Orator of Uncertainty

Dunno, shit might’ve sailed on this one fellas…

A Day for Gaza Today, The Nation is turning over its website exclusively to stories from Gaza and its people. This is why.

Despite the ongoing death and suffering in Gaza, it's fallen out of the news. So today, @thenation.com is devoting its full website to stories from Gaza, written by reporters who have been there. Very proud of the magazine today.

www.thenation.com/article/worl...

Not a legal expert. But my recollection is that, in the absence of a generalised right to privacy in NZ, section 21 is supposed to affirm the core elements of Article 17. Am sure the White Paper talks about it, though not sure how informative/persuasive it is.

A bronouncement?

Totally agree there are efficacy questions to be asked (e.g. lack of regular, timely publication of OPCAT inspection reports) and of how the Office of the Ombudsman has been managed. But I do think the onus must be on those (successive) Ministers and the Department.

Ka mau te wehi! Excellent work and a great relief. Will read the decision with interest.

Rob Reiner made some great movies but he was also unafraid to speak the truth, and was one of the public voices who knew you don’t squander your platform, and only got louder about opposing evil fucks as he got older. Legend.

The boy who ran

Rangi Wickliffe has been one of the main voices in Aaron Smale’s coverage of the abuse of children in state custody. Rangi died this week.

Sadly, I think you are right. I just can’t see this Government allowing this outcome to stand given their demonstrated hostility to people enjoying the fruits of successful litigation if it a) has financial implications for the Crown, and/or b) does not accord with their worldview.

Absolutely - s 9 withholding grounds don’t lend themselves to blanket rules, which this effectively has been for ages. And, TBH, most public bodies treat legal privilege as if it were a conclusive ground to withhold information.

PSNZ responds to government announcement on puberty blockers

The Paediatric Society of NZ - representing the clinical field most relevant here - have released maybe the strongest statement of all the medical bodies: “puberty blockers are an established, safe, reversible, and
life-saving treatment option”

To all the trans youth out there, the community has been putting together legal arguments ever since the public consultation was announced in November 2024.
We never stopped fighting. We prepared for this outcome, and I know from what I myself developed that PATHA have a very good NZBORA s19 action.

BREAKING: PATHA has filed an urgent injunction in the high court seeking to prevent the puberty blocker ban from coming into force, as part of an urgent judicial review we are seeking to overturn the ban entirely.

"Years and years ago, there was a production of The Tempest, out of doors, at an Oxford college on a lawn, which was the stage, and the lawn went back towards the lake in the grounds of the college, and the play began in natural light. But as it developed, and as it became time for Ariel to say his farewell to the world of The Tempest, the evening had started to close in and there was some artificial lighting coming on. And as Ariel uttered his last speech, he turned and he ran across the grass, and he got to the edge of the lake and he just kept running across the top of the water — the producer having thoughtfully provided a kind of walkway an inch beneath the water. And you could see and you could hear the plish, plash as he ran away from you across the top of the lake, until the gloom enveloped him and he disappeared from your view. And as he did so, from the further shore, a firework rocket was ignited, and it went whoosh into the air, and high up there it burst into lots of sparks, and all the sparks went out, and he had gone. "When you look up the stage directions, it says, 'Exit Ariel.”

A story Stoppard told several times, in several places:

Also, not me screaming at Andrea Vance coming off the top rope early with “… Edwards - a prolific political commentator with a modest academic footprint…” 🤣🤣🤣

We’ve been fortunate that Attorneys-General have pretty consistently taken the section 7 obligation seriously and (mostly) not let their political views override the legal analysis.

Utterly predictable given the people involved at the top. Feel terrible for the staff.

I suspect Judith Collins likes it just fine. As Attorney-General she has a statutory obligation to issue a report if a Bill appears to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act - which was not really up for debate in this case. But she did - and will continue to - happily vote for it.

The statement “… no changes could be made to the bill that would both give effect to Cabinet decisions about prisoner voting and be consistent with NZBORA” is telling. Specifically, about how the majority sees its role (i.e. toadying to the Executive rather than exercising effective oversight).

I’m not at all sure I agree with your assessment, but given we (I think) share similar underlying concerns I’ll keep stewing on it.

Still, I do wonder if a complaint to the Regulations Review Committee might be worthwhile. But you will no doubt be considering options and taking better advice (your own included) than I can offer!

I suspect you are correct. And, while I think that ought to fail the requirement, I also (sadly) suspect the majority would not see it that way.

He has secured an enormous amount of influence over regulation-making. But not to the exclusion of either the Regulations Review Committee or the courts. At least not yet.

The Regulatory Standards Act is a ludicrous, wasteful and objectionable law, but it doesn’t give Seymour that level of control.

Meaning, if the Regulations Review Committee did receive/consider a complaint, they could recommend it be disallowed. Other grounds might also apply (e.g. trespassing unduly on personal rights, unusual or unexpected use of power) but possibly a less cut-and-dry breach.

If there’s been no consultation “… with such organisations or bodies as appear to the Minister to be representative of persons likely to be substantially affected by the regulations…” that would seem on its face to be inconsistent with the regulation-making power in s 105 of the Medicines Act.

There will have been a Cabinet Legislation Committee (LEG) paper accompanying the regulations, which requires an indication as to BORA consistency. But no separate vet by Justice or Crown Law, no.

Congratulations on the nomination. Great to have two strong candidates in Rongotai (as ‘twas) and I hope you have list placings that would mean you’d both sit in Parliament regardless of who wins the electorate vote.