OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But Shorter and With More Swearing
235 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Also, unless conservatives know someone who’s in the position of caring for a disabled person, they don’t care.
Stuff off.
-
Ominous. Arrogant Governance. Serious assault on the people of NZ. Nearly 9,000 visits to Andrew Geddis's post on Pundit.
And on the MSM? Nothing. (I think it got a mention on National Radio news on Saturday then silence.)
What to do about it. -
Statement from the Human Rights Commission http://www.hrc.co.nz/2013/commission-concerned-new-family-carer-legislation-will-compromise-disability-rights
-
The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty/supremacy is precisely that, a doctrine. It's not enshrined in law. The Courts could, in a suitable case, actually strike down legislation as being unconstitutional.
Please explain. This is not my understanding.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Sorry Graeme, you are right. Wrote in haste. But it comes under Justice which is why appointment to it comes under Judith Collins.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Please explain. This is not my understanding
Short explanation- we don't have a written constitution. So parliamentary sovereignty is just as a much a loose arrangement of precedent and custom as judicial independence... ?
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Please explain. This is not my understanding.
The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy was created by the Courts.
-
Today’s adventures in RIS redaction …
Simon Bridges flatly denies Moana Mackey’s claim that the legal advice on amendments to the Crown Minerals Act (which somehow needs correcting a month after it was passed) was that they were in breach of international law.
But the minister cannot explain why the legal advice he is referring to was deleted from the Regulatory Impact Statement. (from about 2.00)
Seriously?
-
James W, in reply to
Stuff off.
I would've thought my subsequent suggestion of kneecapping children showed I was exaggerating for comic effect, but I guess not.
-
Keith Ng, in reply to
However it would seem he has voted for it anyway.
Well, he's a member of Cabinet, so he has to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_collective_responsibility
-
Ana Simkiss, in reply to
You are right that the constitution is unwritten, but to overturn the principle of parliamentary sovereignty would violate the most fundamental principle of that constitution.
Put another way, a court overturning Parliament-made law for violating the constitution would itself be violating the contstitution.
(prepares for Edgeler schooling on constitutional law)
-
There's also a .doc file here with a few more metadata fields (author etc.) but unfortunately no edit history,
-
That statement from the Human Rights Commission also notes the contrasting approach in the Australian Budget which legislated and funded the National Disability Insurance Scheme. If we had one of those we wouldn't be squabbling around the edges for proper support for families and wouldn't have two completely different disability support systems (under ACC family care funding is quite normal). It would be nationwide, equitable and hopefully adequate. We could have even funded it from not doing the Budget cuts to the ACC levy.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
I wanted to throw something at the radio when Bridges announced all they were doing was to ‘criminalise … criminal damage and unlawful interference’.
FFS. “Criminal damage and unlawful interference” are already criminal by virtue of being, y’know, criminal and/or unlawful.
What the law actually DOES is make it a serious crime for a navigator to take a vessel – or permit it to become (because this could happen quite innocently, or by virtue of the exploration vessel deliberately altering course towards a protest vessel, or indeed, any vessel) – within 500m of any aspect of a drilling operation.
And that’s … quite likely in breach of international understandings on shipping regulation, but who cares, because it will only be used to silence dissent, and not against anyone else.
Increasingly, ministers are not telling us the true story (cough, Collins, ‘no consensus’, splutter ‘not the votes’ huh? Please just say “WE DO NOT SUPPORT changing the electoral act?”) -
JacksonP, in reply to
This is an important point. I'm a carer now for my husband who is sinking deeper and deeper into dementia. We are being helped by a variety of organisations both public and charity-based. They are all stretched - aged care is a growth area - but I've found them good so far.
Wishing you and your husband all the best Cecelia. My grandfather provided care for my grandmother in similar circumstances.
This latest cynical act by the government is shameful. I am ashamed. Now what?
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Well, he’s a member of Cabinet, so he has to:
... swallow a few dead rats?
Yeah. But I think this one may have been poisoned. -
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Ominous. Arrogant Governance. Serious assault on the people of NZ. Nearly 9,000 visits to Andrew Geddis’s post on Pundit.
And on the MSM? Nothing. (I think it got a mention on National Radio news on Saturday then silence.)
What to do about it.Mentioned in passing on Stuff. The Granny was a bit better, but not headline stuff.
-
<BLOODY BIG I WAS A DISTRACTED LOON TODAY EDIT IN THE INTERESTS OF GETTING SOMEONE’S NAME RIGHT FINALLY.>
Claire Browning’s Pundit column on Geddis, the Crown Minerals Act and various other elisions of democracy is worth reading.
-
Mick Rose, in reply to
I fear wide screen TV's and iPhones will rule the day for some days yet.
The problem is less the hideous bunch of clowns currently in power than the number of our fellow citizens who are enamoured with them. It's not as if Key and co's ruthless "pragmatism", lack of vision and moral-bankruptcy haven't been apparent for a very long time. And I don't see the situation changing in a hurry - there's a steady outflow of left-leaning political/financial refugees together with a balancing inflow of monied conservative-voting immigrants - so things look surprisingly rosy for Mr Key.
And while I respect and admire a small number of our current crop of MPs … really, who in their right mind would want to be part of that grotesque dysfunctional circus?
-
Queen of Thorns also responds to Geddis in her inimitable style:
I’d just like to end with a little thought experiment for the class: imagine that Labour were in power and passed any legislation – say, to plant more native trees on public land, or to make it illegal to waterboard people – and then said “but you can’t see the advice we’ve made this decision on, and you can never ever challenge it.”
Oh, and passed it under urgency.
Just imagine it. The Kiwiblog commentariat would shit themselves. W****O**’s servers would probably explode. You’d hear Cactus Kate’s screams all the way across the Pacific.
Add this to Sky City’s 35-year protection clause and our whole constitution just got taken out back and shot in the head, and National’s turned the corpse into a ventriloquist’s doll and is assuring us that democracy is just resting after a rather vigorous squawk.
I tried to point out something similar last week to some Kiwiblog regulars who were gamely insisting that Key and Joyce should be congratulated for "getting the job done" with the deeply compromised process of the SkyCity conference centre shemozzle. No luck, I'm afraid. They just weren't seeing it.
-
And Tony Ryall has the gall to crow about it!
from his twitter...
@TonyRyallMP
Tonight NZ becomes only 3rd country in world to pay wages to some family carers of disabled adults. $92m over 4 years.and
@TonyRyallMP
Wow! Labour and Greens vote against supporting parents who care for adult disabled children. Shameful after all their promises 2000-8!yes the opposition voted against you terminating the human rights of a large group of people and then removing thier recourse!...WHAT A DICK!
-
Andrew C, in reply to
The manipulative dishonesty of it's opponents and the disingenuous outrage
Not sure its all been one way in that regard Tom. I went to a meeting about the Unitary Plan in Beachhaven about a week ago, and the officers there still, despite being repeatedly told by members of the public present that 3 stories was possible, tried really really hard to stick to the line it was only 2.
Maybe my definition of "genuinely consult" is different to yours...
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
Does anyone know why the redacted parts couldn't be got by an OIA request?
You can try, but they will likely withhold it as legal advice. That withholding ground is one of the stronger ones, and it would take an exceptionally strong public interest, or an implicit waiver of advice by Ministers discussing its contents (difficult if they don't give speeches on the bill) to winkle it out of them.
-
Sue,
what the fucking fuck!
this is WRONG and yes i actually yelled at my computer -
Russell Brown, in reply to
Not sure its all been one way in that regard Tom. I went to a meeting about the Unitary Plan in Beachhaven about a week ago, and the officers there still, despite being repeatedly told by members of the public present that 3 stories was possible, tried really really hard to stick to the line it was only 2.
This is a confusing issue. The defined exceptions that make an extra two metres possible in mixed housing zones aren’t actually part of the Unitary Plan, but are essentially the same resource consent rules that allow basement and attic extensions under the current rules: proximity to boundary, shade, etc. They're not intended to permit three-storey devlopments.
(NB: Suburbs like Mt Eden already have plenty of buildings higher than this in what will be mixed housing zones. There's currently no upper restriction, subject to the rules.)
I think the council is explaining this poorly, but I don’t think there has been intent to deceive. In terms of the Unitary Plan, they're actually right. Ben Ross explains.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.