ACCforum: Petition & Democracy - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Petition & Democracy Petition & Democracy

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 11 August 2005 - 07:01 AM

The decision by Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton to jump into the High Court over their exclusion from the TV3 leaders debate has parallels with the way Parliament treated the petition of Denise Allen Powell and 522 others for an inquiry into claims handling and management and our pleas to the Govenor-General

The lawyers have asked the High Court to determine whether TV3 acted properly, that they acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, irrationally and capriciously.

Aren't these the very same claims against Parliament that we are making to the Govenor-General?

The big difference between us and Dunne and Anderton is that we have the express law in the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Article 13 of the English Bill of Rights to rely on.

It is also worthy to note that at the High Court yesterday there was standing room only because the media was there in strength.

But when the little people bring claims of equal constitutional importance before the Govenor-General there is silence from the media.

Representative democracy has failed.

Perhaps we also need to jump into the High Court to get justice and a fair hearing.
0

#2 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 11 August 2005 - 07:21 AM

Here is the report from Scoop about the High Court action of Peter Dunee and Jim Anderton.

Isn't it wonderful that when the right to be heard affects one of their own ilk, the politicians are quick to make comment as in this report.

When it comes to the little people they are conspicuous by their absence.


TV3 news and current affairs producer Keith Slater assured Scoop last week that TV3 was "committed to providing the best election coverage." Mr Slater was defending TV3's decision to omit from their upcoming Leaders' Debate the leaders of the political parties which have provided the Government with coalition and support arrangements - Jim Anderton (Progressive Party) and Peter Dunne (United Future).

This afternoon (Wednesday August 10 05) TV3's election coverage plans were excoriated in Wellington's High Court by David Goddard QC. Mr Goddard was seeking an urgent decision on whether TV3 was acting properly in excluding Mr Dunne and Mr Anderton from tomorrow night’s scheduled Leaders' Debate.

Mr Goddard advanced the proposition that in basing its decision to exclude Mr Anderton and Mr Dunne on a single poll, TV3 was acting "arbitrarily and unreasonably". The poll that TV3 made its decision on was published on July 28 with a sample size of 1000 people and a margin of error of 3.1%. The difference between being an invited leader and an uninvited leader was 0.2% (or two people).

Mr Goddard told a packed courtroom, which included TV3's political editor Stephen Parker, that TV3's decision to cull Mr Anderton and Mr Dunne was "irrational and capricious".

It was pointed out by Mr Goddard that TV3 was a national broadcaster that had taken on itself the role of broadcasting a Leaders' Debate in the course of an election campaign, and had assumed the power to decide who will and who won't be able to participate. By taking on the responsibility of the Leaders' Debate of its own volition, Mr Goddard argued, TV3 was performing a public function and exercising powers that affect the national interest.

The decision to omit Mr Anderton and Mr Dunne was seen by Mr Goddard as likely to have a detrimental effect on the voters in the 2005 election by depriving them of an opportunity to judge Mr Dunne and Mr Anderton's performance.

The importance of being on the TV3 leaders debate was stressed in this week's ACT Party newsletter ( The Letter), which is normally written by former ACT Party leader Richard Prebble.

"TV3’s debate on Thursday night is absolutely crucial for third parties. He who is not there is lost - so United's fate is sealed," explained The Letter.

ACT's leader Rodney Hide was the lucky minor party leader who squeaked into TV3's debate because two more people decided they preferred his party to Mr Dunne's in TV3's July poll. The Letter was enthusiastic about Mr Hide's chances because of his "great intellect, wit and good humour".

Progressive Party MP Matt Robson considered in his latest newsletter that TV3's decision was detrimental to New Zealand's democracy, and not just because his own leader had been omitted.

"There is no question that TV3's interference in our democracy will bolster ACT's fortunes among centre-right voters who won't get the chance to hear the much more moderate centre-right leader alternative, Peter Dunne," wrote Mr Robson.

A letter written by Mr Anderton prior to discovering he had been omitted from the Leaders Debate urged TV3's head of news and current affairs, Mark Jennings, to give his appeal serious consideration because Mr Anderton believed "important issues of democracy are at stake”.

Following Mr Dunne and Mr Anderton discovering they had been omitted from TV3's election coverage both men sent further correspondence to TV3 on the matter.

After today's court hearing both men told reporters that they had received no reply from TV3.

Justice Ron Young suggested both counsels may like to get together and try and work out a solution. Mr Jennings released a statement this evening that suggested TV 3 was unlikely to be making any compromises

"We have reviewed our decision and, taking account of all the matters which those parties have put to us, have seen no reason to change our decision," he said

TV3 will present its case tomorrow morning and will comment further at the court hearing's conclusion.
0

#3 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 11 August 2005 - 12:13 PM

Greetings,
Just recieved this...

Jim Anderton and thus The Progressives will be on the Leaders Debate on T.V. 3 tonight at 7:30pm

New ZealandDemocracy has won over commercial interest of foreign owned company
0

#4 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 11 August 2005 - 12:22 PM

That's fine, but what about our rights??????

It's just been reported that the Governor-General will prorogued (dissolve) Parliament on 17 August.

Will we see Dunne and Anderton fighting for a our rights to be heard by this Parliament over a lawful petition?????

Like them, our solution also lies in the High Court, and the mainstream media standing for representative democracy.
0

#5 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 11 August 2005 - 12:29 PM

Greetings,
Agree MC.... Emailing Jim Anderton on this issue... Now
0

#6 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 11 August 2005 - 03:27 PM

Following some more research I think everybody has been conned over who should be in this TV3 leaders debate

Why??? - because the Governor-General is not scheduled to dissolve the current 47th Parliament until 2.30pm next Wednesday 17 August.

This means that technically the 2005 election period has not even commenced.

Until the G-G prorogues Parliament, at 2.30pm next Wednesday, the current Parliament still exists and, in fact, could be recalled from its adjournment - because at this point that is all it is - an adjournment.

Therefore, TV3 was entitled to interview whom it wanted in any debate on any topic beforehand. We are currently not in an election period and until we are no politicians has a right to say that TV3 was exercising a public function in an election period.
0

#7 User is offline   goodtwome 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 12-August 05

Posted 12 August 2005 - 03:35 PM

In actual fact you are incorrect on the dissolving of parliament issue - here is the news release from yesterday:

Aug 11, 2005

New Zealand's 47th parliament has formally wound up ahead of the general election in five weeks.

A proclamation dissolving parliament was read on the steps of the old parliament building in Wellington by Phillip O'Shea, the New Zealand Herald of Arms Extraordinary to the Queen, on behalf of the Governor-General Silvia Cartwright.

The dissolution makes way for Dame Silvia to issue a writ to the chief electoral officer on August 17, directing him to hold a general election.

You can see that parliament was indeed dissolved yesterday so no "con" has occured - other than that yours!

If you want to check - here is the website of the TVNZ news article as above:
http://tvnz.co.nz/vi...e/411749/603654
0

#8 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 12 August 2005 - 03:50 PM

Goodtwome, glad you joined us today but you completely misunderstand.

The Proclamation is merely a step.

Read the next part where on 17 August the GG now directs the chief electoral officer to hold a general election.

Without her signature on the actual writ on 17 August there is no power to conduct a general election and we are not therefore "in the course of an election campaign" as Mr Dunne and Mr Anderton claimed to the High Court.

Go read paragraph 2 in the statement of claim on Scoop.

Indeed, it could well be argued by TV3 that the Court has been misled and that the judgment was obtained by unfair and improper practices amounting to a miscarriage of justice. That is a ground for recall of the judgment.

Wait and see what the appeal or recall application by TV3 says before you accuse anyone of a "con"
0

#9 User is offline   goodtwome 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 12-August 05

Posted 12 August 2005 - 05:19 PM

I was merely making the point that parliament had, in fact, been dissolved yesterday - which is exactly what you said had not happened.

I find your response to a new user upsetting and unnecessary. Be assured that I had checked my 'facts' and was not accusing you, in particular, of conning anyone - merely that people would be mislead about parliament not being dissolved.

As my input is neither appreciated nor accepted in the spirit it was given, I shall endeavour to find a public forum that allows the correction of misinformation - I was misled in my belief that this was such a forum.
0

#10 User is offline   Easyrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 12 August 2005 - 06:02 PM

Hi Goodtwome. You are welcome, and your comments are welcome, but please reread the reply that was sent to you, after you told a member he was incorrect. He has now given you further information that backs up his claim re the steps the G.G takes to disolve Parlament. And i beleive his relpy was good considering you used the following, (You can see that parliament was indeed dissolved yesterday so no "con" has occured - other than that yours!) So will you please do some more homework, them come back, and eat some humble pie.

And you are welcome, and any input that you can help, and assist any claimaints on this site is most welcome.
0

#11 User is offline   kiwiwine 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-July 04

Posted 13 August 2005 - 09:24 AM

:unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

Hi Goodtwome and welcome,
With a forum such as this we must remember we are all being stepped on by ACC - sometimes it is a little easy to lash out at the wrong people. :huh:
I'm not sure if its ACC thats "good to you" - I'm sure I remember a time, way back in the distant past, when I thought my case management wasnt too bad - but now I know its just a numbers game - once your number gets onto to exit list thats it your screwed (royally). Thats when this forum comes into its own and the wealth of knowledge and support is invaluable.
So if you need help, you're lucky - you'll find it here.

Cheers
Kiwiwine B)
0

#12 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 13 August 2005 - 10:34 AM

ACC insider perhaps???
0

#13 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 13 August 2005 - 05:45 PM

Easy there folks.
We are here to help each other not play ego games.
Wewlcome Goodtwome please do not be offended by ill thought comments of some.
We all sometimes put our words down without engaging brain and get snipy because of having to deal with ACC case Mongrels carring out the Illegal dictates of their criminal bosses.
Lets not alienate each other or submit to the everpresent paranoia that is a result of dealing with crimanals.
It is ACC that is the enemy.

Attached File(s)


0

#14 User is offline   Easyrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 13 August 2005 - 06:39 PM

The Proclamation is merely a step.

Read the next part where on 17 August the GG now directs the chief electoral officer to hold a general election.

Without her signature on the actual writ on 17 August there is no power to conduct a general election and we are not therefore "in the course of an election campaign" as Mr Dunne and Mr Anderton claimed to the High Court.
0

#15 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 25 August 2005 - 06:38 PM

Interestingly the Greens candidate last night indicated that the petition is not dead. If the Greens become part of the coilition they will be taking the petition through with them to be re-presented.
I have to say the Greens last night provided the most 'believable' policy but there was general concensus between those parties present about the need for an inquiry and also an independant complaints/ disputes process. The need for an ombudsman was also supported.
0

#16 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 25 August 2005 - 10:31 PM

i to beleive that an inquiry is well over due. Now I beleive that an inquiry that can not find falt with the case managerment is a white wash.

discrimination is used by claim managers all the time. Rehabilitation is a word that is not in the Act as far as the corporation is concerned.

Just lately there has been to accounts of Private Investigators getting it wrong and I know that there is more. The PI got it wrong because the case managers gave them false information. So far no punishment.

Its a pitty that the greens have to be in colitision with Labour and not stand on it own feet. there policy's are different and more practible than that of labour.
0

#17 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:02 PM

There was talk of "REAL" punishment for breaking the code of claimants rights. I'll believe it when I see it though........
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users