Andrew Geddis

This might be of interest to you @newsroom.co.nz ...

"WITH RESPECT, my learned colleague's submissions are pure cope ... "

Sure - the problem (of course) is the process of establishing it and skewing the ToR (to try and avoid NZ First being involved) means that any critical findings (normal or not) will be questioned. Also, some of the Inquiry's questions on the economic response have been ... loaded, shall we say.

They'll just Chat-GPT it ...

Oh, sure, THAT Royal Commission concluded that. But we've got another, BETTER Royal Commission cooking up a report that will BLOW THE LID OFF THE CONSPIRACY!!!

I honestly think that this is the only way Peters and Seymour will be able to get past the Regulatory Standards Act contretemps …

When the Greens had to vote for the Party Hopping law ‘cos they blindly agreed to support all the Labour-NZ First deal points (🤭), they made it very clear that they were swallowing a dead rat when casting their votes in the House. NZ First on the Regulatory Standards Bill? Not so much …

Much of AoNZ's professional managerial class right about now ...

Winston Peters vows to repeal Regulatory Standards Bill; David Seymour hits back "We did our best to neutralise its adverse effects and we will campaign at the next election to repeal it," Peters told Radio Waatea.

Some opposition MP should put a "Regulatory Standards Act Repeal Bill" into the biscuit tin, approach the NZ First backbench MPs to sign on in support of it, and then see what happens if it gets pulled from the lottery ... NZ First didn't promise not to vote to repeal it once enacted!

Note that it is to examine the actions taken IN THE PERIOD AFTER NZ FIRST LEFT GOVERNMENT... (as if these can be separated out from the overall policies adopted when COVID first arrived).

Covid Inquiry hit by yet another top-level resignation Inquiry boss quits only months into the job - the second executive director to resign this year

Yes, yes ... of course we can have complete confidence in the report findings of this inquiry set up for nakedly partisan purposes, given terms of reference designed to avoid criticism of a currently-governing party, and from which multiple professionals have run a mile. Why on earth would you ask?

If my University tried to make me do this, I would (i) not; and (ii) force them to fire me (after I use every possible tactic to delay that outcome); and (iii) burn the place to the ground on my way out as there would be no reason for it to continue to exist.

(Also … guess who has finished his exam marking duties?)

A sea kayak on the edge of Otago Harbour in the beautiful southern sun

Ōtepoti - it’s alright here …

How a 'loophole' resulted in 11-day submission period on fast-track amendments law Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the decision "infringed on the rights" of the public to take part in the process.

IDK if the Government is still thinking about putting a 4-year parliamentary term up for a vote at the 2026 election, but if it is then it's also doing its best to sink any chance of the proposal passing.

Trump scraps tariffs on beef and other imports in bid to lower grocery prices His abrupt retreat from his signature tariff policy on so many staples key to the American diet is significant, coming days after an election drubbing.

Strongly suspect Trump is gonna get a real-time lesson in the concept of "nominal rigidity" ... aka "when prices go up, they stay up". How long till we get executive orders purporting to require grocery items be sold for less?

Yes. But they couldn’t be recognised as a party in parliament (need 6 members) and couldn’t tell tell the Speaker anyway as that triggers the party hopping law. So - technically independents in the House, but can do whatever they want outside.

In relation to Donna Awatere-Huata and Darlene Tana, the MP's "distorting" action was quitting the party (which automatically made them independent MPs, which "distorted" proportionality). In the present case, it would have to be something like "acted so against the TPM that we HAD to expel them".

Anyway - general point is that I don't think applying the party hopping law is a done deal ... it's certainly far, far more complex/uncertain than was the case with Darlene Tana. And ... I'm spent.

Meaning that the party leader will have to claim that while it was the party's actions that caused the immediate "distortion" in proportionality, the MPs actions left the party with no option but to do this. Will that claim fly? It would be somewhat interesting to see!

However, more problematically is the fact that the change in proportionality is not the direct result of how the MPs concerned have acted ... it's because of the party's actions in expelling them. So, this is different to previous uses of the law, where the MP concerned resigned from the party.

There's a technical argument that they can't believe there is "distortion" as reducing TPM's caucus to 4 has made its share of parliamentary representation MORE proportionate ... but I think this is literalist nonsense (see reference to proportionality as "determined at the last general election")

And then there is the requirement that the leaders must "reasonably believe that the MP concerned has acted in a way that has distorted, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined at the last general election."

It's not clear whether the other 2 remaining MPs (Oriini Kaipara and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke) would support a leadership move to party-hop the expelled members. Indeed, there seems to be some chatter as to whether Oriini Kaipara herself may depart the party!

Second, the party leaders have to through procedural steps before using the law, which includes getting the support of 2/3rds of the party's "parliamentary members". There's real question as to whether this would still include the 2 expelled MPs ... and even if it doesn't ...

First up, the party leaders can't use the party hopping law until "all other requirements imposed by the rules of the political party" have been satisfied - in the case of TPM, this means allowing the "expelled" MPs to appeal that decision at the TPM general hui in December.

What happens next if Te Pāti Māori triggers the waka-jumping law? Voters may lose their chosen MPs if the law is used.

The claim in this korero that "the mechanism [the party hopping law] is available and it'll be up to TPM to activate that" seems a bit premature to me ... reckons below in a 🧵

Goddam it … my commitment to red letter law really has come back to bite me on the ass.

Fellowships for alumni and staff reflect strength of Otago Law community Congratulations to the four Otago alumni and staff who have been awarded Borrin Foundation Fellowships, and Travel and Learning Awards.

Otago's Law community has struck gold once again, with 4 alumni and staff receiving Borrin Foundation awards 💪⚖️

Read about the recipients 👇

"Sustainable band lineups include four cool people (Ramones)"

Only if one of the cool people is regularly changed out for another cool person with the same name ...