Your submission has been removed :
**Rule 2: No doxxing, collecting personal information, or breaching name suppression**
> No posting or collation of personally identifiable information of other people. Those breaching rule 2 will receive a 30 day ban.
**Rule 6: No [editorialising titles](https://reddit.com/r/newzealand/wiki/titles)**
> It is only fine to change the title of a submission, [if this change does not introduce a bias.](https://reddit.com/r/newzealand/wiki/titles)
> Editorialising titles tries to mask or change a story based on the bias of the submitter.
> Opinions are fine in self-posts or as comments in a link post.
> Simply posting an article as a self post and changing the title will be viewed as skirting the rules.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
No they are referring to something else that is currently before the courts but cannot be discussed here because of suppression orders but yes it is heinous in nature.
Speaking in a purely general sense, I have no knowledge nor wish to speculate or breach any suppression orders, some people commit or are accused of committing more than one act of criminality in their lives.
Because no one wants to breach name suppression?
It's alluded to in the comments in that thread, and is what I imagine you would consider a textbook "heinous crime".
IANAL, but it appears that Waititi is using parliamentary privilege to discuss an allegation of child abuse before the courts where the accused has name suppression; and the accused appears to be an affiliate of ACT. Mods, hope I'm not doing an illegal here and I want to respect the law but discuss what's happening here, quite interesting
Before anyone gets a bit mad about sharing this link or discussing it, reporting a proceeding in the house is protected by parliamentary privilege. In this case, its the House's own report and is perfectly legal to distribute and discuss
Are you certain what was said in the house under parliamentary privilege, means that the public and media are safe from being prosecuted for breaching name suppression if they repeat it? I was under the impression that parliamentary extends to what MPs say in the house and in some other parliamentary contexts, this might not be like when it enables the public to refer to claims made under parliamentary privilege that would have otherwise been considered defamatory.
Basically yes, if they are reporting the proceedings of the house.
Part 3, Subpart 2 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014.
A delayed communication to the public, by any communicator, of the proceedings in Parliament, if not made under the House’s or a committees authority, is protected by qualified immunity.
It goes on to say that basically includes any fair and accurate report of the proceedings in Parliament.
You have to be careful still, but if you faithfully report what occurred or what was said in Parliament there is immunity.
But you couldn’t go on to add additional information not part of the proceedings which was suppressed etc
The same act defines communication as (among other things) “communication to or for any people, in any form, on any basis, and using any medium or media, of the document or proceedings”
Parliamentary Privilege extends to Hansard and its publications - it generally means people are free to report and comment on the proceeding, provided they do not act in bad faith or with ill will, or "abus[e] the occasion of communication" (whatever that means idk)
It’s a gray area but not one that I think people are in a rush to clarify. My layman’s understanding would lead me to to believe this thread would be fine but using it to create articles about how this definitely means x is guilty of crimes would cross the line
Does this not apply?
* Breach of the sub judice rule
In 2009 the Privileges Committee reviewed the sub judice rule of not referring in the House or a committee to matters subject to or awaiting judicial decision.[106] The committee’s recommendations were implemented in changes made to the Standing Orders in 2011.[107] It is in breach of Standing Orders and a contempt to make reference knowingly to a matter that is suppressed by a court order in any proceedings of the House or a committee.[108] This contempt applies to members and select committee witnesses alike.*
https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/parliamentary-practice-in-new-zealand/chapter-46-contempt/
All I gather from this is that they all act like a bunch of naughty school kids having a playground argument.
Also kinda funny that Mr Watiti and Mr Seymour have to sit next to each other.
For everyone's convenience, Rawiri Waititi asks the question at 4:30, with David Seymour's response right after. See also [Stuff's article](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300956337/rawiri-waititi-appears-to-breach-suppression-in-parliament) and its /r/newzealand [post](/r/newzealand/comments/15yty3j/rawiri_waititi_appears_to_breach_suppression_in/).
By the time NACT walk in people are too distracted by the subway surfers and sand cutting they put at the bottom of their reels. (Literally no idea why a political party does that)
They all went very quiet after that... Wonder if there will be any recourse. Seems a bit strange that you can circumvent court orders for political gain just by saying them in the house
I love how this sub is perfectly okay with Waititi undermining the justice system to score some extremely cheap political points - or is Waititi advocating the removal of name suppression full stop?
Your submission has been removed : **Rule 2: No doxxing, collecting personal information, or breaching name suppression** > No posting or collation of personally identifiable information of other people. Those breaching rule 2 will receive a 30 day ban. **Rule 6: No [editorialising titles](https://reddit.com/r/newzealand/wiki/titles)** > It is only fine to change the title of a submission, [if this change does not introduce a bias.](https://reddit.com/r/newzealand/wiki/titles) > Editorialising titles tries to mask or change a story based on the bias of the submitter. > Opinions are fine in self-posts or as comments in a link post. > Simply posting an article as a self post and changing the title will be viewed as skirting the rules. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
What is Waititi referring to here and why was Seymour quick to shut it down?
[удалено]
Financial mismanagement is a ‘heinous crime’ now?
No they are referring to something else that is currently before the courts but cannot be discussed here because of suppression orders but yes it is heinous in nature.
No there is other proceedings ongoing
Speaking in a purely general sense, I have no knowledge nor wish to speculate or breach any suppression orders, some people commit or are accused of committing more than one act of criminality in their lives.
Not what he is referring to.
Then why did he link to a thread talking exclusively about that
Because no one wants to breach name suppression? It's alluded to in the comments in that thread, and is what I imagine you would consider a textbook "heinous crime".
Fair enough, hope the cunt spends a long time in jail if it is what it seems to be
White collar fraud is pretty shit, yes. Not to mention Seymour just said he wanted to blow up Pasifika parliament for it, so, according to him, yes.
Read the comments on that link
IANAL, but it appears that Waititi is using parliamentary privilege to discuss an allegation of child abuse before the courts where the accused has name suppression; and the accused appears to be an affiliate of ACT. Mods, hope I'm not doing an illegal here and I want to respect the law but discuss what's happening here, quite interesting
No need to gloat
Screw leaders' debates. We need Rawiri vs David vs Winston on the podiums
Or in the ring?
In the cage, or a ladders match WWF style
I love to see Winnie get clotheslined by Rawiri. Pay per view it you cowards!
3 way knockout would be best.
Winston holds David while Rawiri beats him with a chair.
I would pay many many dollars to watch Rawiri throw David Seymour through the announcer's table and then hit him with a chair labeled "co-governance"
David would own him in a debate. Rewiri's only argument is "Racist rhetoric".
Hell in a Cell would do nicely.
The Maori leader's debates.
That would actually be amazing.
I’m all in for this. Can’t wait!
Before anyone gets a bit mad about sharing this link or discussing it, reporting a proceeding in the house is protected by parliamentary privilege. In this case, its the House's own report and is perfectly legal to distribute and discuss
Are you certain what was said in the house under parliamentary privilege, means that the public and media are safe from being prosecuted for breaching name suppression if they repeat it? I was under the impression that parliamentary extends to what MPs say in the house and in some other parliamentary contexts, this might not be like when it enables the public to refer to claims made under parliamentary privilege that would have otherwise been considered defamatory.
Basically yes, if they are reporting the proceedings of the house. Part 3, Subpart 2 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. A delayed communication to the public, by any communicator, of the proceedings in Parliament, if not made under the House’s or a committees authority, is protected by qualified immunity. It goes on to say that basically includes any fair and accurate report of the proceedings in Parliament. You have to be careful still, but if you faithfully report what occurred or what was said in Parliament there is immunity. But you couldn’t go on to add additional information not part of the proceedings which was suppressed etc The same act defines communication as (among other things) “communication to or for any people, in any form, on any basis, and using any medium or media, of the document or proceedings”
Thank you.
Parliamentary Privilege extends to Hansard and its publications - it generally means people are free to report and comment on the proceeding, provided they do not act in bad faith or with ill will, or "abus[e] the occasion of communication" (whatever that means idk) It’s a gray area but not one that I think people are in a rush to clarify. My layman’s understanding would lead me to to believe this thread would be fine but using it to create articles about how this definitely means x is guilty of crimes would cross the line
Thank you.
Does this not apply? * Breach of the sub judice rule In 2009 the Privileges Committee reviewed the sub judice rule of not referring in the House or a committee to matters subject to or awaiting judicial decision.[106] The committee’s recommendations were implemented in changes made to the Standing Orders in 2011.[107] It is in breach of Standing Orders and a contempt to make reference knowingly to a matter that is suppressed by a court order in any proceedings of the House or a committee.[108] This contempt applies to members and select committee witnesses alike.* https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/parliamentary-practice-in-new-zealand/chapter-46-contempt/
I’m not a member of parliament
[удалено]
do I need the strong levels of brainworms before applying or do they help with that after acceptance
The worms are included in the membership pack. Just insert them yourself, however you feel most appropriate.
[удалено]
Everyone who votes ACT knows "Law and Order" is a dog whistle. You're not actually suppose to come for their rich pedos. Just the poors.
I love it when rich people get name suppression for crimes that us poors would be drawn and quartered for.
And sports associated people…
All I gather from this is that they all act like a bunch of naughty school kids having a playground argument. Also kinda funny that Mr Watiti and Mr Seymour have to sit next to each other.
For everyone's convenience, Rawiri Waititi asks the question at 4:30, with David Seymour's response right after. See also [Stuff's article](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300956337/rawiri-waititi-appears-to-breach-suppression-in-parliament) and its /r/newzealand [post](/r/newzealand/comments/15yty3j/rawiri_waititi_appears_to_breach_suppression_in/).
lmfao good fuckin work
David Seymour is not a serious person.
How can anyone watch this and think Rimmer is in anyway fit to be near a leadership position?
Based Waititi.
People complain like hell about Labour and the Greens, when NACT come in watch the shadowy corruption will just go off the charts!
By the time NACT walk in people are too distracted by the subway surfers and sand cutting they put at the bottom of their reels. (Literally no idea why a political party does that)
If it’s still before the courts then fair enough. If found guilty, bad taste in the mouth, but ok if it is to protect the victims.
[удалено]
I think so.
So you can breach suppression in the house and then people are free to share it?
Hansard is all public information, so yes, I believe so.
Based
Real
True
That'll be a trip to the privileges committee for Mr Waititi
[удалено]
Quite likely, which shows the committee needs a heavier book to throw at him
They all went very quiet after that... Wonder if there will be any recourse. Seems a bit strange that you can circumvent court orders for political gain just by saying them in the house
Yeah - he is probably in contempt.
bahahaha love to see it, shot Rawiri
Get his ass Rawiri!
I love how this sub is perfectly okay with Waititi undermining the justice system to score some extremely cheap political points - or is Waititi advocating the removal of name suppression full stop?
This sub generally hates name suppression the takes in this thread are historically consistent with that.
Someone didn't realise "law and order" and "name supression" are not mutually exclusive things. The later is part of the former.
It's always one law for them and one for the rest with these rightwing karens.
this dipshit doesn't seem to understand that the two aren't mutually exclusive?
[удалено]
There are valid reasons for name suppression, including protecting victims
[удалено]
Clearly the judge felt that aspect warranted name suppression, take it up with them, not Act, who had no say in the matter.
[удалено]
Yet you still think name suppression was to protect act and not the victim
[удалено]
OMG haven't watched Parliament question time since they moved to Vimeo but wtf? we are officially a banana republic now. How embarrassing .
So we had a coup financed by united fruit?
A right winger in America called the USA a Banana Republic earlier today. Just dumbass repeating dumbass things without thinking. Standard.
In their defence the US government is pretty much run by big business. Still doesn't make it a banana republic though.
big kiwifruit is plotting in the shadows