Andrew Geddis
banner
acgeddis.bsky.social
Andrew Geddis
@acgeddis.bsky.social

Aotearoa NZ based with occasional thoughts on things and views on others.

Political science 47%
Law 33%

From RNZ report ... he's toast, isn't he?

TVNZ news reporting that Andrew Costar is "on leave" from Chief Executive role at the Social Investment Agency.

Yep … too political to fail …

What with the folks that will need sacked from this McSkimming coverup and those that should be sacked for adding fake clicks to their breath testing numbers, it's gonna be pretty tricky for Mark Mitchell to get his extra 500 cops, eh?

That's a shame ... guess there's not enough rubes in AoNZ alone to run the RWNJ grift on.
Candace Owens reportedly cancels New Zealand talk
The controversial American commentator was due to host an event in Auckland in January.
www.stuff.co.nz

Yep. Any MP can be kicked out (it's just that electorate MPs can run in any subsequent by-election if they want).

Some ranty reckons from me … to clarify, I am not the former TPM co-leader.

Reposted by Andrew Geddis

Te Pāti Māori MPs' expulsions questioned by law expert, former co-leader
Te Pāti Māori MPs' expulsions questioned by law expert, former co-leader
MPs Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and Tākuta Ferris have called their expulsions "unconstitutional".
www.rnz.co.nz

Posting on US politics from AoNZ is a mugs game, but can't help read this and be reminded of the old "fool me once, shame on you ... fool me twice, call me a centrist Democrat" line.

So nice, also, to see a student rep saying "the corporatisation of Universities is a bad thing" rather than "now we pay for University, it ought to treat us as proper customers".

Note that the test is whether "the [MP] concerned has acted in a way that has distorted" proportionality ... so the battle now is whether any change to independent status in teh House (which distorts proportionality) is because of the MP's actions, or because of what is being done to the MP.

If the MP allows the party expulsion to go unchallenged, the MP makes it easier for the leaders to claim the MPs actions led to their ceasing to be an MP for the party ... "Look! The Party's executive found this to be the case under the party constitution!! It's not just me that says so!!!"

Instead, the Party seems to be relying on this general power ... claiming (I assume) that the MPs have failed to "work to support Te Pāti Māori kaupapa and tikanga" as cl 3.1(a) requires. Which raises interesting interpretative issues - can the National Council trump the disputes process like this?

But it looks like this hasn't been followed/used - not least because it's the "Electorate Council" that is meant to hear these and (if necessary) kick them up to a "Disputes and Disciplinary Committee" ... which doesn't seem to be what has happened in this case?

Oh boy ... the whole TPM expulsion issue looks messy (legally wise, let alone politically ... let alone in terms of party kawa). The Party constitution has a whole section on "Resolution of Differences and Disputes" requiring complaints to be sent to different bodies, etc ...
assets.nationbuilder.com

This, from OUSA's President, is very good and warrants reading:

"For decades, governments of every stripe have treated universities as businesses to be managed rather than institutions of learning and curiosity. ... Students are rebranded as customers, research, degrees and graduates as outputs."

Dunno? If you fail to file a challenge to the party decision at earliest opportunity, does this weaken your claim that you need the court to injunct the decision - will a court say "if this really was so bad, why didn't you come to me straight away?" I'm not a court process guy ... .
We’ve forgotten what universities are for
We’ve forgotten what universities are for
With New Zealand universities facing not only a funding crisis but a philosophical challenge to their role, the soul of tertiary education is at stake....
thespinoff.co.nz

Note also that any undertaking by TPM to the court not to invoke the party hopping law runs into comity issues - proceedings in the House can't be constrained by judicial proceedings ... .

I'd then argue that the existence of the party hopping laws weights the balance in favour of said injunction ... because, if TPM use the fact of expulsion to invoke that law + force the 2 MPs from the House, that's a major (and irreversible) harm to them!

🍿

Were I to offer advice here, it would be to get into the High Court ASAP to seek a temporary injunction preventing this expulsion in order to complicate TPM being able to claim that there has been a "distortion of proportionality" in the House (thus enabling it to use the Party Hopping law).
Te Pāti Māori expels Tākuta Ferris and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi
'Rogue' MPs Tākuta Ferris and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi have called their immediate expulsion from the party unconstitutional.
www.rnz.co.nz

It’s more than four times larger.

True. But there were only 16,524 students at all Universities in 1960 (population of 2.3 million). There's more than that at Otago alone today.

It includes claims like this, which seem hugely overblown to me. And it notably fails to quote anyone who actually was "triggered".

I've come to view the whole "exam shock!" news story based on the immediate responses of a handful of individuals with a VERY large pinch of salt.

Quick alternate view on this story from someone who sat the exam (+ her friends): “literally no-one GAF … it was the most interesting because it had the most language features to discuss.”

Maybe RNZ (and those quoted) just need to take a deep breath and chill out a bit?

Reposted by Andrew Geddis

English exam asks students to write about long-haired boy being bullied, forced to drop pants
English exam asks students to write about long-haired boy being bullied, forced to drop pants
A student and teacher spoken to by RNZ said the text, which appeared in the NCEA level 2 exam, made them feel very uncomfortable.
www.rnz.co.nz

Following today’s viral postings, this now is the entirety of my marking playlist …
Decessus
open.spotify.com

Reposted by Andrew Geddis

This would appear to interfere with access to Parliament (eg to ask your local MP to present a petition to the House) so someone should complain to the Privileges Committee? Maybe they can ask their local MP to raise the issue?

Over here, we refer to "the good Andrew" and "the not-so-good Andrew". It should be pretty clear which is which.

Unfortunately, the NZBORA doesn't apply to private property owners choosing to exercise their right to trespass ... the REAL issue (imho) here is that parliamentary services pays for MP offices where access is at the whim of a private landowner.