Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: D-Day for Dunne (updated), in reply to Rob Stowell,
While this is a tempest in a teacup, it’s another sign of growing disquiet with the speaker.
But which came first?
Is Labour opposed to the Speaker because of decisions like this, or is Labour opposed (in part) to decisions like this because it opposes the Speaker?
I suspect the answer is both, but there's certainly an element of the latter in the *way* they are going about their opposition, in much the same way as Don Brash's motion of no confidence in Margaret Wilson as Speaker stemmed from opposition to her and Labour, rather than the particular decision, which was undoubtedly correct (then-retired MP Richard Prebble supported Wilson on that decision, for example, as did Rodney Hide). But it played into National's argument about Clark being corrupt and Wilson being biased, and I think there's been a similar calculation here, especially in the way the opposition of the opposition has unfolded.
-
The following are the only previous Speaker's Rulings recorded on the issue of party recognition, for anyone interested:
PARTIES (SOs 34–36)
1 Whatever name a party is registered under with the Electoral Commission is beside the point. The name that a party wishes to be known by in the House is as stated in its letter to the Speaker.
1999, Vol. 578, p. 17299. Kidd.2 Whom the Electoral Commission [registers] as a political party is relevant only if the Speaker receives a letter from a member seeking to be recognised in respect of a new party under the Standing Orders.
2002, Vol. 599, p. 15767. Hunt.3 Whether under the Standing Orders or the Electoral Act, the Speaker is not concerned with what persons outside the House do, but only with what members of the House do by way of giving formal advice of changes to party arrangements. The Speaker acts on formal advice and does not take the initiative. How members conduct themselves politically is a matter for them to determine.
2002, Vol. 600, p. 15881. Hunt. 2004, Vol. 617, p. 12554. Hunt.4 A suspension of a member from caucus effects no change in a party’s parliamentary membership.
2003, Vol. 606, p. 3257. Hunt. -
Legal Beagle: D-Day for Dunne (updated), in reply to Cameron Pitches,
He was called as United Future, that’s my point.
And it has been recognised as a Party in Parliament, so he would be.
-
Legal Beagle: D-Day for Dunne (updated), in reply to Cameron Pitches,
Graeme, funding issues aside, what are the implications of a deregistered party’s vote being counted in passing legislation?
There aren't major implications. He still gets to vote, the difference is whether he's called as "United Future" or as "Peter Dunne" (just like Brendan Horan gets to vote).
-
Legal Beagle: D-Day for Dunne (updated), in reply to Andrew Geddis,
That said … why won’t the Speaker release that advice? I recall that Hunt released David McGee’s opinion in the Duynhoven case (which was that he should delay his decision). Can’t see why Carter wouldn’t do the same, here.
It's not usual, but I don't see a reason why you wouldn't, unless perhaps it wasn't in writing?
McGee's advice was about how the Privileges Committee should look at it, right? Not that Parliament should debate to report before the decision was made?
-
Legal Beagle: D-Day for Dunne (updated), in reply to Andrew Geddis,
What possible difference does the terminological point make?
Parker was using it to show that the Speaker was being sneaky and corrupt. He was effectively accusing him of misleading the House for a short while. And it matters to that. He wasn't just saying the Speaker got the call wrong, he was using this to imply he was dishonest.
There are a number of complaints to made about the decision the Speaker has made. This isn't one of them.
-
Legal Beagle: D-Day for Dunne (updated), in reply to Craig Ranapia,
BTW, very well done on Morning Report Graeme.
I was somewhat disappointed I didn’t get the opportunity to correct the inaccuracies I kept hearing in the interviews before mine – if a political party wants me to take its outrage seriously, it should gets its facts straight, or I’m more likely to assume the outrage is manufactured (e.g. David Parker made a statement about Carter claiming he had legal advice then admitting he had “advice” not legal advice. Carter clearly said advice, and the Winston Peters started calling it legal advice for some reason etc.).
I am perfectly fine with outrage against a decision of the Speaker. I remember being miffed at a couple of decisions of Margaret Wilson. I also remember National advancing a motion of no confidence in the Speaker in a decision of hers that was unmistakably correct (the decision not to refer Taito Phillip Field to the privileges committee). I have always been quite pleased with this piece I wrote at that time (http://web.archive.org/web/20061104155616/http://www.sirhumphreys.com/lbj/2006/jul/27/margaret_wilson_is_right). National getting on its high horse about how the Speaker makes the final call is more than a little rich.
-
By “popular” demand :-)
-
Hard News: Media3: We have much to discuss, in reply to BenWilson,
If Spartacus started showing underage sex, though, I expect they would not get away with it. Sexual violence is constantly depicted, gratuitously, though. It’s pretty near the line already.
Actually, they might. The censorship legislation doesn't cover broadcasting. It would be a breach of broadcasting standards, but wouldn't be a crime.
Possessing copies within New Zealand might still be, so they'd have to try to get around that somehow...
-
Up Front: It's Complicated, in reply to Emma Hart,
I have had exactly this argument, in a different context. I had sex at fifteen. Nobody should get to tell me that whether I consented or not is irrelevant.
I have a strong dislike of the phrase "statutory rape".
Rape is about lack of consent. Underage sex is underage sex. The presence of consent means that underage sex - which may still be illegal - is not not rape, and calling it rape is stupid.