Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So: IPCA sez police acted illegally in the ‘terror raids’ (it’s now pretty clear who was terrorised): http://www.3news.co.nz/Police-acted-unlawfully-in-terror-raids/tabid/423/articleID/298710/Default.aspx
I can’t access the report here: http://ipca.govt.nz/Site/media/2013/2013-May-22-Operation-Eight.aspx but some seem to be able to…
Big tick for the IPCA- definitely not a once over lightly rubber-stamp. But again, as with the GSCB, a report is not accountability. There’s been unlawful conduct. Unlikely anyone will be charged … but held to account? The old question- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
ETA- pdf from Scoop here. -
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Roger Lacey,
Can we copy this to send it to our local MPs? Serious question. I started writing something along the same lines to Amy Adams, but it got too ... emotional.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Sacha,
What does it take to get them properly riled up?
Wait til Lianne is mayor? Hoping .... :)
A bit puzzling that I have seen no support for the Government actions. Why not?
This is especially indefensible?
Love to know what Graeme E makes of Geddis' arguments. It's a fair bet anyone with a legal background isn't going to love the way this legislation treats the courts. Or the process; or the apparent disregard for Findlayson's opinion.
I think you could agree with the policy- or at least not hate it- and still have strong mis-givings about the legisalation.
I'd put a fiver on Key saying, quite soon, there are some 'minor technical issues in the wording' which 'may need to be tidied up' but of course it's 'still a major victory for family carers ... ' -
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Before judging her, I would like to hear what Ruth has to say about the family carer issue from her time as minister.
I reckon Ruth was a very good minister. In 2000 I was working on Chch based Inside/Out programmes, and she'd drop past, interested in what the issues were, and wanting to discuss- and especially to listen.
And she achieved a lot.
But the hard fact is this policy goes way back. I don't know how far; but I doubt there's ever been a policy to pay family caregivers. -
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Angus Robertson,
the continued and unchanging policy of not paying relatives to care for their disabled family members was a direct implementation of Labour Party policy.
Yes. Labour are hardly the white knights on the shining charger. Labour also had the same shabby, cheap policy- and on one level, pretty stupid policy, too. Family members, by and large, are exceptionally good carers, who already have good relationships with those they care for, and are far less likely to leave as soon as a 'better job' comes along.
That's half the story. The other half is legislation more-or-less neutering the courts and nullifying the BORA. Because the govt doesn't like people asserting- or the judiciary affirming- their rights. Which goes past unpleasant, towards toxic. -
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Erin,
What does that say?
Asleep at the wheel? And that's the kindest interpretation :(
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to BenWilson,
I’m still amazed that we ever got MMP in the first place.
Hard to remember now, but NZers were seriously pissed off at what was done to the country by politicians who, erm, said they'd do something else, or just never bothered to mention they were planning to sell off everything that wasn't nailed down. Checks and balances... even now, without the Greens in parliament, how much outrage would we have at the constitutional, um bending we're seeing right now?
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Keith Ng,
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. -
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Russell Brown,
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?”) -
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Ana Simkiss,
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... ?