Why did NZ First vote against?
April 5th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David FarrarNZ Herald reports:
Questions were raised about the best use of Parliament’s time today as MPs debated whether to repeal a WWI law that has not been used in 30 years.
The Military Manoeuvres Act was enacted in 1915 to deal with mobilisation for World War I, and enabled the Governor-General to declare any land available for a period specified for military manoeuvres.
National MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi launched a member’s bill in 2010 to get rid of the outdated law, and tonight the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill passed its final reading, 111 votes to eight.
NZ First voted against the repeal. Why?
April 5th, 2012 at 11:08 am
Maybe it’s what is says on the tin – NZ first genuinely afraid that Finland might now harbour hostile intentions towards us
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 11:08 am
You have to be joking DPF!! There can only be two possible explanations: Peters was pissed when he read the Order Paper and issued voting instructions to the troops; or whoever was on house duty when the vote came misunderstood how he/she was suppsed to vote…perhaps because the said voting instructions were an incoherent scrawl??
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Even more incomprehensible than voting for Winston?
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 11:15 am
For NZ First supporters, 1915 feels like it was just yesterday. You never know when you might need to train an expeditionary force to oppose the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Winston believes WWI is not really over, and that we may need some land for manoeuvres in the future, as we face the Urewera Liberation Front Army under Field-Marshall unTame Iti still fighting British colonial intrusion and Empire.
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 11:18 am
Notably, NZ First’s speaker in this debate was Richard Prosser; he of more-guns-but-no-burqas infamy
http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8386064/more-guns-no-burqas-nz-first-mp
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 11:20 am
Because WP knew it would get him attention, and it has. Well done. Sigh
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 11:29 am
Seriously though, those weirdos would be in favour of nationalising almost all land if you pushed them for an answer.
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 11:40 am
Maybe they had a fantasy about having manoeuvres on the farms formerly owned by Crafar?
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
No idea why they voted against it. But I do like Richard Prosser. His presence in Parliament has got me thinking about switching my vote back to NZF.
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
davip: A pearler! by nose from…
iMP: …Pipped at the post for a very creditable second Sir! Superb effort. One of the many things that makes this blog such a good read, such good humour.
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
davidp – Thanks — comment of the day
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
So by voting NO does that mean Yes.
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
“MPs debated whether to repeal a WWI law that has not been used in 30 years.”
Can anyone here recollect on how exactly this law was invoked 30 years ago?
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Follow the money, what in this for Winston ?
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
I assume NZF’s concerns were the same as expressed at the 2nd reading:
Vote:‘We have some concerns, however, that the passing of this bill may leave the Government without access to a ready solution, should circumstances arise in which the nation is required to make swift provisions for the necessities of military manoeuvring.’
I shouldn’t think that’s a major concern.
The select committee report sheds no light on when this law was last used.
April 5th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Was it because most of Winston’s supporters were in their 30′s durrin WW1 ?
Vote:April 5th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
mikenmild, rejoice at the prospect of their application for a resource consent.
Vote: