Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It doesn’t distinguish enriched and natural uranium, so it would be legal for a secondary school to acquire a pound (454g) of 95% enriched uranium.
As I point out, compliance with one law isn't enough. You have to comply with every law.
You may be right that importation of a quantity of enriched uranium of less than five pounds would not breach the Atomic Energy Act. That doesn't mean it wouldn't breach some other Act!
Possession of a nuclear weapon is a crime in New Zealand. Aiding in the manufacture of a nuclear weapon (for example by importing enriched uranium) is also an offence against New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987.
-
Middleton/Mountbatten-Windsor nuptials
Middleton/Wales, I thought?
-
rather surprised at the number of private prosecutions l had imagined it to be a very small number mostly becuase so few are reported to get to trial
Few of the other 350k prosecutions are reported either. I should note for completely, that the number of proceedings is around half the number of charges (i.e. the average number of charges a privately prosecuted individual faces is two).
-
If you believe this, then can you please explain why Brash was happy for only Maori owners of title of the F&S should be treated differently from existing owners ?
The Don Brash National Party opposed the Foreshore and Seabed Act =)
Also, Maori and non-Maori owners of fee simple title in the F&S are treated identically, as are Maori and non-Maori owners of customary title in the F&S... or so the argument would go.
-
I guess the situation with yellowcake depends on whether the meaning of "imported" includes goods on a ship that aren't being unloaded in New Zealand.
Precisely. It certainly does for a lot of purposes: including things like drug importation. Other statutory schemes use similar but distinct concepts. e.g. biosecurity uses "arrival in New Zealand", which means you're not breaking the law if you leave overseas fruit on a plane or a ship.
-
p.s. I realise National Radio changed its name to Radio New Zealand National. In Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act, not so much =)
-
please point me to any GG who has ever refused assent to an OIC
The best I can point to is Sir Cyril Newall (discussed at page 718 of Philip Joseph's seminal text Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand (2nd ed.):
Sir Cyril, Governor-General from 1941-1946, delayed signing a government recommendation to commute sentences of flogging, insisting on legislation (I think abolishing it, or partly abolishing it) 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 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."
-
Just seen it. Can I add my dislike for the phrase "overweight or obese"?
It's a phrase that seems designed to cause moral panic. The word overweight is sufficient for almost every circumstance in which it is used.
I recognise there is a medical distinction between the two, but obese is surely a subset of overweight.
If the statistic is being made clear - one in three children is overweight, and one in 10 is obese - that's fine, but saying one in three children is overweight or obese seems a deliberate tactic to make everyone think one in three children is obese. Unless the word obese actually adds information, using it is simply a scare tactic: not unlike combining statistics for injury and death.
-
If they didn’t want her as an MP, why was she on the list in 2008?
Is it too obvious to point out that the roles of Party President, Party Leader and Deputy Leader are now filled by entirely different individuals?
If Little, Goff and King were drawing up the list in 2008 maybe Tizard wouldn't have been on it at all.
-
The assessment that the Labour caucus will need to make is not whether someone other than Goff can win the election, but whether someone other than Goff has a better chance of staving off disaster. It may be that the future leaders of the Labour Party - Cunliffe, Parker, whoever - don't want to be leader now because of a near certain election defeat, but that shouldn't be the only calculation.
Also important, is avoiding a National Party 2002 result. If they want to win in 2014, then having a larger contingent in the next Parliament - including some new faces - will be very helpful. It may be - if there is a concern that Goff may now be too damaged to pull that off - that a change now would avert disaster. A new leader may be necessary, not to raise Labour's fortunes in the polls, but to maintain them at around their current levels. Should someone be the sacrificial lamb? If not an up-and-comer, then it seems someone like Mallard would be the choice. An election in which Andrew Little failed to make it in on the list would be disastrous.
p.s. I still don't completely rule out that Labour - or for that matter, Goff - can win the election.
p.p.s. I imagine I'll stop with the political analysis now.