Posts by James Liddell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And I'll split the difference and say both arguments are rather silly.
I'm not saying that I think Shearer should have been selected solely on this basis. Because that would be rather silly. :)
-
but I find it unfortunate that Labour didn't run a first or second generation ethnic NZer
Why? Because you think they'd be better able to represent an ethnically diverse electorate?
I'm of the opinion that someone who has worked in, and with the populations of, NZ, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda, Serbia, Albania, Afghanistan, Jerusalem and Iraq, may just be slightly more qualified to represent an ethnically diverse electorate than someone whose "ethnic" qualification is restricted to where they (or their parents) were born.
-
I will definitely come along on Wednesday evening; not so sure about Thursday as of yet, but will hopefully make it.
-
Oh, and I think your reading of the way Goff has played this (and intended to play it) is spot on. :-)
-
Hi Steve! yeah I'm pretty sure. My understanding is that the list only counts for the purposes of election to the House. Once you're in there, it doesn't matter if the party expels you or otherwise removes you from the list, or you quit the Party: you're an MP and entitled to stay. (Except of course for that little matter of conviction for an offense punishable by 2+ years in the slammer.)
The Electoral Integrity Act 2001 (the waka jumping legislation) changed this so that if an MP was no longer a member of the Party with which they were elected, then they were no longer a Member of Parliament. But that expired in 2005 from a deliberate sunset clause in the Act. Labour introduced a Government Bill at the end of 2005 to reinstate the provisions permanently, but this was defeated at Select Committee. Another victory for common sense. Yeah right.
P.S. Keen for a beer next week?
-
Given how easily Parliamentary staff can be sacked, without recourse, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if sexual harassment by MPs is treated as something of a game that nobody really talks about. SSC campaigns notwithstanding.
Having been employed by both Parliamentary Services and Ministerial Services, I can say that both are good employers who view sexual harassment (including by MPs) as a very serious matter.
-
@Matthew
The "waka jumping" legislation that prevented members from staying in Parliament after leaving their Party (Electoral Integrity Act 2001) has expired - hence why Gordon Copeland stayed in Parliament after defecting from the UF list over the Section 59 repeal. Worth is entitled to stay if he wishes, but I highly doubt he would.
-
I'm still trying to figure out why the matter wasn't put in the hands of Ministerial Services at the time.
Because this wouldn't be the domain of Ministerial Service (nor the Cabinet Office). Min Serv is responsible for providing support for Ministers - everything from travel to the employment of support staff. But they don't oversee the conduct of Ministers. That is the responsibility of the Prime Minister's Office. If the allegations had been about sexual harassment of Worth's office staff, employed by Ministerial Services, then Ministerial Services as the employer would be duty bound to investigate it as an employment issue.
But, as Russell pointed out, there really is no workplace involved here, and no formal HR structure to oversee the conduct of Ministers. There are rules, of course, in the form of the Cabinet Manual and Ministerial Office Handbook, but only some of those (such as conflicts of interest registers) are overseen by departmental staff (e.g. the Cab Office). The way in which Ministers acquit themselves, and oversight of their behaviour, is pretty much the sole responsibility of the Prime Minister and his Chief of Staff.
-
Thanks James. That's very useful context.
No worries, Russell. And thank you, very belatedly, for covering the whole sordid affair last year. It would have been highly inappropriate for me to comment on your post at that time.
-
Perhaps it is just Key's misfortune to follow someone as awesome as Helen Clark, and the public has to high an expectation after her reign.
Or not.
Ha. It just shows how bad Key's management of this issue has been. I'm unsure whether it's the fault of Key himself or whether his Chief of Staff just did a crap investigation. But ultimately the buck stops with Key.
That his office didn't request any further evidence from the first complainant and backed Dr Worth solely on his word is quite ridiculous, and shows an appalling political myopia and bad judgement. THey should, of course, have found out all the facts before coming to a decision. And indeed, it would never have played out this way under Clark and SImpson.
I was Damien O'Connor's advisor when, last year, a few (to be unnamed) blogsites (followed by frenzied inquiries from MSM outlets) were heavily insinuating that he had raped or sexually assaulted a woman, and which he had then covered up. After alerting the Chief of Staff, I went through 2 years of Ministerial diaries to find his whereabouts on every day, called numerous people who were supposedly tangentially involved (e.g. proprietors of establishments) and others who could vouch for his whereabouts, and gathered other miscellaneous proof that such claims were ridiculous. And I did this knowing that he hadn't committed any sexual assault, and based on his word.
It's all about having all your ducks in a row before you go into battle. (How's that for a mixed metaphore?!?) That Key didn't seek full disclosure from Worth or from the complainant shows appalling political and risk management.