed to tell his/her tenants they had to be gone in two (or one, depending on which source you go with) hours, and I don't see why the council would be treated differently in its role as landlord to any private landlord.
Am I missing something?
-
Except it doesn't. Saying it does doesn't make it so. And as a person of Canterbury, I don't like being used like this.
You do get that this was a symbolic gesture, don't you ?
Look, I really do get what you are all saying about the law being shite, and all that, and I think it would have been entirely OK for the Greens to vote against it. In the end it was a judgement call (and not, as some have said, an exercise in political expediency). The Greens really aren't the problem - its the authoritarianism inherent in the Labour and National parties. The Greens may have voted the wrong way, but National and Labour were totally into the whole deal !
I suppose Labour deserves some small credit for, apparently, requiring the term of the legislation to be reduced from a barely credible five years to two -- but, otherwise: loyal Opposition? Hardly.
Well and good, but Russel says they opposed some useful Green amendments, too.
We tried to get Orders in Council published within 24 hours and presented to next day’s sitting of Parliament. Nats and Lab opposed.
We tried to get a majority of elected Cantabrians onto Recovery Commission (rather than a majority of central govt appointees as it is now). Nat and Lab opposed.
We tried to get a 6 month sunset clause written into the Act, with the ability to move a motion to extend it for another 6 months. Nat and Lab opposed.
-
The CHCH 'Press' is reporting that Dean Knight, senior lecturer at Victoria U, is calling the Bill 'a constitutional outrage.'
-
You do get that this was a symbolic gesture, don't you ?
I get that it's being presented as a symbolic gesture. Does that actually make it one? "We're going to give you a symbolic helping hand, please ignore its resemblance to a kick in the groin."
But as Craig (I think) said, it's not that we feel the Greens are MORE culpable, rather less. It's that we expected better. Perhaps that's something of a mixed blessing for the Greens.
-
Thinking about it, the earthquake is one of the biggest vindications there has ever been for strict building codes which can delay completion of projects. To pass a law saying that these things can be overridden shows the politicians learned nothing from our "miracle".
-
I get that it's being presented as a symbolic gesture. Does that actually make it one? "We're going to give you a symbolic helping hand, please ignore its resemblance to a kick in the groin."
Indeed -- and I'm not inclined to give Labour too much credit for generously insuring your nads only get tenderized for two years instead of five. Gee, thanks...
But as Craig (I think) said, it's not that we feel the Greens are MORE culpable, rather less. It's that we expected better.
Pretty much -- I'd never vote for the Greens, but most of the time I can respect their positions as principled and coherent from their ideological POV. And sometimes, standing by your principles puts you in an unpopular minority of one.
-
Lucy, I got the impression it was sewerage issues and not structural ones that were the issue - and that the state of emergency does override Tenancy Act protections. The new powers granted to Brownlee and chums may allow them to decree the same for the next 18 months.
-
the politicians learned nothing from our "miracle".
Let's not forget these are a lot of the same tired fuckwits who brought you leaky buildings last time they sought to make life easier for the private sector (rather than insist they stand on their own feet without a helping hand from daddy). Ambishus?
-
Well and good, but Russel says they opposed some useful Green amendments, too.
Indeed. And I am appalled by that.
-
I suppose Labour deserves some small credit for, apparently, requiring the term of the legislation to be reduced from a barely credible five years to two -- but, otherwise: loyal Opposition? Hardly.
It's worse than that. Labour actually voted against most ammendments that could have introduced a semblance of democracy or process to this legislation.
And then the Greens went and voted for it anyway. * Headdesk*.
-
This why I have never voted National. Ever. I've voted left and right - but ideology isn't relevant when the party concerned is hostile to democracy and accountability.
The way they have handled the Auckland Super City is all the evidence anyone should need that they dislike democracy intensely. There is no other way to understand the North Shore having two Auckland City councillors....and 4 National MPs.
I could rage on for hours....but won't. I'm clear enough in my own mind that the people who lead the National Party today are not democrats and are working actively to subvert and limit democracy wherever they can.
I swore off them when I watched them all sit on their hands while Muldoon did huge harm to this country. They haven't changed.
-
Maybe they could get Millenium (which by now you must know includes Nats ex Pres AND a f*&king ex Prime Minister!!)to do some hiring for the Commisssion. No probs. No checkup. No worries.
And now this stroke of the pen piece of shite? What's new?
-
John,
No Apology for turning back to ARD Fairburn
POLITICAL JOTTING
Oh!, what a tangled web we weave
when first we practise to deceive!And when the practise is perfected
we're just the boys to get elected -
Did any politician vote against this bill? Any at all ?
By the way, where can we find the vote record on bills?
-
Did any politician vote against this bill? Any at all ?
No.
-
Maybe they could get Millenium
My bad. Momentum Consulting!!
-
wow! non of our elected representatives had the balls to vote against this bill - not even Hone ?
I was stunned by the breathtaking audacity of this bill , but I'm far more concerned that no one actually voted against it.
Have I missed something here ? Are there just the few of us on this blog who see the issue here ?
Man ! the earth shakes a bit - we all shit ourselves , get hypnotized by the endless media images and allow the politicians grab unbridled power.
Oh well safer than burning down the Beehive I guess.
-
Did any politician vote against this bill? Any at all ?
In a bizarre way this is not unique. One remembers the US of A HoR fully supporting the Patriot Act. The same "headlight blinded eyes" were evident after 911 from the media where noone was game enough to stand up to the idea that it is "US V the World and everyone should be for us". The idea that if you voted against the Patriot Act and here the CCRRB you are looked upon politically as traitors.
The poor old Greens were in the same boat where if they did not vote for it, it would have been a bad look in Chch.
It wasn't, but the media would have had a field day if they did vote against it. And it is a sad day when the only "radical" party in Parliament can't bite the bullet and make a stand on the principle.
-
The poor old Greens were in the same boat where if they did not vote for it, it would have been a bad look in Chch.
And yet somehow I'm not moved by their plight.
-
You can ring endless variations on that:
Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
But when you've practised for a while,
how vastly doth improve your style! -
... poor old Greens ...
Mmmm. Could they not even have managed an abstention? I mean, generally I think abstentions are a big wuss-out, but very occasionally they're the better part of valour.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.