Posts by insider outsider
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legbreak
Most people would have blinked and missed GP's term as PM.
-
Kyle
The comparison is stronger I would have thought. C&P are not just lawyers they are lobbyists.
Palmer has also been appointed by Labour to various influential public roles.
Of course the other thing about Palmer is that he gave $10k to Labour.
What is your definition of a flunky?
-
"I heard on the 5pm news on RNZ that the plan is to get all the parties' general secretaries together to talk about how the law is intended to be interpreted, so that everyone has the same understanding, and some input into that understanding. "
If I tried to do that in business I would risk being fined very heavily or even gaoled under the Commerce Act. But then they are politicians and can do what they want
-
Stepehn misses the point that much of the shriller rhetoric has been promoted by the partisan and secretive way in which the Govt has pushed the bill. They have been on the EB yet still fail to accept that they did anything wrong in their own manipulation of electoral advertising/funding rules, and then had the gall to change the rules to allow them to replicate their rort.
They have been rushed, they have withheld advice, they have been dismissive of concerns and have arguably broken with convention in not being more consultative within and without of Parliament, the delivery has been clumsy and the result has been a series of embarassing exposures that give many little faith in the process around and the motivation of this bill.
It would be very rare that organisations such as HRC and the NZLS would call for the outright withdrawal of a bill. That should be warning enough that the Govt needed to go slow.
I would have thought COG would have had a lot more to say about the way this law is being pursued and the messages that sends, but they seem to be happy that the end justifies the means.
History shows that it takes a ling time to build up rights but they can quickly be rescinded. So anything that has the smell of restricting speech is bound to cause some response.
-
Don
I'm just an amateur - Graeme will better advise you. I have not heard of them being 'banned' but the way the rules are written does seem to make it all a bit silly and you have to wonder exactly what they are trying to achieve, given the complete lack of evidence of any effect needing remedying.
-
My wife was upset when she saw on the posters that the chief nasty woman didn't have a monkey...
-
" post-Golden Compass outrage withdrawl."?
that one went over at 30,000 ft
-
So Graeme as you have worked trhough the day you have been finding more and more fishhooks. Does COG still think this is "great improvement"
-
Don Christie asked:
"I asked this question before...how does it rule out these [election campaign] meetings?"
I think it comes from this
In this Act, election advertisement—
(a) means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as doing 1 or more of the following:
(i) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more specified parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates:
(ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated);
It's the "any words" "encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote...etc"A public meeting is "any words" and it is about encouraging or persuading people to vote a certain way.
It may not rule them out but may restrict the way they work. For instance if you attended and asked a question in which you said "do/don't vote for 'x'", you might have to state your name and address as well to legalise the statement.
-
Robert Fox asked
"Why are people / organisations affraid of identifying themselves as donors to political parties?"
Given that we have just had a very public demonstration that you can be forced out of your job because the person you live with works for a political opponent of the ruling party, and can be denied consideration for another job for the same reasons, doesn't that add legitimacy to concerns about revealing personal political beliefs?