Was it deliberate or a mistake?
November 12th, 2010 at 11:00 am by David FarrarThe ballot for the private members bills had only 24 bills in it this week. Previous ones had 38, 47, and 40.
Why? Because only one Labour MP’s bill was in the ballot. Normally they have 17 – 20.
Trevor blogs on Red Alert:
As may be obvious we are having a crack at getting Darren’s bill up here
I am sceptical about this explanation, and wonder if the truth might be that someone fucked up and forgot to resubmit the bills.
If Trevor is telling the truth, then they should sack whomever came up with the idea of only putting Darren’s in there. Here’s why.
In all the other ballots, the chance of Darren’s bill being selected for a spot is around 2.5% and the chance of a Labour bill being selected around 40% to 50%.
Under this cunning plan, Darren’s chances do increase – from 2.5% to 4%, but Labour’s overall chances plummet from near 50% to also 4%.
Is that not the stupidest cunning plan since Baldrick?
So I don’t know what the reality is. Is Trevor telling the truth and Labour implemented a moronic strategy of not entering the ballot just to lift Darren’s chances from 2.5% to 4.0%, or is Trevor covering up for a fuck up?
November 12th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Either is plausible, unfortunately.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:08 am
And really, the bill they think is most important is to lower the alcohol limit for drivers? Reducing freedom is their biggest vote winner?
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:11 am
They did the maths to work it out beforehand. Unfortuantley for them they got Cosgrove to do it
http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2010/11/12/cosgrove-is-a-count/
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:12 am
They did the maths before hand to work it all out. Unfortuantley for them Cosgrove did it.
http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2010/11/12/cosgrove-is-a-count/
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:12 am
…and it becomes even more obvious why Dim Post has been suspended…
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:13 am
They did the maths before hand to work out the odds. Unfortuantley they got Cosgrove to do it http://tinyurl.com/28vh379
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:17 am
What? The honorable Trevor Mallard lying to NZ???? I’m shocked.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Mallards credibility is at the point that anything he says is assumed to be the opposite of the truth these days.
and thats amongst his own party.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Deliberately stupid. Or stupidly deliberate. Whatever, they don’t rate.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:23 am
I don’t necessarily agree with their bill, but your reading of it as only “reducing freedom” seems a tad simplistic.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Maybe not if they don’t have any other bills that they think warrant being offered alongside the one they put up.
Why would they get one in and not the rest? So my guess is it was a “cunning” plan – or maybe better called a cunless plan. Was Cunliffe involved?
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:27 am
It looks like the same internal maths genius that did the GST pamphlet has been exerting their influence again…
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:30 am
I suspect Trevor is telling the truth. I’m sure there would be one staff member assigned to coordinating all the Labour Members’ Bills that were intended to go into the ballot. So if that person had fucked up, Darren Hughes one wouldn’t have been in the ballot either.
But you are right that it was a dumb strategy, because increased the chances of one of the nastier National or ACT bills (does anyone know what the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill is – it sounds very scary?) in the ballot being drawn. Fortunately that didn’t happen, and a Green Bill to establish a pecuniary interest register for Judges was drawn which stands a good chance of getting cross-party support.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Let’s not forget Trev is a close friend and former colleague of Chris Carter, one of the 17, and this may be a cunning plan to undermine Phil’s leadership. Otherwise it is another example of the type of mathematics Labour would apply to economics.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Trevor would get a not achieved for NCEA 1 Maths for this imbecelic logic.
Vote:More evidence of why we need National standards.
November 12th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Further proof that Labour couldn’t run a bath.
Richard Prebble once mentioned to me that some of the Labour caucus he was part of were functionally illiterate. I thought he was joking, but he wasn’t. I suspect not much has changed.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Toad – I’m pretty sure the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill will be what the Law Commission proposed in 2008, but which hasn’t been important enough for either Government to adopt. Most of National’s amendment bills appear to have their genesis this way (Military Maneovres repeal, Joint Family Homes repeal, etc.)
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Their logic is exactly the same as:
‘None of us bought lotto tickets this week. Dazza already has one, so we really are all having a crack at him winning this week’
While technically correct, it is wrong on a number of levels (as you and others have pointed out).
- They decrease the odds of one of ‘them’ winning
Vote:- While slightly increasing the odds of Dazza winning, they (in far greater proportion) increase the likelihood that ‘the other team’ wins.
November 12th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Keep in mind that Mallard, the genius mathematician, was Minister of Education. He is a true fu..wit
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA these dues are just falling apart. Love it!
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
No, no, no. You all have it wrong. Labour have been very smart, and they should keep doing it in all future periods.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Look why don’t they get every Labour MP to lodge essentially the same Bill. What is stopping that.
[DPF: Standing Orders - that would result in a pre-ballot to decide which one of them goes into the main ballot]
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Presumably another fiendishly clever tactic. It’s hard to believe, given their spectacular record of failure in opposition, but Labour really does seem to regard themselves as masters of the debating chamber, and lords of the little plot.
The public just aren’t interested in the school staffroom games that Labour play.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
tvb: that will never work. You definitely shouldn’t suggest it.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Labour never was very good at maths. Remember the fair price we all paid for that train set?
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Just so you know;
The Habeas Corpus Bill
The purpose of this bill is to make better provision for the exercise of rights of habeas corpus. Under New Zealand law, habeas corpus procedures are governed by three old English statutes of 1640, 1679 and 1816 respectively. The procedures are deficient and not easily applied in New Zealand. It is important that procedures for the use of this writ, which is a vital part of the protection of the individual from arbitrary arrest and detention, are brought up to date so that they can be applied effectively.
The bill is based very closely on the draft Habeas Corpus Act recommended by the Law Commission in Report 44 of November 1997 on “Habeas Corpus Procedure”. The bill relates to one specific writ, that of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, which requires a person detaining another to deliver up the prisoner so that a court can judge the justification for the detention. Historically there were four other writs of habeas corpus, but they are now regarded as obsolete in New Zealand.
Clause 3 provides that the Act binds the Crown. It also ensures, on a similar basis to section 9(a) of the Crimes Act 1961, that the Act will not limit or affect the power or authority of the House of Representatives to punish for contempt.
Clause 4 specifies the purposes of the bill.
Clause 5 sets out the special procedures to apply to applications for writs of habeas corpus. The urgency to be attached to such applications is further provided for in clauses 6 and 7.
Clause 8 provides for the release of certain applicants from detention on an interim basis. Such persons may be detained again under clause 9 if they are absconding or have failed to comply with conditions attached to interim orders.
Clause 10 establishes special procedures that may be applied in the case of habeas corpus applications involving minors.
Clause 11 sets out the key principle that the High Court must grant a writ of habeas corpus if the defendant fails to establish that the detention is lawful. The Court must enquire into matters of both fact and law raised in justification of the detention, but not so as to call convictions or bail rulings into question.
Clause 12 provides that the determination of an application is final, subject to a right of appeal granted on an urgent basis to applicants and to defendants in custody cases, and forbids the re-arrest or further detention of successful applicants on substantially the same grounds. Provisions on appeals are set out in clauses 13 and 14.
Clause 15 ensures that the other four writs of habeas corpus are abolished.
Clause 16 provides that deliberate frustration of applications, non-compliance by applicants with conditions attached to interim orders, and non-compliance with writs, constitute contempt of court.
Clause 17 provides for the making of rules by the Rules Committee, pursuant to the Judicature Act 1908 and consistent with this Act, regulating practice and procedure in relation to applications and appeals.
Clause 18 further provides that the High Court is to deal with any matters arising that are not provided for by the Act, in a manner consistent with the Act and, unless there is such inconsistency, with the High Court Rules.
Clause 19 effects several consequential repeals and amendments, including the repeal of the three Imperial enactments in their application to New Zealand.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Nonsense, the Habeas Corpus Bill is all about suspending the rights of Labour and Green party members and various other opposition groups.
Everyone knows that – what else could it possibly be for?
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
I do wish people wouldn’t question the ability of the opposition to do basic maths or reading. Do we really need to sink to the level of the left?
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Scrubone, if only, if only….
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
scrubone: the problem with this one is that we need to either question their ability to do maths, or we need to question their competence. I’m not sure there is any other option that fits the facts as known, but happy to listen to a different theory.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Lets look at what DPF said;
Is Trevor telling the truth… Unlikely given his history and the fact he is in the self serving red team.
… and Labour implemented a moronic strategy… Highly likey – they normally do because their drivers are their own best interests rather than the best interets of NZ.
… or is Trevor covering up for a fuck up? … Isn’t that his job as attack poodle for the self serving red team ?
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Christopher Thomson – That was the Habeas Corpus Bill. It ultimately became the Habeas Corpus Act in 2001. It derived from the 1997 Law Commission report you mention.
Chris Auchinvole has proposed the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. It proposes to amend the Habeas Corpus Act – likely in line with a later Law Commission report from 2008.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
p.s. are you sure you’re not the online persona of Jonathan Coleman?
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Drat, found the wrong ‘un. I’ll dig deeper. I should have been looking closer at the date.
Jonathan Coleman (a pause here while I go and find out who he is…); hell no. I am who I say I am.
However I wouldn’t mind being an MP. I would rather enjoy all those privileges and huge income for being sod all use to anyone.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Looks to me like Labour just increased the chances of a Govt bill being drawn to well over 90%. Nice work, geniouses.
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
JC is a minister who recently gave a speech in Parliament talking about the wrong bill
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
“Looks to me like Labour just increased the chances of a Govt bill being drawn to well over 90%. Nice work, geniouses.”
While I agree with the sentiment, the irony is delicious
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Darren is keeping the bills contents secret – he declined to forward copy pour moi. He’s also meeting shortly with a bunch of supervised kiddies he intends to get to support it, for the cuteness factor rub off effect. I’m not on the invite list, but I know others who were and refused to go to this meeting. Would you trust that guy to come up with anything good especially when it’s all so secretive? A 0.06 limit…. requires 0.01 leeway in breathalysers as a margin of error, equals status quo. Also as has been well covered on some blogs, limit drops do not actually have the promised effects. Smoke and mirrors all this bollox of some potential for them to save heaps of lives, disproven over and over since the mid 90′s but the media can invent new realities as it suits.
Vote:The Herald has received a lot of complaints from drunk driving victims whom it’s misrepresented as saying they support 0.05, and has done nothing – nada – zilch – to correct the records. Dirty play. In a room my crystal ball sees the Sallys, AHW, Darren Hughes and some stray children led by these Pied Temperance Pipers meeting withthe Herald to plot out the next move in the war against alcohol. Little do they know that a full report of the meeting will be sent to Myers & Co because they are funding the grassroots stirring re 0.05. Why you might ask. Well rumour has it that 0.05 has no ill impact on drink sales, and that deals were done for it’s introduction by popular demand as the Govt fakes a back down pre -election. Meanwhile the Liquor Industry has escaped unbruised with no price controls or advertising constraints. The Govt gets max revenue from fines, and 2 drinks max will still be exceeded on a regular basis by all the hopeful alcys who now think they can pick up and then moderate.
It’s a multi big party accord with industry to drop the limit in the near future, as Labour lowered the drinking age on that basis, but stuffed about due to lack of support from some co-alition bullies. Both parties have been so kind that big liquor doesn’t mind 0.05 – sales of alcohol stayed high elsewhere when limits dropped. Go Darren go – you might win the race to engineer consent for 0.05 and take credit (for something truly heinous) before the Nats do yet.
November 14th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Graeme, I hope you read back here. I went away for a long weekend not long after writing my comments about Coleman. As I was lying in my tent on Saturday evening I had a moment of clarity and got the reference. Very good it was too when I got it.
Vote: