The Dim-Post

August 11, 2016

Fate editorialises

Filed under: Uncategorized — danylmc @ 3:17 pm

Via Scoop:

National List MP based in the Port Hills, Nuk Korako, has had his Airport Authorities (Lost Property) Amendment Bill drawn from the ballot today. The bill will make it easier for travellers to recover lost property.

“The Airport Authorities Act sets out the process a local or airport authority must go through before selling or disposing of lost property, this bill will modernise that process so it is more sensible and flexible,” Mr Korako said.

“The section of law we are amending is around providing the public with information about lost property, giving owners the chance to recover their property before the authority begins the process of sale or disposal.

“The current section of law is restrictive – currently all advertising must be in a newspaper circulating within the district of the airport. There’s no requirement for online notices or other forms of communication.

If you got a crack team of satirists working around the clock to figure out ways to depict the utter pointlessness of the third term National government, they’d never have come up with anything this perfectly inane. I guess this bill – if passed – will save the airports literally dozens of dollars in advertising fees by letting them stick lost property notifications on their web site instead of the local newspaper, and it prevented a different Member’s bill – which might have actually accomplished something for someone – from being drawn, so mission accomplished.

43 Comments »

  1. “If you got a crack team of satirists working around the clock to figure out ways to depict the utter pointlessness of the third term National government, they’d never have come up with anything this perfectly inane.”

    I absolutely love that sentence. It’s pure brilliance.

    Comment by Matthew Hooton — August 11, 2016 @ 3:29 pm

  2. Those satirists would first have to pick themselves up off the floor after having been told there is actually an Act that governs lost property. They had fewer cares in the 1960s.

    Comment by insider — August 11, 2016 @ 3:36 pm

  3. Ah, but think about this: they are only just warming up. We have another year of this to go before the next election, and if National somehow manage to win that, we can look forward to some real beauties in the following term. Another sign of third termitis I have noticed is the number of “lawyers law” bills that have started to appear – reforms of the Judicature Acts, the contracts and commercial statutes and the Incorporated Societies Act. All of this is worthwhile stuff, and long overdue in some cases. But it also shows that the Government has run out of things to legislate and has therefore thrown the keys to the public service so they can get some stuff done.

    Comment by Nick R — August 11, 2016 @ 3:58 pm

  4. I guess this bill – if passed – will save the airports literally dozens of dollars in advertising fees by letting them stick lost property notifications on their web site instead of the local newspaper

    Note that airports already can “stick lost property notifications on their web site” … he’s plain wrong when he says “all advertising must be in a newspaper circulating within the district of the airport.” True, airports have to advertise in this way, but they can then advertise in any other way that they want to as well!

    Also, this isn’t about advertising lost (found?) luggage to the people who’ve lost it. It’s about advertising to the public that such lost (found?) luggage is going to be sold, so that the only people at such sales aren’t airport staff and their families.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 11, 2016 @ 6:43 pm

  5. “True, airports have to advertise in this way, but they can then advertise in any other way that they want to as well!”

    I haven’t checked specifically for this, but from past reading there must be at least tens or hundreds of Acts of Parliament which require information to be communicated through newspapers which few people still bother to receive or read. If this were ever to be done in a way that actually made a meaningful difference, surely it could be through a Bill to update all of them or (better yet) remove such specific detail from Acts entirely and have them reference some separate kind of notification process standard instead that can be more easily updated as needed.

    Comment by izogi — August 11, 2016 @ 7:13 pm

  6. I’d support an Inane Modernisation and Opposition Members Bill Prevention Bill just for the lolz

    Comment by RHT — August 11, 2016 @ 8:06 pm

  7. “it prevented a different Member’s bill – which might have actually accomplished something for someone – from being drawn, so mission accomplished”

    National party’s very reason for existing. To prevent others governing instead.

    Comment by Sacha — August 11, 2016 @ 9:05 pm

  8. All I hope for is that this accrues sufficient ridicule beyond the beltway that they start thinking the political cost of this gambit isn’t worth the gains from crowding out other more worthy private member’s bills.

    Comment by Joe-90 — August 11, 2016 @ 9:12 pm

  9. “But it also shows that the Government has run out of things to legislate a…..”

    You say that like its a bad thing.

    Comment by Tinakori — August 11, 2016 @ 9:17 pm

  10. I thought a large proportion of members bills were idiosyncratic and narrowly focused.

    A lot of government is really about quite prosaic things and losing luggage when flying isn’t necessarily a minor issue for those involved.

    Comment by NeilM — August 11, 2016 @ 10:22 pm

  11. I wish we’d got the “Crimes (Increased Penalty for Providing Explosive to Commit Crime) Amendment Bill”, which would have been more awesome.

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — August 11, 2016 @ 10:49 pm

  12. I’d say the vast majority of bills through parliament are as mundane as this but that doesn’t suit the narrative I guess.

    Comment by Cliff Clavin — August 12, 2016 @ 7:05 am

  13. A lot of government is really about quite prosaic things and losing luggage when flying isn’t necessarily a minor issue for those involved.

    This bill is completely unnecessary as a process, and will do nothing for those who lose luggage when flying.

    (1) It only touches on property left in airports, not property lost by airlines (which is not the responsibility of the airport authority, but the airline concerned);

    (2) All it says is that before the airport authority auctions off lost property (if they want to do this – they don’t have to – they can give it to charity instead without notice), the airport will be able to advertise the auction however it wants (rather than having to put in the local paper). Note, however, that the airport already can advertise auctions however it wants as well as putting it in the paper – so this doesn’t empower the airports to do anything that they can’t already do.

    (3) There is then no obligation to say what is being auctioned, just that there is an auction happening. The purpose of this is to ensure that the “auction” doesn’t turn into a private giveaway to the airport staff and friends. So travellers will get precisely zero extra help recovering their lost belongings from this move.

    (4) Even if you think “well, airports putting notices in the paper is silly”, there is Statutes Amendment Bill before the House designed precisely for expediting such minor, inconsequential changes as this without overly wasting the limited time the House has to debate and enact things that actually matter.

    So anyone trying to defend this measure as “what the members bill system is all about” needs to slap themselves hard in the face, because they’re being silly.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 12, 2016 @ 7:07 am

  14. I’d say the vast majority of bills through parliament are as mundane as this but that doesn’t suit the narrative I guess.

    I’d say you’re wrong but I guess that’s because I actually look at the content of what the House is considering I guess.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 12, 2016 @ 7:08 am

  15. If National was sponsoring this bill your argument would make more sense. This Bill was so unloved it just went into the lottery of Private Members Bills.

    Comment by artcroft — August 12, 2016 @ 7:30 am

  16. If National was sponsoring this bill your argument would make more sense.

    All members bills must be agreed to by the party caucus. National is sponsoring this bill in terms of endorsing its policy aims (insofar as it has any) – it’s just they’ve agreed to let Korako stick it into the members ballot to dilute the odds of one of the opposition’s bills being drawn. It’s an entirely negative, cynical tactic to waste parliamentary time so that the Government doesn’t have to debate and vote on legislative proposals that may embarrass or challenge it.

    If anyone shrugs and says “oh, that’s just politics”, then they give up their right to criticise just about any form of political conduct ever (short of outright corruption or murder, of course).

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 12, 2016 @ 7:52 am

  17. “(1) It only touches on property left in airports, not property lost by airlines (which is not the responsibility of the airport authority, but the airline concerned);”

    Andrew – stop giving ideas for more useless bills!

    Comment by Gster — August 12, 2016 @ 8:28 am

  18. “If anyone shrugs and says “oh, that’s just politics”, then they give up their right to criticise just about any form of political conduct ever (short of outright corruption or murder, of course).”

    Would depend on whether Jacinda Adhern put in her sweepingly named ‘Child Poverty Reduction and Eradication Bill’ with the sole objective of generating beat up headlines against the govt or not?

    Comment by artcroft — August 12, 2016 @ 9:15 am

  19. there must be at least tens or hundreds of Acts of Parliament which require information to be communicated through newspapers which few people still bother to receive or read

    For example, here’s an Act from 2013: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2013/0104/latest/DLM3919016.html

    Comment by Phil — August 12, 2016 @ 9:39 am

  20. i reckon we need something a little more punitive than a self slap for “disrespecting New Zealand”

    Comment by rodaigh — August 12, 2016 @ 9:42 am

  21. Would depend on whether Jacinda Adhern put in her sweepingly named ‘Child Poverty Reduction and Eradication Bill’ with the sole objective of generating beat up headlines against the govt or not?

    Without having bothered to look at this measure I’m more than happy to say that, based on her past effort with adoption law reform, Jacinda Adhern also is disrespecting the purpose of members bills.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 12, 2016 @ 10:36 am

  22. i thought members bills were supposed to throw a few wild cards into the mix, to give expression to off the beaten track views that perhaps wouldn’t otherwise get a look in.

    That might entail bills that some consider nonsense, and others may not – sort of by definition, but a small price to pay.

    Comment by NeilM — August 12, 2016 @ 10:58 am

  23. Interesting title Jacinda has given her Bill. I guess that child eradication would ultimately reduce child poverty, but it seems a trifle extreme…

    Comment by Enuff — August 12, 2016 @ 10:59 am

  24. @NeilM,

    Just as party lists were supposed to throw a few wild cards into the parliamentary mix. But when one of those wildcards turns out to be Aaron Gilmore and boozily abuses a waiter who doesn’t know who he is, we call it what it is … a terrible mistake, not fit to be a representative, and should be rectified as soon as possible. We don’t just shrug and go “oh well, shit happens … what can you do?”.

    Either defend Korako’s bill on its merits (now that you actually understand what it says), or else accept it is a misuse of parliamentary process. This equivocal “oh my, who can really say?” nonsense is so very, very boring.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 12, 2016 @ 11:05 am

  25. Off topic – I thought I saw an interesting post about fiscal policy above this and now I can’t find it. Am I missing something?

    A.

    Comment by Antoine — August 12, 2016 @ 11:53 am

  26. “based in the Port Hills” – this gives the impression that Korako spends his time nesting in a field somewhere near the Sign of the Bellbird.

    Maybe it’s hard to get a perspective on legislative priorities from up there…

    Comment by richdrich — August 12, 2016 @ 12:15 pm

  27. Just to be clear … are the defenders of this bill saying BOTH that it is so important that it warrants all this unnecessary process AND that it is so unimportant they would be prepared to wait forever for it to become law? (You know how a ballot works, right?)

    It is a fascinating new approach to governing – “for a Brighter Future, give us a majority in Parliament … and the lottery numbers”.

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — August 12, 2016 @ 1:50 pm

  28. The ballot is a means of side stepping preconceived notions of worthiness.

    Given the that by far the largest portion of bills come from the main parties and are therefore of a mold it makes sense to offer a seperate avenue for issues that might not be if interest to everyone.

    Comment by NeilM — August 12, 2016 @ 2:39 pm

  29. “ased in the Port Hills” – this gives the impression that Korako spends his time nesting in a field somewhere near the Sign of the Bellbird.”

    I’m guessing it means the Port Hills electorate, which includes most of Christchurch’s southeastern suburbs.

    Comment by Ortvin Sarapuu — August 12, 2016 @ 3:27 pm

  30. The ballot is a means of side stepping preconceived notions of worthiness.

    FFS, NeilM … it’s not the ballot that’s at issue here. It’s that Korako stuffed a pathetic, useless, waste of time measure that has no possible justification into the ballot so as to try and stop anything meaningful coming out of it.

    It’s like someone put a giant turd into a bag and added it to a children’s lucky dip at the school fair. Would you just throw up your hands and say “oh well, it’s a lucky dip … not for us to judge what people choose to contribute to it and those are the risks”.

    Actually, on reflection that’s probably exactly the line you’d take.

    Comment by Flashing Light — August 12, 2016 @ 4:00 pm

  31. I’m guessing it means the Port Hills electorate, which includes most of Christchurch’s southeastern suburbs.

    Though the frequency of Port Hills Groper in Google search results could give the impression that sea levels have been rising faster than predicted.

    Comment by Joe W — August 12, 2016 @ 4:43 pm

  32. My wheelchair-using grandma once lost luggage at an airport in Abu Dhabi. In it were here husband’s medals and his ashes, her *birth-Certificate and various irreplaceable momentous including a lack of hair from the young Queen Victoria cut onto day she was crowned. She was eventually broken and found herself incarcerated by unfeeling petite-officieles who though it would be funny to let the air out of her tyres and then watch her struggle to evacuate when they set off the fire alarms ‘for a bit of a giggle’ I believe was the translator’s verbatim report.
    On behalf of my grandmother (who finished her days in an asylum in Cairo as she had *no way of proving she was British), I salute you Mr. Korako. If anyone wishes to donate to the Trust fund I set up in memory of my grandmother: ‘Give them Air!’ please feel free to contact me and pledge a few bob.

    Or something.

    Comment by Lee Clark — August 12, 2016 @ 6:55 pm

  33. If only they were required by law to publicise your gran’s loss by semaphore, pigeon and telegraph rather than just the local inky gazette, the royals would surely have sent a rescue mission poste haste. Bless that Korako chap, what.

    Comment by Sacha — August 13, 2016 @ 8:01 am

  34. So… which other vacuous Bills being proposed for the alleged purpose of diluting the ballot, if any? https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/proposed-members-bills/

    Comment by izogi — August 13, 2016 @ 8:38 am

  35. Ardern’s bill seems fairly worthwhile to me: https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/51HOH_MEMBILL041_1/81eaa701f5db24dcaffdc1166b5cb75544a2224e

    Paul Foster-Bell’s, Jacqui Dean’s, Tisch’s look trivial; Doocey’s, Macindoe’s, and Naylor’s should all go in the Statutes Ammendment Bill too

    Comment by RHT — August 13, 2016 @ 4:59 pm

  36. …finished her days in an asylum in Cairo as she had no way of proving she was British

    How’d she get out of Abu Dhabi and make it to Egypt with no ID?

    Comment by Phil — August 15, 2016 @ 12:31 pm

  37. She was smuggled by a short-sighted sheik who required a novelty item for his harem, Phil.

    Comment by Lee Clark — August 15, 2016 @ 2:38 pm

  38. You should mail posts #32 and #37 to yourself asap, otherwise you’re going to see “Wheels of Passion” in theaters and have no rights to the royalties I make from the dramatization.

    Comment by Phil — August 15, 2016 @ 3:11 pm

  39. She was smuggled by a short-sighted sheik who required a novelty item for his harem…

    Sounds like some kind of prequel to <Kill Bill.

    Comment by Joe W — August 15, 2016 @ 3:18 pm

  40. “If you got a crack team of satirists working around the clock to figure out ways to depict the utter pointlessness of the third term National government, they’d never have come up with anything this perfectly inane.”

    Actually, I can raise you one better. Clause 189 of the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill provides that the SIS don’t need to pay their parking tickets for their surveillance vans. Seriously.

    Comment by Gster — August 16, 2016 @ 1:07 pm

  41. Clause 189 of the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill provides that the SIS don’t need to pay their parking tickets for their surveillance vans.

    Well s189(c) originally read;

    (c) the employee takes all reasonable steps to ensure that his or her actions do not cause injury or damage, or interfere with any other person, except in such cases that it can be demonstrated that said person looks a bit brown, or has a funny name, in which case the employee may, at their discretion, summarily detain them within the authorised vehicle and undertake relevant questioning expedited by use of a rubber truncheon and strong language or, where appropriate, some other improvised interrogation technique up to an including the use of water, electricity, sensory deprivation, minor surgery, recitation from the works Dan Brown or the judicious administration of tea and biscuits.

    Comment by Gregor W — August 16, 2016 @ 4:45 pm

  42. Not seeing royalties from the various dramatisations I have created is the story of my life, Phil

    Comment by leeharmanclark — August 17, 2016 @ 6:25 am

  43. RHT: “Paul Foster-Bell’s, Jacqui Dean’s, Tisch’s look trivial; Doocey’s, Macindoe’s, and Naylor’s should all go in the Statutes Ammendment Bill too”

    Matt Doocey’s “Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill has just been drawn. Go figure.

    https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/proposed-members-bills/document/51HOOOCBallot201608251/members-bills-ballot-for-thursday-25-august-2016

    Comment by izogi — August 26, 2016 @ 9:18 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: