Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
How would the public service get supervised? I know they are all consumatte professionals
Or would that be "consummating" professionals? After all, the public service is a favour target of, err, colourful language.
And would it be fair to assume that, if Rodders has his way, they'll be "consummated" professionals? -
We should also expect at least investigation of the corporatisation/privatisation of many services… water first. In Auckland it puts a whole new dimension on the ongoing Royal Commission review.
I see Rodney being good for getting Auckland's councils to pull their heads in, in terms of getting a solid model for regional governance implemented quickly. But that's the only positive. I see it being accompanied by statutory divestment of water facilities, maybe through a forced tender-and-sale process, followed by all the rest of the country's councils being told "Auckland's bigger than any two of you combined and it works there, so STFU and do what you're told!" For values of "works" that don't include affordable supply of water to all residents.
Act's ministerial positions are horrifying. Local government is being done to death in here, but there are other portfolios that are at least as scary. Rodney getting Associate Minister of Commerce, which puts him in the same room as those who have to rein in the worst excesses of Telecom, is potentially bad too. And don't get me started on giving a business freedom acolyte like Heather Roy the Consumer Affairs portfolio. There goes the ComCom's active role in protecting consumers.
-
And finally, let's greatly expand the statute of limitations for prosecutions from six months -- if not do away with it altogether.
I don't know about doing away with it entirely, but increasing it to "until the completion of the parliamentary term following discovery of the breach" would be pretty effective. That's not quite open-ended, but ensures that there's at least three years (assuming no early elections) to investigate. And a governing party can't fudge things by calling an early election, because it's the term after the discovery.
-
I'm not looking to disenfranchise the man.
Pity. I think you might find a fair bit of popular support for the notion :P
-
So did I, and then had to go wipe my hands on the shrink-wrapped wank-mags to feel clean again...
Lol - another classic Mr Ranapia.
Yes, it is vintage Craig. But in this recounting he missed out one small detail: The hetero "shrink-wrapped wank-mags" :P
Can you tell he's told us that one before? Not that it's any less amusing for it.
-
But I don't resile from my view that Foreign Affairs and Trade are two portfolios that should not be held by political TARDISes.
And if John wants to stops Ministers-outside-Cabinet from having to have bilateral treaty discussions with other nations, Revenue needs to be added to that list. We currently have 35 Double Tax Agreements with other countries, and I believe a 36th was concluded earlier this year but isn't yet in force. Revenue is about the busiest department in terms of negotiating treaties with other countries, certainly far, far busier than MFAT.
-
I could start it with the old chestnut of should politicians write education policy in any form ?
Well, if one follows through on the regular criticism of Helen that a woman without children was telling people how to raise their offspring, no pollie who's never been a teacher (goodbye, vast, vast majority of National's caucus) should ever be let near Education. Similarly non-cops at Police, non-medicos at Health, and non-military at Defence.
John Key is singularly unqualified to be anywhere near policies for women and maori, as are most of his Cabinet-to-be.Good thing we don't try and enforce that "Don't touch it if you have no practical experience" line, because we'd be supremely served on Agriculture and that'd be about it. Not quite sure how one would qualify for Internal Affairs, either. Maybe a past career as a proctologist? :P
-
You may get the industry bodies sticking their heads in the sand and waffling but to assume they speak for the content industry as a whole simply shows a failure to understand the industry at the root or the things that drive it.
In which case, why do we get legislation that's driven by the industry bodies? You can't pretend that s92 is in some way reflective of a desire to embrace the internet.
As with most things, it's the vocal players that get the attention. They also get the laws drafted how they want them, and the rest of you be damned.If you want us to consider the industries as having any more-enlightened players than the industry bodies, rein the fuckers in. Because right now, y'all are getting tarred with the same brush, as unfair as that may be.
-
In particular the way he railed in Birch's instruction to the IRD to attack regardless of the human (and indeed, often fiscal) consequences. I've always give Hide credit for that and it's a huge stain on the IRD and their political masters at the time.
Yes, that is one thing for which Hide is fully entitled to kudos. The IRD is, considering their raison de etre, quite pleasant to deal with. It's a shame he'd rather demolish ACC than give them a kick in the pants, though.
Interesting that PWC reported that ACC delivers more, at a lower cost, than comparable schemes overseas. Shame that the ideologues don't give a damn about outputs, it's all about the show. -
And how long did it take Labour to get through three Prime Ministers?
Yes, not very long. But one of them resigned in disgust, over Roger Douglas of all people. Only the replacement of Goff is vaguely comparable, and it was hardly the midnight rolling of Bloger in the middle of a term.
Get back to me when National manages to keep one person as leader for 15 years, thanks.