About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

December 9, 2010 11:00am by David Farrar

Most unusual third reading speech I can recall

Listen and judge for yourself.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment54

NZ Politics
Hilary Calvert

Comments (54)

Login to comment or vote

AG

Always remember, Act is the party of principle, not politics; the one that stands up for individual liberty and rights.

Un-be-fucking-lievable.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 11:15am
Rodders

She said it wasn’t her favourite thing. What would be – raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 11:15am
YesWeDid

A massive 509 people voted for Hilary at the last election, her voice deserves to be heard!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 11:21am
hj

She’s being bluntly honest. In parliament that would be the pork chop in the synagogue.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 11:22am
themono

Errrr…. what? I can’t even imagine how that sounded good in her head before saying it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 11:26am
davidp

When she started to talk about popping ping pong balls in the member, I thought we were going to get some sort of kinky sex show.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 11:26am
Chris Diack

Unusal in the sense of being direct. She is lukewarm on the Bill. And what rightminded person does not enjoy Trevor Mallard being sent to the sinbin.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 11:27am
BlairM

Good on her. I’d be pissed off at being whipped into voting for the bill too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 11:41am
Graeme Edgeler

Most unusual third reading speech I can recall

That’s awfully precise. You leave me wondering what first or second reading speech beats it out for most unusual speech full stop =)

[DPF: I was more meaning to exclude committee stage speeches which often are rather informal]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 11:42am
gravedodger

Keeping your mouth shut and being thought stupid___________________ , now theres a thought.
She got 509 votes, how the hell did that happen
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 11:52am
john.bt

If ACT do stand for the rights of the individual why did they vote for this bill ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 11:57am
kowtow

Dunedin once a proud productive city that lived on trade,gold ,shipping and agriculture is hanging on by the skin of it’s teeth through a wealth transfer via the government to the university,polytech,hospital and a host of other “beneficiaries”.

Is it any wonder the place is so red?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 12:04pm
BlairM

It’s bizarre that ACT are voting for it anyway. It’s a private members bill. It should be struck down. Like I say, why should someone serving a two year sentence in between elections still be allowed to vote, but someone in jail for three months on election day not?!

The only answer I can come up with is that Hide is an idiot.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 12:05pm
Rodders

It will be interesting to see how the speech is recorded in hansard.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 12:10pm
BeaB

And what are we paying her?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 12:13pm
shady

Good point BlairM. On both counts.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 12:14pm
somewhatthoughtful

Hide is an idiot.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 1:00pm
Gooner

Brainless shitwits like Blair always overlook that politics is the art of compromise. Principles are traded off for compromise. That’s politics. Get used to it.

They also overlook the fact that the VSM bill was debated in the same night. You don’t have to think too hard to understand that the Gnats probably said “we’ll vote for VSM provided you vote for this”.

I think that’s almost certainly what happened. It explains Hilary’s position.

Without voting for this, (and all you do in the process is hack off a few criminals – big deal) VSM might not be a goer.

Think about that for a moment.

If you don’t like it then politics is the wrong pastime for you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 1:01pm
Atheist1

WTF??

Where do ACT find these whackjobs?!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 1:29pm
shady

Gooner – often agree with ACT policies – but they have a bunch of numpties (bar one) in there who are making the party irrelevant. That is a worry – because I have always split my vote – our local Nat MP is an irrelevance as well IMO and doesn’t deserve both ticks.

Politics is one great big game – to see who can score the highest number of points for or against – regardless of merit.

So you lefties who support Compulsory Student Membership obviously think the best scholars of New Zealand aren’t intelligent enough to work out whether or not they need to belong to a union? Speaks volumes for your trust in our education system – given your ranting about how good it is as is.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 1:49pm
ben

I haven’t even watched the video. But is it so hard for ACT to find normal people that don’t pull headlines like ‘unusual’?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 2:24pm
edhunter

Isn’t this whole law a bit of a yawn anyway? I seriously cant think that there would be too guests of her majestys institutions loosing much sleep or rioting about not being unable to vote if they’re currently incarcerated on election day. Try & make prisons smoke free that’d really set the cat amongst the pigeons
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 2:25pm
thedavincimode

“The only answer I can come up with is that Hide is an idiot.”

Just noticed? Have you been overseas for the last year or so? Mind you, Len Brown thinks kindly of him.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 2:40pm
Gooner

Right, so Hide is an idiot because he trades off VSM passing for a few crims not being allowed to vote.

*finds brick wall, bashes head against it*.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 2:55pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

Right, so Hide is an idiot because he trades off VSM passing for a few crims not being allowed to vote.

ACT is supposed to be the ‘party of freedom’, and ACT just voted to deny people one of the most fundamental freedoms you can have in a democracy. You’d think they’d take time to try and explain why they’re doing it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 2:57pm
Gooner

I accept that much Danyl.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 3:02pm
PaulL

I agree with Danyl. If the price of getting VSM was curtailing the freedoms of some citizens, then I think that was too much. But I can understand why they did it, and arguably in getting VSM through we’re restoring freedoms to a larger group of NZers, and furthermore, a larger group who aren’t criminals.

If the choice was VSM and this bill, or neither, then I’d say it’s a line ball call. I’m not sure that was really the choice.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 3:30pm
kowtow

What an inherent contradiction. People here worried about “freedoms” for incarcerated criminals! WTF.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 3:49pm
Gooner

I should clarify that I accept a better explanation should have been given. Liberty is the fundamental freedom lost when one enters jail, not the freedom to vote. A corollary of entering jail could well be that your freedom to vote has been taken away from you; along with other liberties/freedoms.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 4:12pm
Chris Diack

It’s very cute to be lectured about basic freedoms by non supporters of ACT whom seem to have a propriatial right over ACT’s speaking and voting in Parliament despite never themselves voting for ACT.

At the same time Labour and National bolstered by the (freedom for nobody exept dope smokers) Greens are supporting the extension of the regulation of political competition to non-candidates and non-registered parties so that those spending 13k in exercise of their freedom of expression in proximity to an election are both bureaucratised and potentially criminalised. A far greater threat to liberty than Mr Quinn’s Bill.

And what is more, Pete Hodgeson indicated that Labour is open to tinkering with it in the future. In effect National has only reached its prized “consensus” on the regulation of non-candidate and non-registered party speech whilst it remains in Govt. (Yes National’s displeasure last time on the EFA really acted as a restraint on Labour)

The fact is Hilary Calvert is indicating that she is only lukewarm about preventing prisoners from voting. I suspect that view is widely held in ACT. I guess ACT is supporting it because it said it would do so in Parliament at 1st Reading and the Quinn Bill is deep and meaningful to the Nats (not one of is “Hanan Liberals”of course had any doubt the Bill could not be reconciled with basic liberties despite National party member uppitiness here).

In terms of reconciling the Quinn Bill with classical liberalism both positions (prisoners voting and non-voting are reconcilable). It depends on where one’s emphasis is: on the broad franchise (rights) or on feeling the effects flowing from non lawful behaviour (personal responsibility).

For example, all but two US states bar prisoners from voting and most US States prevent those with serious convictions from exercising the vote again (see XIV Amendment of the US Constitution). In the US, there an area of the practice of law regarding Presidential and Gubernatorial pardons which for many individuals involve restoring the right to vote. These individuals apply for a pardon as a result of committing no further crimes and otherwise leading a productive life and giving back to their communities. This sort of pardon now makes up the vast bulk of Federal and State pardons.

So I guess the new rule is: if you are prepared to do the crime, be prepared to do the time. And if you doing the time you are not voting. Is this a big “shock horror” on the liberty front: no not really. Is this going to deter crime: probably not. Are there bigger fish to fry on the freedom front: most certainly.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 4:32pm
Chris Diack

Danyl Mclauchlan:

I remember when you were humorous.

Actually the most fundamental freedom is to go about one’s lawful business and not be subject to the criminal activities of others.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 4:38pm
thedavincimode

Heads up Danyl.

Being a member of modern society entails both rights and responsibilities. Don’t play by the rules? Fuck off, go to priz and lose all your rights. Don’t want to play by the rules and don’t want to go to priz? Then just fuck off elsewhere.

The debate around alternative forms of punishment raises the prospect that some crimes are not necessarily appropriately dealt with by incarceration. But for the moment, being incarcerated is a sufficiently good basis for regarding an offender as being a sufficiently bad prick to lose not just freedom, but the vote. In fact, if the teary-eyed defenders of votes for prisoners could hold themselves in check for a moment, they would be able to see the inherent nonsense in allowing people a vote when their most fundamental freedom, being personal liberty, has been taken away. Cripes, why not let them out for a run around the block or to nip down to the dairy?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 5:11pm
Pete George

Has anyone asked any prisoners whether they could give a stuff about voting anyway? This might all just be posturing on the outside.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 5:14pm
Rex Widerstrom

If anyone’s familiar with the brilliant series “Shameless” you’ll know why, whenever Frank Gallagher does his opening rant, I think of our Parliamentarians. Not just because they’re the same kind of befuddled, ne’er-do-well, tax-leeching layabouts but because they seem unashamed of the fact. So when Frank gets to this couplet:

We are worth every penny
for grinding your axes
You shit on our ‘eads
But you pay the taxes!

I imagine our MPs, booze in one hand, fag in the other, offering us precisely the same taunt.

As for this particular piece of can’t-be-arsed “contribution” to debate on an important principle of human rights, I’m tempted to send it to the great William Shatner to present as he does Palin’s bizarre drivel.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 5:31pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

A corollary of entering jail could well be that your freedom to vote has been taken away from you; along with other liberties/freedoms.

But you need to explain why you’re taking away people’s freedoms. Prison is (a) corrective, (b) rehabilitative (in theory), and (c) safeguards the public. Does taking away someone’s right to vote accomplish any of those?

There’s also the point that the criminal justice system should be fair, equal and consistent – but this bill arbitrarily removes people’s rights based on when they happen to be sent to prison. Do two years and eleven months for aggravated assault, get out in time for the election and you get to vote. Get sent away for a month on a dishonesty offence and this happens to be during the election, you’ve lost your right to participate in our democracy – and you’ve lost it for no apparent reason.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 6:19pm
AG

@Chris: “It’s very cute to be lectured about basic freedoms by non supporters of ACT whom seem to have a propriatial right over ACT’s speaking and voting in Parliament despite never themselves voting for ACT.”

It’s called “criticism”, Chris. Your party is free to put up Hilary Calvert as a “good representative”. Your party is free to vote for legislation like this. Everyone else is free to laugh long and hard, while at the same time dying a little inside.

Isn’t freedom great?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 6:35pm
nickb

ACT sure is attracting some talent these days.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 6:45pm
thedavincimode

Danyl its easy.

If your out, you’ve rejoined society. If you’re in, you’ve left it. The bill doesn’t remove rights because people “happen” to be in prison. It removes a further right (in addition to that of liberty) BECAUSE they are in prison and they are in prison because they have opted out of the responsibilities that accompany the right to vote. You also missed (d) – a deterrent (not that that seems to have much of an effect now either).

And as for having to explain why people’s freedoms are taken away, are you actually serious or are you just taking the piss?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 6:50pm
Johnboy

She’s got lovely hair. Just like a Merino before the shearing gang gets going. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 6:59pm
Michael

I remember a Labour MP who’s speech on a third reading was “I support the bill”. It was just to use up one of the alloted speaking slots to stop the opposition filibuster which I suspect was the point of saying so little but as the only ACT speaker she should have made a contribution as to the merits of the bill.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 8:13pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

If your out, you’ve rejoined society. If you’re in, you’ve left it. The bill doesn’t remove rights because people “happen” to be in prison. It removes a further right (in addition to that of liberty) BECAUSE they are in prison

But if removing the right to vote is to be a feature of the criminal justice system then it has to be applied justly, consistently and fairly. So you could give a judge the power to sentence someone not to be able to vote. A law that denies some prisoners this right indiscriminate of their offence, purely on the date they happen to be imprisoned is not just, fair or consistent.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 9:12pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

And as for having to explain why people’s freedoms are taken away, are you actually serious or are you just taking the piss?

Look at it this way: you like the idea of prisoners losing their freedom because you hate them. Fair enough. But what if some future far left government passed a law banning wealthy people from having children, purely on the basis that they hate wealthy people (because they’re ‘evil capitalists’, or whatever)? Should disliking a segment of society be a good reason to deprive them of their basic rights?

I’m not saying you can’t ever pass laws that deprive people of their basic rights, I’m saying that when the government does this it should at least have a good reason, other than ‘prisoners are scum’ or ‘capitalists are evil’ and so on.

Also,

If your out, you’ve rejoined society. If you’re in, you’ve left it.

Does that mean prisoners shouldn’t have to pay tax? They’re not in society, after all. No taxation without representation and so on.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 9:18pm
reid

Danyl, Prisoners lose their vote because it’s part of the sentence. They stepped outside societal norms. Therefore they suffer various penalties. If they want to keep voting, then don’t commit the crime.

It’s no different from a class bully who makes life hell for the rest of the class. Should that child have the same “rights” as everyone else, without censure? Should the teachers avoid holding them to account regardless of the detriment they cause to other “innocent” pupils?

No teacher would nor should permit that.

Depriving prisoners of the “right” to participate in democracy is no different to depriving them of the “right” to freedom, the “right” to work and earn a living, the “right” to have children etc. With rights come responsibilities. If an adult can’t be responsible, they lose those “rights.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 10:06pm
Chris Diack

AG

“Your party is free to vote for legislation like this. Everyone else is free to laugh long and hard, while at the same time dying a little inside.

Isn’t freedom great?”

Don’t be melodramatic. You are sounding a bit like the AG.

Yes you are perfectly free to criticise pols but just don’t spend $12001.00 doing it within three months of the election or National and Labour (and the freedom loving Greens) will get the coppers to visit you and the Electoral Commission to chase you for not asking them first.

Every New Zealander has now less freedom of expression than previous generations. And watch out: the pols will keep tinkering with the law to further privilege their speech at the expense of everyone else’s freedom and tax money.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 9, 2010 11:51pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

Prisoners lose their vote because it’s part of the sentence. They stepped outside societal norms. Therefore they suffer various penalties.

It’s not part of the sentence though. It’s part of the sentence for some randomly selected prisoners. And why is it part of their sentence? Why do they lose THAT right, and not, say, freedom of religion?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 10, 2010 6:16am
AG

@Chris: “Don’t look at this! Look at that!”

You really need to be writing letters of complaint to the New Zealand Law Society … go read their submission on the Electoral Finance Reform Bill, at paras 39-40.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 10, 2010 8:00am
Mark

Given the quality of the ACT parliamentary leadership why does this video clip surprise you at all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 10, 2010 11:09am
KevinH

During the shameful debacle that was the Garrett affair Rodney Hide described himself as a classical liberal which caused an outbreak of laughter from one end of the country to the other. Classical liberals are usually found in the socialist ranks and not in the nationalist camps so the conclusion is that Act has no idea who they are.
On the subject of wether Prisoners should enjoy the privilege to vote the answer from me is a resounding no.Hard luck.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 10, 2010 12:06pm
lyndon

Supposing we accept the people who are put in prison, no matter for how long, have forfieted any moral rights. And we’re allowed to deprive them of anything we like, enforce religious practice (cheers Danyl), kill them, whatever. (I don’t, but whatever.)

Even if we accept all that: you still have to convince me that doing so would be a good idea.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 10, 2010 5:06pm
burt

Danyl Mclauchlan

It’s not part of the sentence though. It’s part of the sentence for some randomly selected prisoners.

So we need to fix the date that elections occur so that when people are considering a crime they can factor in the possibility that they may loose their right to vote… look for a surge of crimes with a maximum 2 year term immediately following an election… Oh the injustice….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 10, 2010 5:25pm
orewa1

Yet another glaring illustration that we have at least twicew as many MPs as we need. Get tid of half of them, and those remaining will have the moral authority to cut the public service down to size so that we can get more people into productive work.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 11, 2010 9:41am
pq

As Farrar points out in Sunday times today,

‘better the devil you know’

the zealot NAT party climber and Chair of Epsom Nat electorate Bhatnagar would like to exchange several Centre Right wing politicians for one NZ Nat politician.
thats right yo yo,
lets swap 5 to 8 seats for one yo yo NZ NAT Bhatnagar or similar,
I don’t think so,
ACT is safe
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 12, 2010 3:53pm
BlairM

Nick Kearney, why don’t you go fuck yourself? You know your party is now full of shit, so personal attacks on me seem to be all you have left. You are defending the increasingly indefensible and I pity you. Furthermore, I have always defended you personally, so your insults are disgusting, albeit typical of the disgrace that ACT has become.

You know that ACT MPs were not elected to vote for things they disagreed with, and as I gave them my party vote in 2008 I still have a vested interest. If they were going to do that, why don’t they just join the National caucus where they can be officially whipped instead of voluntarily whipping themselves?

If they are horsetrading on private members bills, that is ridiculous. It is a travesty of democracy. They should be voting on their own conscience. If National MPs do not wish to vote for VSM, they should not be doing that either. I want principled people in parliament, not whores.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 12, 2010 6:07pm
BlairM

And let’s think about this for a bit Nick. This is not about scumbag prisoners. This is not about the worst of the worst. They could never vote anyway. This is about petty criminals who are serving less than three years. It is inconsistent to allow someone serving two years to vote if they do their time between elections, but not allow the vote to someone serving two months if they are in there next November.

Besides all this, do you not see how this could be used as a political tool? You have been a Party Secretary – imagine if they decided to arrest you for something right before an election? You couldn’t vote, dumbass! Would you put it past someone like Clark or someone like Howard Broad to do it? I wouldn’t.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2010 7:26pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Meanwhile in the Land of Oz

Wrong headline »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

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

Top Stories

General Debate 21 November 2024
The progressive NZ media
Imagine a different scenario
Great progress
General Debate 22 November 2024
What do NZers think of the Mongrel Mob and Black Power
Home detention for meth dealing
Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data
Judge gets it right
A cunning plan?

Recent Posts

The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers 22 November 2024
General Debate 22 November 2024 22 November 2024
A cunning plan? 22 November 2024
Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data 21 November 2024
Great progress 21 November 2024
Judge gets it right 21 November 2024
Imagine a different scenario 21 November 2024
The progressive NZ media 21 November 2024
What do NZers think of the Mongrel Mob and Black Power 21 November 2024
General Debate 21 November 2024 21 November 2024
Home detention for meth dealing 21 November 2024
A good top cop 20 November 2024

Recent Comments

Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data
Alwyn Poole
Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data
Alwyn Poole
General Debate 22 November 2024
Tom Hunter
General Debate 22 November 2024
peterwn
Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data
Alwyn Poole
The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers
cmm
General Debate 22 November 2024
Bridgenag
A cunning plan?
MCōs
Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data
Ghost
General Debate 22 November 2024
Cassandra
General Debate 22 November 2024
Cassandra
General Debate 22 November 2024
cmm
General Debate 22 November 2024
Handyman
The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers
sirknz
A cunning plan?
MCōs

Links

Javier Milei’s Chainsaw on Bureaucracy
Not PC
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
#climateemergency
Utopia
Do The Health Authorities Require Too Much From a GP?
No Minister
The h?koi was M?ori Party’s crowning glory – and provided plenty for Labour to think about
Point of Order
It’s National ACT NZF who are Dishonouring the Treaty + the day Moana Jackson knocked Gerry Brownlee on his bum
The Daily Blog
Open mike 22/11/2024
The Standard
Drawn
No Right Turn
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
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+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d