DPF on Radio NZ
September 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pm by David FarrarI’m on Checkpoint at some stage today discussing the Police and their decision to use a Wiki to consult on the new Police Act. As one would expect, I’m very positive on the move.
What a pity the Electoral Finance Bill/Act isn’t also being consulted on by Wiki. We could then actually turn it into something less retarded.
Related posts:
- Radio Live Breakfast
- Radio Live on Internet Governance
- DPF on Radio NZ on Sunday
- Labour should be consulted
September 27th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Ok, 5% on-topic here… just back from my first ever Select Committee appearance. Was judiciously allocated 5 minutes of time which I used all of and then some.
FWIW a quote from my oral submission
Quoted from the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Business New Zealand and Family First submissions to prove the point, and then gave them both barrels quote from HRC, NZ Law Society
Finished by imploring the committee members to recommend that the bill be completely discarded so that they are able to sleep straight in their beds at night.
I was asked if I thought the bill should be changed after the SC, or scrapped and re-drafted after a wider consultation process. I suggested if it it’s good enough for a proposal to introduce compulsory vehicle insurance to be benefit from public consultation then it’s 1000 times more important for the EFB to have full consultation prior to drafting.
But, the highlight for me was responding to a rapid fire set of questions from DBP where I had him huffing, bright red and being laughed at by other CS members. Nice!
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
And the Police move re: the Wiki had two mentions by other SC attendees during the 60 minutes that i was in the room
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
KK,
Can you recall/paraphrase some of DB-P’s questions and your answers please?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
SM – sure, will do over at the Law Society Says Kill The Bill thread
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Drafting by committee? Yeah, that’s going to produce good law. Drafting is a skilled process. PCO has many talented specialists, as well you know, David. Just think of the poorly worded crap you see spewing out in last minute SOPs. Nah, for me, the consultative phase is about getting your policy position right so you can fully and properly brief PCO. PCO then works the policy intention into robust law.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Along with my submission i enclosed my complaint 21 August 2007 to the Police Commissioner.
Abridged: “I allege that the action of the Police in “burying” my complaint 10 02 2006 to Acting Police Commissioner Steve Long of: “In my view this is misuse of Public Funds (Parliamentary Services) by the Labour Government on behalf of the Labour Party and constitutes an offence under the Crimes Act 1961”, along with subsequent allegations, prevented and denied the course of justice.
……
So Police are directly responsible for The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act (Statute of Shame and Memorial to Police and Political Corruption) and the corrupt: The Electoral Finance Bill now before the Select Committee.
As
I allege, Police failed utterly, not only to carry out their statutory duties and police the Electoral Act 1993 and the Crimes Act 1961, but also allegedly by lack of action and paucity of investigation, successfully buried allegations of misappropriation of Public Funds from the Prime Minister’s Leader’s Funds.
This enabled the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act to pass into law, supported by Members of Parliament, fully aware of the allegations in the first two paragraphs of this letter. Others with the same full knowledge did not vote. (A gross violation of their obligations).
Outcome. A High Court hearing was negated. Justice was denied.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Sorry DPF; On Wrong Topic. Please delete. I post it on the correct Topic
Vote: