Posts by Andrew Geddis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh ... and as for why NZ First didn't get a broadcast allocation in 1993, Bryce Edwards has this:
"When New Zealand First was formed in 1993 it did not qualify for advertising in the election of that year because the party had neither existed for a year nor been ‘electorally tested’."
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2008/08/the-finances-of.htmlI assume he's referring to some test inserted into the Broadcasting Act 1989, which then would have been dropped once party registration came in post-1993.
-
Nice work, Graeme ... and eminently sensible in content.
However, if I may take on your usual commentary role and raise a small technical correction, this section isn't quite right:
"Maybe the Greens will come out and say that there should be no political advertising on TV at all. Fine. That view’s defensible. It’s the law in the UK, and has been upheld by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords as being proper in a democracy. But even though I wouldn’t go for it, all parties are treated the same, as all parties must be treated the same."True, the UK generally prohibits any form of political advertising on TV and radio (to an absurd degree - the House of Lords case involved an animal rights group who were stopped from running an ad calling for more rights for Great Apes because they were deemed to be "political" in their aims!). BUT there is an exception to this rule whereby the BBC and private licensees grant political parties a number of "Party Election Broadcasts" prior to each election ... which are by-and-large limited to the big parties represented in Parliament, with the larger parties getting more PEBs than smaller ones.
In short, the UK has the same "unfair" allocation process we have here in NZ ... it's just that the PEBs are so few in number (last election the Tories and Labour got five each) and are so circumscribed in format (they have to be at least 3 minutes long) that they aren't really a factor in campaigning.
-
Graeme,
You're probably right. But, of course, the Harassment Act will need its own NZBORA-consistent interpretation. Furthermore, as there are 150-odd apparently in this group, it may be a bit difficult to get such restraining orders as a practical matter. Then there's the "optics" problem of judges stopping people from protesting ... especially after saying the constable on the West Coast had to put up with it.
-
"A group led by Ngapuhi's Tass Davis plans a campaign of protest ... targeting the homes of judges (really not okay, at all), on the basis that they are part of the system."
Isn't there a certain irony in that the targeting of judges in their homes is lawful because of this decision...
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/allistair-patrick-brooker-v-the-police"The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by Allistair Patrick Brooker against his conviction for behaving in a disorderly manner when making a protest outside the home of a female police officer in Greymouth in March 2003. On a weekday morning, Mr Brooker had gone to the constable’s home where she was asleep after coming off night duty. After she answered his knock on the door, he had stood in the street outside playing his guitar and chanting a protest about the constable’s role in obtaining search warrants relating to his property some time previously. He had beenarrested when he refused to desist after the arrival of two other officers. By majority, the Court has concluded that, taking into account Mr Brooker’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by s 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, his behaviour had not in these circumstances been disruptive of public order and was therefore not disorderly in terms of s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981."
-
Surely a big problem for TVNZ is that they'll have to start tailoring their news hour to avoid squirm-inducing situations like Simon Dallow crossing straight from a report on the Govt's new anti-violence campaign to "And now here's Tony with the Sport ... how about them All Blacks?" Or having him front a story on a sportsman charged with some violence incident (as happens all too often). Just what do they do - run such stories and know a great many viewers are sitting there thinking "I wonder how Tony's feeling right now?", or drop it to avoid the problem. In which case it is the presenter setting the news agenda - surely untenable?
-
Hi Graeme,
The story you recount about the "refusal to sign an Order in Council" is covered in Philip Joseph's text at page 718 - the Gov. Gen. from 1941-46, Sir Cyril Newall, delayed signing a govt. recommendation to commute sentances of flogging, insisting on legislation instead. Apparently he also demurred about signing to authorise a courts martial of soldiers sent back from Africa, as they would have faced the death penalty if convicted. Joseph then says "on both these occasions, it is not known whether the Governor General actually refused his signature or whether the Government, on reconsideration, withdrew its advice."
I also think that the "what ifs" regarding the Gov. Gen's refusal to assent/attempt to dissolve Parliament/sack the Govt/etc are like speculating about the laws of physics at the moment of the big bang ... the background conditions are so unlike "normal" or "everyday" experience that there is no way to know what would happen ...