General Debate 27 October 2010

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment68

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (68)

Login to comment or vote

Say Goodbye to Hollywood

الكفار تناول كعك
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:02am
Inventory2

What SGTH said 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:03am
MT_Tinman

Old joke.

Nothing to see here folks.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:04am
Pita

Chicago Carbon Exchange: Carbon now trading at U.S. $0.05 per ton…What is Nick charging us?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:09am
slightlyrighty

Where’s the cake?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:11am
flipper

Willson, Supreme Court J. (soon to be ex)
Now that some of the dust has settled perthapsz itfg mighgt be timds tgo ask:
Why are Justices NOT REQUIRED TO PLAce their business interests into a blind trfust?
Is it aPPROPRIAte fort the Chief Justiceds to be invcolved in hgorse raCE OWSNERSHIP?
iS IT Approprtiate fotrf any Justices to bed involved in a business ?
Should senmior legal cxounsel be 0permitted tgo undser take outsaideds business actyivitiesx? (they hold a sapecial and preiovileged position in our legal szysterdm)
Is it notg timre fort ma Parliamentary Select Committee to conduct publioc hearingsz into each and every High/Appeal/.Supreme Court appointgmednt?
Shouldcx the public be asked by wshy ofv a publ;ic notgfice to mcomment upon tgfheirf suitgZAbilitgy fortf aPPOINTGFMENT?

In the US all Supreme Court Justices and thedeirfd szspousesa are req

Why?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:13am
Murray

המרוקאי והעתיד :
מרוקאי אחד הולך למגדת עתידות.
מגדת העתידות אומרת לו “אני רואה שאישתך עומדת למות, והגורם למותה יהיה אלימות פיזית קשה”.
מזדרז המרוקאי ושואל אותה “תגידי, את יכולה לראות אם אצא זכאי?” …
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:14am
Inventory2

Another question; does Flipper need to get a new keyboard?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:14am
mjwilknz

With all the fuss over the Hobbit, does it look to anyone else like the unions might have scored a spectacular own goal by essentially forcing the Government to rule that contractors aren’t employees?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:18am
flipper

Willson, Supreme Court J. (soon to be ex)
Now that some of the dust has settled perhaps it might be time to ask:

Why are Justices NOT REQUIRED to place their business interests into a blind trust?
Is it appropriate for the Chief Justice to be involved in horse (race) or stud ownership?
Is it appropriate for any Justice to be involved in a business ?
Should senior legal counsel be permitted to undertake outside business activities? (they hold a special and privileged position in our legal system)
Is it not time for a Parliamentary Select Committee to conduct public hearings into each and every future High/Appeal/Supreme Court appointment?
Should the public be asked by way of public notice to comment on proposed appointees??

In the US all Supreme Court Justices and their spouses are required to place all business and investments into a blind trust.

Why?

To ensure integrity in the judicial system.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:20am
Inventory2

Get the beer and chippies in; the fun is about to begin. Helen Kelly is peeved because the government is going to change employment laws without consulting the unions. It’s OUTRAGEOUS, d’ya hear!

http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2010/10/fight-is-on.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:21am
Jimbob

You would have to say that people have an over inflated opinion on how intelligent union leaders are.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:23am
flipper

New keyboard?
New fingers would help!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:24am
mjwilknz

Flipper, those things should at least be considered, I agree. In order to minimise interference, however, shouldn’t the public be demanding the judges look after themselves better (that is, shouldn’t we leave the judging up to the judges)? Wouldn’t that better “ensure integrity in the judicial system”?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:26am
Murray

Maybe now is a good time for the unions to take a seat on the quiet mat and STFU because they’ve had their noisy time and well and truely fucked things up for everyone else.

I could go a long time without seeing Robyn Malcomes smarmy visage on my TV telling us more bullshit thanks. Only to be counter pointed and contridicted by that Aussie prick who thinks he sould be running the NZ unions. Theres bus leaving in half and hour, be under it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:27am
mjwilknz

Jimbob, doesn’t it amuse you how the unions go on about looking after workers? The Hobbit fiasco would demonstrate that unions only look after workers who are also union members, and possibly then only members of particular unions (such as acting unions and not film technician unions)!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:29am
Inventory2

Just heard Mike Hosking and Stephen Joyce give Annette King an absolute rollocking on Newstalk – priceless! Annette King was totally lost for words defending the indefensible.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:29am
mjwilknz

Murray, do you think the CTU, for one, have already been too vocal to get away with it and just a bit of time on the quiet map?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:33am
Jimbob

@mjwilknz : Yes, also they tend to use workers as sheep to be farmed to give themselves power and a comfy living.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:38am
Nookin

Flipper
Some good points except the idea of any parliamentary select committee involvement. The idea that some of our parliamentarians would have the nous and objectivity to make or endorse judicial appointments is a bit of a fantasy. Imagine the likes of Sue Bradford on a Parliamentary select committee investigating the appointment of the Chief Employment Court to Judge or Russell Norman on a select committee appointing the Chief Environment Court Judge

As far as business interests are concerned, the Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules prohibit a lawyer from engaging in a business or professional activity other than the practice of law where the business or professional activity would or could reasonably be expected to compromise the discharge of the lawyer’s professional obligations.

Candidly, I would have thought that the test for a judicial officer would be much more severe. My understanding has always been that judges’ salaries and retirement packages were intended to recognise limitations on judges participating in other income producing activities. If they do not, then they should. And there should be a complete prohibition on other business activity or, as you say, a blind trust the management procedures for which which must be susceptible to audit by an independent authority.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:40am
Scumsucker

All NZ judges are completely incompetent.

Allow the public to elect them. That will sort out our corrupt system.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:42am
Dougie

Did anybody notice in yesterday’s DomPost page C4 Crater Farm a Maori owned property was for sale. The come-on said they were hoping to sell it to a film star or overseas buyer looking for an exclusive retreat. Has the OIA been notified, have the xenophobe party said anything? Hone was kicked off the select committee for saying that foreigners could have more rights to beaches than iwi, is he OK with iwi selling their rights?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:43am
Murray

mjwilknz its WAAAAAAY too late.

But any time the CTU STFU is a good time for them to do so.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:48am
dad4justice

I second what Scumsucker said . Our judicial system is so dysfunctional it is dangerous.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:54am
Nookin

Helen Kelly is reported to have said that the actors did not want to become employees but simply wanted to negotiate, collectively, as independent contractors. I suspect that the river runs much deeper than this. I always wondered why and how Mr Bryson took his case to the Supreme Court. John Key filled in that gap when he said last week that CTU funded the proceedings. If so, it follows that CTU is clearly supporting a move to eliminate the concept of independent contractors from the film industry.

I also note that a professor Roth, a supposed employment law expert from Otago University, announced over the weekend that it would be a wholly inappropriate for the government to change the law because it was relatively clear-cut and had been prolifically litigated. He made the point (not recorded in the hyperlinked article below but in another report that I have not located) that it is relatively straightforward for an employment lawyer to draft an appropriate contract.

Firstly, if a particular issue has been litigated “thousands” of times, then surely that is proof that the law is uncertain and needs clarification.

Secondly, is he saying that those “thousands” of cases involve employment agreements not prepared by lawyers? Thirdly, how does he factor into his views the point that the actual agreement is not conclusive of the nature of the relationship.

Until there is certainty, there will be ongoing litigation and, almost inevitably, an industry approach such as that adopted by CTU and the film industry where employers are singled out for a decision that will have industrywide consequences. CTU criticises the government for playing the power game. It started it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10682888
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:55am
Nookin

Scumsucker

And the “public” is somehow exempt from corrupt influencces?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:56am
Nookin

Influencces? I flippered!!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 9:12am
mattyroo

About bloody time the government loosened the law around the delineation of contractor/employee.

I regularly employ “contractors”, but due to the very restrictive test that defines whether these people are contractors or employees they quite often turn out to be employees. Nevermind that they want to fall into the contractor category themselves – due to the tax implications. It also would remove a significant amount of work for me reporting their income if they were contractors.

Shouldn’t be too surprised that the unions are calling this an attack on workers rights – but hey, when have these fuckwits ever been in touch with the real world.

A couple of weeks ago, unions in Australia were screaming that the numbers of contractors (in the building industry) was growing at an exponential pace, they were implying that these people were being forced into being a contractor. The idiots were too thick to realise that the builders themselves were electing to be contractors – for lifestyle reasons, because they were earning AUD190k p.a.

Unions are only worried that people are becoming contractors, because as contractors, they are less (read not at all) likely to be a member of the union, thereby not contributing to the trough that Kelly and her ilk have supped on since christ was a cowboy.

One hopes that the government changes the law for all industry, not just the film luvvies.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 9:17am
Murray

Contractors don’t join unions matty.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 9:22am
Pauleastbay

Scumsucker and D4J

Public elected judges?

That would be the same public that elected the labour government three times recently and Len Brown ,, keep thinking geniuses, just keep it to your selves
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 9:39am
Scumsucker

‘Contractors don’t join unions matty.’

No they form ‘societies’ and blackmail their incomes up instead.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 9:40am
mjwilknz

Mattyroo, I agree, let’s hope that the Government have the bulls to do change the law for everyone, not just the film industry!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 9:44am
mjwilknz

Scumsucker, Nookin and Pauleastbay, it is very difficult to imagine publicly elected judges. We have the Rule of Law in this country, something many of our forefathers gave their lives to protect. It should be a cold day in hell before we give up on it!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 9:48am
Nookin

And Taito Philip Field or future equivalent might be appointed as the electoral officer for the elections?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 9:49am
adze

Or Daljit Singh….
What happened with him anyway? The media’s been pretty quiet on him lately.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 10:10am
Nookin

mjwilknz
Not difficult. Impossible – an invitation for abuse and corruption.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 10:23am
Chuck Bird

Hilary Calvert will be on Back Benches tomorrow to talk about The Hobbit and State Housing. Come along to the Back Bencher from 8.00pm onwards or watch TVNZ 7 or Sky 97 from 9.00pm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 10:24am
mjwilknz

Nookin, Dad4justice’s complaints about the quality of our judiciary make it look like his name shouldn’t be about justice, it should be Dad4vindictiveness!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 10:46am
Nookin

And the major concern is that people with underlying prejudices and agendas tend to want to get involved and “make a difference”. Imagine dad on the appointment committee for a family Court judge?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 10:57am
mjwilknz

Nookin, indeed! If NZ is to have a debate creating a constitution (as many are expecting), let’s hope the sanctity of our judicial system is preserved, or maybe even enhanced, through it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 11:11am
3-coil

Reports are appearing today that Zimbabwe’s President (for life?) Robert Mugabe is…a cuckold 🙂

Seems wife Grace has not been satisfied with service at home, and has been playing away.

The dude in the box seat (Gideon Gono, governor of Zimbabwe’s central bank) – well, his “whereabouts is unknown”. I’m sure he’ll turn up (hopefully safe and well!) sooner or later.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 11:37am
Scumsucker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU

Well worth watching ‘How Liberals Argue’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 11:49am
kowtow

What was wrong with the Privy Council?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 11:51am
mjwilknz

Kowtow, the Privy Council was like a video ref! NZ effectively decided that it preferred its judicial decisions to come from people on the ground. Hard to see how the people on the ground could always be relied on as much as a video ref, but there you go.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 12:07pm
Fletch

Hilary Calvert will be on Back Benches tomorrow to talk about The Hobbit and State Housing.

Chuck Bird 10.24am

I can see this is an area where the Govt will be able to save, seeing that Hobbit houses don’t need to be built as large as normal state houses. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 12:19pm
nickb

Does anyone know when the Select Committee is reporting back on the file sharing bill? I thought it was meant to be this month
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 12:25pm
Inventory2

So, what’s prompted Matt McCarten to stand for Mana?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10683379

Press conference at 2pm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 12:26pm
Jack5

Do any Kiwiblog readers anything about the Coastal Coalition? It has a half-page advertisement in today’s Christchurch Press (page A13) critical of John Key and his Attorney-General Chris Finlayson over the seabed and foreshore moves. Presumably the ad. is in other newspapers around the country.

Are its statements true? Will Maori wardens be able to declare any area tapu without appeal and fine you $5000 for going there? Will tribes be able to bypass the Resource Management Act? Does the Maori Party want ownership of the whole 200-mile economic zone?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 12:27pm
starboard

So, what’s prompted Matt McCarten to stand for Mana

..easy money if ya can get it…oink…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 12:31pm
bhudson

McCarten standing in Mana. Hell…This can only be a protest at Labour’s parachuting in of Kris Faa’foi surely?

McCarten will only serve to split the left vote, although, admittedly, Labour did have a large majority over National in the electorate vote. (I put that in terms of parties and not candidates because that is the way that electorate is – voting party not person – particularly around Titahi Bay, Elsdon and all the way through Porirua East.)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 12:57pm
joana

He is very ill..why would he be interested in easy money? Perhaps some insiders are unhappy with the unethical way K Faafoi was selected..Faafoi will have to work a lot harder to win the seat..makes it much more of a competition.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 1:02pm
Inventory2

That’s what I reckon as well Joana; McCarten is sending as message to Labour that whilst the EPMU and CTU might support Goff, he’s his own man. And wasn’t he closely connected to the Pagani family in the Alliance days?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 1:07pm
kowtow

Jack 5

ODT has the 1/2 page ad today. I note David Round had a piece in the paper the other day. I respect his opinion greatly. See below.

I’m joining the coalition and will be going to my National MP’s office tomorow. This is the final straw. Smacking referendum, ETS now this.

http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2010/10/david-round-truth-about-free-beach.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 1:08pm
starboard

He is very ill..why would he be interested in easy money

..sorry didnt know he was unwell…and if he is terminal , from what Ive read elsewhere , what the f**** does he think he’ s doin ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 1:50pm
nickb

Indeed kowtow. Some parts of that article are quite alarming. Specifically where iwi can negotiate privately for customary title instead of through any judicial process. Round smacks this idea down quite well.

Lets look at some of the Bill:

27 Rights of access
(1) Every individual has the right—
(a) to enter, stay in or on, and leave the common marine
and coastal area; and
(b) to pass and repass in, on, over, and across the common
marine and coastal area; and
(c) to engage in recreational activities in or on the common
marine and coastal area.

(2) The rights conferred by this section are subject to any authorised
prohibitions or restrictions that are imposed under section
78, or by or under any other enactment.

78 Wāhi tapu conditions 30
(1) The wāhi tapu conditions that must be set out in a customary
marine title order or an agreement are—
(a) the location of the boundaries of the wāhi tapu or wāhi
tapu area that is the subject of the order; and
(b) the prohibitions or restrictions that are to apply, and the 35
reasons for them; and
(c) any exemption for specified individuals to carry out a
protected customary right in relation to, or in the vicinity
of, the protected wāhi tapu or wāhi tapu area, and
any conditions applying to the exercise of the exemption.
(2) Wāhi tapu conditions may affect the exercise of fishing rights,
but must not do so to the extent that the conditions substantially
reduce the lawful entitlement of fishers under the fisheries
legislation.
(3) A customary marine title group may seek to vary or revoke a 10
wāhi tapu condition by—
(a) applying to the Court under section 98 as if the application
were for a customary marine title order; or
(b) making an agreement under section 93 to amend the
agreement.
(4) If an order or an agreement is varied or revoked under subsection
(3), the responsible Minister must—
(a) notify the variation or revocation in accordance with
section 77(4); and
(b) provide a copy of the notice to the chief executive who
must record the notice on the register.
(5) In this section, fisheries legislation means—
(a) the Fisheries Act 1983; and
(b) the Fisheries Act 1996; and
(c) regulations made under those Acts. 25
79 Appointment of wardens
(1) Wardens may be appointed by a customary marine title group
with an interest in a wāhi tapu or wāhi tapu area, in accordance
with regulations made under section 118, to promote compliance
with a prohibition or restriction imposed under section 30
78.
(2) A warden appointed under subsection (1) is responsible to
the customary marine title group for the following functions:
(a) to assist in implementing any prohibition or restriction
(b) to enter a wāhi tapu or wāhi tapu area for the purpose of
performing the warden’s functions:

Full text of the bill is at:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0201/latest/viewpdf.aspx

A few parts of the bill seem quite disturbing. Although public access is supposedly guaranteed, this seems to be subject to the sections surrounding wahi tapu. In other words, your right to public access is guaranteed as long as it does not interfere with the practice of ancient and primitive superstition.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 2:23pm
hj

Was listening to a program on the Canterbury Earthquake on radio NZ. Hana O’Regan was sheltering in the doorway with her two little ones and the 6 year old tells her to hurry and say a karakia to the god of the earthquake. She does;”it wasn’t a very good one” and that “settles him down”.
I suppose if you’re going to use the “we are kaitiaki (and so) it is our sacred duty to manage mother earth- Aotearoa”, you have to walk the walk and talk the talk?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/documentaries/fault-lines/fault_lines
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 2:58pm
MikeNZ

kowtow (612) Says:
October 27th, 2010 at 1:08 pm

The smacking referendum did it for me, as JK’s character came out with that, (rather like Helen’s with the speeding drivers of hers) the rest JK does doesn’t surprise me any more.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 3:25pm
Rex Widerstrom

RIP Paul the Octopus.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 4:26pm
mawm

I like this bit from David Round -:

an iwi, hapu or whanau group, may seek recognition of its ‘customary marine title’. It may do this in one of two ways ~ either by proving its case in the High Court, or by private negotiations with the Minister from which the public is excluded and from which there is no possibility of appeal or judicial scrutiny.

Very Mugabesque. Just what one needs to buy all the Maori voters.

What happened to our Democracy?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 4:46pm
grumpyoldhori

nickb a bit upset that hories may end up with the some rights as pakeha when it comes to property dear boy ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 4:48pm
hj

nickb a bit upset that hories may end up with the some rights as pakeha when it comes to property dear boy ?
…
except that Maori are claiming that as (descendants of) the first humans in the geographical entity known as New Zealand all territory belongs to them other than existing private property “fairly gained”?

As for “only Pakeha have rights to existing titles”:

Summary of the parcels that adjoin the foreshore
owned by the Crown 7,455km 37.64%
owned by territorial authorities 6,239km 31.42%
General land 3,979km 20.05%
Maori land 2,053km 10.35%
Unresolved 107km 0.54%
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 5:56pm
hj

RadioNZ

“Meanwhile, Green Party co-leader Metiria Turia is accusing ACT of deliberately damaging race relations in order to boost its electoral changes.

Ms Turei says ACT’s proposed amendment that would stop Maori charging for access to beaches if they win customary title is unnecessary and racist.

She told Waatea News ACT is creating doubt and fear in the minds of the public.

If charges for beach access are to be banned, Ms Turei says, then it should apply to the parts of the coast held in private title as well as what ends up in customary ownership.”
…………
Claiming customary title is racist as it applies to a group identified soley on race (i.e the first inhabitants) but is stopping them charging based on their race or the fact that as first inhabitants (albeit a small population by modern standards) some of them are claiming ownership of every inch of coastline leaving Pakeha a landlocked people?

eg:
Margaret Mutu Must Be Challenged
Posted on 25 Aug 2004

Auckland University Professor of Maori Studies Margaret Mutu’s irresponsible threats and outrageous assertions before the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill must be challenged, Committee Member and ACT MP Ken Shirley said today.

“While I believe that Labour’s foreshore and seabed legislation is misguided and inappropriate, Margaret Mutu asserted that her iwi, Northland’s Ngati Kahu, has full unrestricted ownership of all foreshore and seabed within her tribal boundaries with sole powers to regulate, manage and control all activities,” Mr Shirley said.

“She claimed that this power of ownership extends to Tahiti, the ancient homeland of Hawaiki.

“Prof Mutu’s obnoxious submission threatened that any restrictions on this asserted ownership would result in acts of terrorism and civil war, She openly condoned the type of terrorism operating in Palestine to resist any denial of the extensive rights she asserts.

“Prof Mutu dismissed pakeha law, and pakeha legislation, which forces ordinary decent working people – Maori and pakeha – to pay her generous salary at Auckland University. It appears we are paying her to fill the heads of our young academics with mush,” Mr Shirley said.

ENDS

http://www.act.org.nz/news/margaret-mutu-must-be-challenged
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 6:12pm
nickb

nickb a bit upset that hories may end up with the some rights as pakeha when it comes to property dear boy ?

Not at all hori, but I wouldn’t expect you of all people to understand. You see when pakeha feel like they have been unfairly stripped of their land, they can go to what is called a “court” to enforce their rights. This is a lot different to a discreet dinner or behind closed doors negotiations with an MP (aren’t they such paragons of virtue. And all the maori land law work Finlayson has done? No conflict of interest there!)

So you are telling me that in this case it is Pakeha getting special treatment? Hahaha, don’t make me laugh, fucking idiot
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 6:13pm
nickb

For the record hori, to set you straight, I thought the original Foreshore and Seabed Act was the most draconian legislation passed by Labour, the EFA perhaps excepted. I would definitely support a total repeal and for the Crown to appeal to the Privy Council to make the position clear once and for all.

Cutting of property rights through legislation is not the way to go. But neither is the carving up of customary title to beaches behind closed doors (without any scope for even judicial review). The whole process would in all likelihood be deeply corrupt. I mean how small is the legal fraternity in NZ? Top iwi heads know top maori lawyers, who know Chris Finlayson, who are in coalition with the Maori Party….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 6:19pm
wat dabney

I used to think Socialism was a bad idea, but look how much money we’d save!

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/10/pricing-in-venezuela.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 7:07pm
gravedodger

Mr Key has saved the Hobbit for NZ now we can work out what those inhabitants of the 19th century have actually cost us.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 7:34pm
Tauhei Notts

It’s General Debate so I think I can bring this up.
I was surprised to hear Trevor Mallard refer to something in committee stages as being “arse about face”.
In the old days that would not have been considered parliamentary language, but it went through with no comment.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 8:23pm
Hurf Durf

Gotta love the growing body of evidence that the Democratic Party is attempting to steal the Senate race in Nevada. I’ll assume the principled left will make a stand against this blatant corruption just like they did in 2000.

Oh wait.

It’s also an excellent argument for the retention of paper ballots.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2010 9:25pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Manslaughter or Murder?

Wrong but sort of funny »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.3K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

No, Fossil Fuels Are Not Being “Subsidised”
Utopia
Sabotaging justice
No Right Turn
2024 Listener’s Choice Podcast Awards
The Daily Blog
What would Sumner say about Trump and Vance’s pro-tariff rhetoric?
Not PC
The 2024 US Election: A No-Win Scenario
The Standard
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Word of the day
Hompaddock
A tariffying prospect for Kiwi exporters: Trump plans to tax imports – but a Harris presidency would be not much better
Point of Order
NZ media’s “propagandisation” of the US Election
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Your Cheatin’ Ballot II: Pennsylvania
No Minister
THE PUNCHING ABOVE OUR WEIGHT EMBARRASSMENT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
US military-industrial-sports complex.
Kiwipolitico
The Battle for Democracy
NZCPR
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Where are the food carts?
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d