Legal Beagle: The law to make it easier for airports to sell your stuff
41 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
izogi, in reply to
Surely Cosgrove's luggage would have been the Airline's problem not the Airport's - and did he not take out travel insurance?
I've just watched his answer from Tuesday.
In his answer Nuk Korako claimed that it was "found by the relevant airport authorities". Even if he actually meant "airport authority" as the legal entity, it still doesn't explain how streamlining a process for the eventual sale of that property might have made any difference whatsoever for Clayton Cosgrove's ability to get his stuff back.
Answering question 2, he claims that he received "many emails, and even the Auckland Airport Authority" saying what a great idea it is... but this was in the response to his Bill -- not before it was authored.
He doesn't clearly indicate that anyone was suggesting anything to him before the Bill was authored. Nor is there any evidence that anyone who emailed him, including the Auckland Airport Authority, had actually comprehended how insignificant the change of the Bill would really be, or that it has nothing significant to do with being notified of one's own lost property.
Kris Faafoi asked (question 3) who had approached him before the Bill. Nuk Korako gave a convoluted non-answer mentioning the Auckland Airport Authority's contact afterwards. After a challenge about the question not having been answered, David Carter declared that it had been and the answer was Auckland Airport.
The full set of questions from Tuesday: http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/44680
-
I would love to know how this random topic was picked out of a hat
-
FletcherB, in reply to
I would love to know how this random topic was picked out of a hat
The selection is genuinely random (I've been lead to believe?)... the main criteria for being pulled out, is to have first been put in...
As was pointed out by an earlier poster... one possible explanation for government party members to put (inconsequential?) bills into the hat for possible drawing, is simply to reduce the mathematical possibility of non-government members bills from being randomly selected...
I mean, if the government really felt it was an important issue that needed imminent addressing... they'd just introduce it to the house the way most other bills are done, right?
-
linger, in reply to
To give print media its due, Vernon Small ( Dominion Post Thu 18 Aug), giving hat tips to A. Geddis and G. Edgeler, also noted this bill as a symptom of National stuffing the member’s bill ballot.
-
reduce the mathematical possibility
its all fine until one day the odds dont work in your favour.
But, in this post-9/11 world, shouldn’t all lost property at airports just be destroyed by the bomb squad?
And anyone who questions the incumbent authorities will be shoot at dawn.
So how many more decades can these incumbents string us along with that line?
Its a post-barbarian world indeed. -
izogi, in reply to
is simply to reduce the mathematical possibility of non-government members bills from being randomly selected
Gerry Brownlee attempted to immediately progress this Bill to its Third Reading, which Winston Peters blocked for whatever reason.
This might have just been a damage control attempt by Brownlee, given the media coverage, whatever the reason that National stuffed it into the ballot beforehand.
I see Parliament's explanation is that "when a space on the Order Paper becomes available, a ballot is held to decide which members bill(s) will be introduced". Does this happen immediately, or does ballot-stuffing like this still delay any further Bills from being introduced for substantially longer, even if it goes through rapidly?
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Gerry Brownlee attempted to immediately progress this Bill to its Third Reading, which Winston Peters blocked for whatever reason.
Legislation shouldn't pass with no debate is a pretty good reason, I'd have thought.
Does this happen immediately, or does ballot-stuffing like this still delay any further Bills from being introduced for substantially longer, even if it goes through rapidly?
When space becomes available, because a member's bill has had it's first reading debate (passed or failed), there's a ballot the following day. MPs have to enter their proposed bills each time.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Vernon Small ( Dominion Post Thu 18 Aug)
Round-up of comment from The Herald here...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11697313
including Toby Manhire's excellent take on it...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11696744 -
andin, in reply to
Bryce Edwards tells us about the smoke not the fire in “Exhibit 2” as he calls it.
Grant Robertson vs the Chief Statistician
So someone just decided to include 10000 soldiers in the employment list? And changed classifications for self-employed just because?
The statisticians fucked up on this, not the politician.
Jeez cant some people get anything right?
Or is that broad brush just too tempting to wave around.
Self interest abounds, christ I’m getting very tired and bored with anyone who just sits on their arse dreaming shit up, manufacturing outrage. Get a proper job, you know where you get home tired and dirty from physical toil or…look after the kids, do some house work or...
Just fuck off. -
I should have been more clear - I was more interested in how the MP/National Party decided on this particular thing
-
Sacha, in reply to
Bryce Edwards tells us about the smoke not the fire in “Exhibit 2” as he calls it.
link?
-
andin, in reply to
middle link in Ian's post directly above mine
-
So... Matt Doocey's "Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill" was drawn from the ballot yesterday. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/proposed-members-bills/document/51HOOOCBallot201608251/members-bills-ballot-for-thursday-25-august-2016
Any thoughts?
To the best of my limited ability when comparing with the Companies Act, it seems to adjust the Companies Act so that when a Board sends an Annual Report to all shareholders, it has to be provided free of charge, clarifies that it can now be provided electronically if the shareholder agrees, and adjusts the ways in which the board is required to inform shareholders that they're entitled to receive those copies.
Is that typically statutes amendment stuff, or is it actually worthy of a Members' Bill?
-
linger, in reply to
I/S answers that question pretty clearly:
Its another National spam bill, containing a trivial provision presumably plucked from the Statutes Amendment Bill pile, designed purely to fill a ballot slot and prevent something more substantive from being drawn. Another example of how National abuses the Parliamentary process to undermine our democracy.
As for how to deal with it, seeking leave to add it to the Statutes Amendment Bill is probably the way to go. Alternatively, threatening to veto every SAB provision unless the bullshit bills are withdrawn might help.
-
izogi, in reply to
Yes, I noticed that. It'd be good to have a second opinion, though. Even if from a lawyer who knows lots about parliamentary process.
-
Moz,
I/S lets us know that Dr Geddis' OIA request has been answered with "no-one has ever mentioned it" :)
The meat is in the PDF from the FYI link above.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.