Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
... can we have this discussion without ... actual lawyers just being dicks by asking people to do something they’re perfectly capable of doing better themselves) then the answer is “sure”. How consenting adults choose to arrange their social relationships is their own affair. Relationship law exists solely for convenience, to reduce the legal hassle for the parties involved. Our law should provide that convenience, while leaving people free to pursue the sorts of relationships they want to.
Then on this, we appear to agree. And the reason I don't amend your bill to also recognise plural marriage is that it's your bill, and you might well oppose oppose conflating the two in a single piece of legislation, given that yours has a chance of being proposed, and mine does not. This wasn't concern trolling. This was "well, seeing as someone brought up marriage equality, how about marriage equality?" The next time someone says "If we allow gay marriage it will just lead to recognition of polygamy", I'd like someone to have the wit to say "damn straight!"
-
I'm not equating them. And I'm not trolling. But if that's how people roll I don't see what business it is of the State's to tell them they cannot, or rather to tell them if they do, then it won't recognise it. I've no doubt that there are people in some sort of open relationship who miss out on the protections that we would want the state to recognise: my partner is in hospital but I can't visit him because his first (and only legal) wife is the only one who counts. That sort of thing.
I support marriage equality. I've been iffy about it in the past (never really opposed it, but wasn't really in favour either), and it was my questioning of whether the state should recognise plural marriage that pushed me over the edge to realising I actively supported it recognising gay marriage.
I think I still support bigamy laws: the is, while the state should recognise (for example) tri-partite marriage, (e.g. one person with two spouses who are also spouses of each other), it can criminalise not one man two wives.
I would never enter a tri-partite marriage, but I'd also never enter a gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I can come up with a good reason for the state to criminalise (or refuse to recognise) the life choices that people make.
-
But perhaps now is the time for the idea to be formalised into a private member's bill.
Which is conveniently already drafted (available in other formats on request, and I'll happily tweak it).
Can you tweak it to allow for plural marriage?
-
I could see an argument for a movement into urgency requiring a higher proportion of votes, which would mean that in order to do it you’d basically need a significant sized party on the other side to agree. 60% or something.
As DPF frequently points out in, there is urgency, and urgency and urgency.
Urgency which just extends sitting hours, and allows for question time to take place, and does not allow bills to be progressed through multiple stages, or without reference to a select committee is far less concerning than urgency which sees a bill pass through all stages in one sitting.
I made a submission to the standing orders committee on possible reforms. One, for example, would be to take the requirements for extreme urgency (which needs the Speaker's Consent) and apply them to urgency which seeks to short-cut the legislative process. Another would be to not allow an urgency motion (itself) to allow the legislative process to be shortened. It would still be possible for short circuit the legislative process, but a second motion, suspending standing orders (which would be debateable, which an urgency motion is not) would be required. Changes like these may make the government more reluctant to use the more concerning forms of urgency, while still allowing them to extend legislative time.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Keith Ng,
Of course, there are good reasons for the state to limit its investments, and it does. It invests exclusively in natural monopolies, in sectors that are heavily regulated (because they are natural monopolies).
I do not see that AsureQuality, Learning Media and Quotable Value operate as natural monopolies.
Nor for that matter is TVNZ. Or Air New Zealand. Or Animal Control Products. Or even Landcorp.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Is membership of the SOC based around number of MPs a party has or the party’s presence in Parliament?
Each Party (even United Future and the Progressives) is represented by one member. Labour and National by two. And the Speaker chairs. It generally makes decisions by consensus, or close to it. It make recommendations that are adopted by vote in the House (always unanimous) that apply to the next term, when the power balance may differ. This at least encourages parties not to grab for power (cf. the US House of Representatives, where the majority re-writes the rule-book as the first act after swearing-in).
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to BenWilson,
Sure, but procedures can be changed. In the case of urgency, they definitely need to be.
As is customary, at this stage in the parliamentary cycle the Standing Orders Committee is currently reviewing the Standing Orders in order to make recommendations to be adopted for the next term. I am confident that urgency will be a matter of particular importance to them in this round.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,
I was in Oz when there was a threat of a double dissolution. Wish I had taken more interest in the why’s and wherefore’s at the time but from memory it didn’t strike me as being a terribly good way to run government nor that such a situation (double dissolution) would logically happen only once in a blue moon.
A double dissolution, which places all of the senate seats up for grabs in the election (rather than half) is a bit of a risk for the Government. Because the Senate is elected in State by state under STV, putting all the seats up for election at once makes it much easier for a smaller party to be elected.
Each state gets 12 senators, so at an ordinary election, electing half the senate, ~14.3% of the vote within a state is needed to get a seat. With a double dissolution only ~7.7% of the vote is needed to get a seat.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
What happens if people interpret that as a 5 way choice?
Say MMP has 45% of preference, 20% want FPP, 15% PV, 15% STV and 5% SM (just for instance). (and MMP supporters who answer the second question split 19%/14%/14%/3%).
Then that’ll be 45% for MMP and 55% for another system, so it’ll go to “another system” and FPP will win, even though it got 20% of support.
That seems like an unfair voting system to start with. If you don’t vote MMP on Part A, you’re effectively choosing whatever system wins in part B.
You're really not.
If MMP loses the vote in the first question, then there will be second referendum in 2014 which runs the current MMP system against a fully fleshed out system of whatever wins the second question (e.g. if we know that the second system in STV, we'll know how many electorates of what sizes there will be etc.).
Most people will vote in both questions. This is what happened in the effectively identical referendum in 1992. I note for a start that the numbers for the second question add up to 105%, but if that's how the numbers played out, then there would be a second referendum in 2014 which would run the current MMP system vs. FPP. Whichever of those gets more than 50% would be our voting system.
This is a non-binding referendum. If MMP loses the first question, we do not automatically adopt whatever tops the second question.
-
We could no longer be “the fastest legislature in the West”, as Piggy once famously put it
I never knew that Geoffrey Palmer was known as "Piggy". Learn something new .... etc.
(I'm pretty sure it's a line from "Unbridled Power", but am open to a reference.)