Posts by Phil Lyth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Napoleon
nothing from Snowball or Squealer? I'm surprised.
-
"grew up in Timaru"
Aaah, the Peter Pan of South Canterbury?
-
commercially-unattractive older viewers
Any plan to use an excerpt of that storyline from Boston Legal last week (IIRC) where aid viewer sues the networks?
Phil
-
"There is a spending limit of $70,000 in local elections of this size"
is misleading on two counts:
1. The High Court on Clarkson's petition made it very clear that much money spent by a candidate need not be counted toward a cap
2. We have no idea what the Government will include in a bill still to be unveiled. The $70K figure comes from s111(1) of the current Local Electoral Act, which at the top end contemplates population tiers of 100,000 - 149,999 people, 150,000 - 249,999, and then 250,000 and over. Far under the size of the Auckland region.
So the to-be-seen Government bill could well introduce a new spending cap for an Auckland sized election. And Fred Dagg sorry John Clarke might be able to spend $1,000,000 campaigning and be lawfully within a newly created spending cap of say $100,000.
Phil Lyth
ruing the addiction of commenting for the first time anywhere -
"There is a spending limit of $70,000 in local elections of this size"
is misleading on two counts:
1. The High Court on Clarkson's petition made it very clear that much money spent by a candidate need not be counted toward a cap
2. We have no idea what the Government will include in a bill still to be unveiled. The $70K figure comes from s111(1) of the current Local Electoral Act, which at the top end contemplates population tiers of 100,000 - 149,999 people, 150,000 - 249,999, and then 250,000 and over. Far under the size of the Auckland region.
So the to-be-seen Government bill could well introduce a new spending cap for an Auckland sized election. And Fred Dagg sorry John Clarke might be able to spend $1,000,000 campaigning and be lawfully within a newly created spending cap of say $100,000.
Phil Lyth
ruing the addiction of commenting for the first time anywhere -
Graeme Edgeler achieves what I thought would never happen: getting me to register for comments. Anyway.
I thought Graeme would at least be accurate in his area of expertise: yes, s55 of the Act has an MP vacating their seat when they become a public servant.
But s3(2) of the Act specifically excludes board members from the definition of 'public servant':
Where any person—
(a) is appointed by the Crown, or the Government, or any
department or agency of the Government to be a member of
any commission, council, board, committee, or other body; or
(b) is a member of any commission, council, board, committee,
or other body of which any members receive any payment out
of public money,—
he or she shall not by reason of that membership be deemed
to be a public servant, whether or not he or she receives any
travelling allowances or travelling expenses.
That said, it is certainly the done thing that sitting MPs do not serve on boards.Phil Lyth
who may return to lurking for another three years