The Riverman Reports - Inc. Huttz World : government

Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Image via Wikipedia.

The Government or Mr Big...

Queensland Govt's $27m 'drug money' grab nears its end - them or Mr Big...

The Queensland government will know before the end of the year whether it has been successful in seizing up to $27 million in assets from a Gold Coast drug baron.

Charles Edward Cannon has been fighting the government in the Supreme Court in Brisbane, as authorities try to confiscate money they claim he made from drug trafficking.

The government alleges the former Finks bikie associate accumulated cash and property worth up to $27 million by selling methamphetamines between 1995 and 2003.

This makes it the highest sum of criminal proceeds ever sought in Queensland.

Cannon, 51, was convicted in 2005 of trafficking and possessing dangerous drugs and was jailed for nearly 13 years.

After his arrest, the state's crime watchdog froze Cannon's assets - including his Jaguar car and waterfront mansion - estimated to be worth about $4 million.

However the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) is now alleging the fortune made from Cannon's drug empire is much higher.

Lawyers acting for the CMC, on behalf of the government, started a five-day proceeds assessment hearing in August.

However the application was adjourned mid-hearing so Cannon could change lawyers.

The matter has encountered further delays so Cannon's new legal team can be properly briefed.

During a review on Thursday, the court was told both sides will be ready to make their final submissions before Justice Peter Applegarth on December 3.

Justice Applegarth is then expected to hand down his decision before Christmas.

Acknowledgements: yahoo 7 News

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Image via Wikipedia

A former NZ National Government introduced a bill in 1999 to reform drinking:

by Peter Petterson

When a former New Zealand National Party Government introduced a bill in 1999 to reform the drinking laws in NZ, and allowed a Parliamentary conscience vote, they did not do New Zealand society a favour. The drinking age was reduced to 18 years, off-licences were introduced and as a consequence younger drinkers were given greater access to alcohol.

Quite frankly it has become a disaster to society as a whole and has also affected driving on our streets and highways. Drink- driving and other driving offences have also skyrocketed as alcohol has become more accessable to younger teens and children.Youth drunkenness in the CBD areas of our cities has become a problem for our police and a public nuisance to other citizens. And there has been a proliferation of alcohol outlets in our cities and suburbs - they have sprung up like mushrooms, and robberies and deaths have ensued from them.

So what has the Key National Party - led administration done about it? Apart from the rhetoric a big fat zero! There is now a social cost to New Zealand society. Mores lives are being lost annually as the government delays action and a further reform of our drinking laws.

The Government has allegedly turned its back on hundreds of pages of official advice to increase the drinking age and reduce the numbers of alcohol outlets, and a claim that the refusal to lower the drink-driving limitt was costing an extra 33 lives and a saving of NZ$238 million a year. These pages have been released under the Official Information Act and showed that lowering the alcohol limit was the best possible action it could take to reduce the number of road injuries and deaths caused by drunk drivers. It is obvious that the current approach to drink-driving will not reduce the the level of fatalities.

The government was told that data based on 300 overseas studies showed that 33 lives and 686 injuries could be prevented. A social saving of up to $238 million ayear could be made, and ACC could save an extra $95 million in claims each year.

But the government wants to sit on its heads and do more studies. Why? Because they are obviously coming under pressure from the alcohol industry lobby, despite denials from those involved. The government refuses to reduce the blood alcohol limit (BAC) from 0.08 down to 0.05 as recommended by experts. This National Government wants to have a further two years of research before they revisit the limit; there has been years of public discussion and official advice on the matter. They want a good range of public submissions, ministers have claimed. Like Nero they will fiddle while Rome burns - the Rome in this particular scenario being hundreds of more deaths and thousands of maimed New Zealanders, including babies and elderly people.

So let me halt my rhetoric and produce some facts for readers to consider:

What a lower limit would do:

1/ Save up to 33 lives a year.

2/Prevent up to 686 injuries a year.

3/ Save social costs of up to $238 million a year

4/ACC would save up to $95 million in claims each year.

5/The financial gain would be 173 times the cost.

Knowing your limit:

!/ The current blood alcohol content of 0.08 of alcohol per 100 ml of blood allows a man of average height and weight to drink six standard drinks within 90 mins. For an average woman, it allows four standard drinks.

2/ A BAC of of 0.05 would allow an average height and weight man to drink two standard drinks in the first hour and one an hour thereafter. For an average woman it allows one standard drink an hour.

What the Governments opponents say:

Innocent people will continue to be killed on our roads by drinking drivers while Minister Steven Joyce and his fellow National cabinet ministers say the can't yet make up their minds about lowering the alcohol limit for drivers on NZ roads.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

John Key, leader of the New Zealand National Party

Image via WikipediaNew Zealand MPs given a conscience vote on the legal drinking age would probably allow 18-year-olds into bars and pubs but return the off-licence purchase age to 20...

The National Party caucus yesterday decided that the vote on raising the drinking or alcohol purchase age from 18 to 20 will be up to individual MPs in a conscience vote.

But National would vote as a party on other alcohol reforms in legislation expected to have its first reading late this year.

The caucus meeting also decided that any votes on drink-driving laws, including Labour MP Darren Hughes' private member's bill to reduce the blood-alcohol limit, would also be along party lines rather than a conscience vote as suggested by Prime Minister John Key last week.

Asked how they intended to vote on the alcohol purchase age, many MPs, including Mr Key and Opposition leader Phil Goff, said they were likely to vote for a split age which would keep the purchase age on licensed premises at 18, but raise the purchase age at liquor stores, supermarkets and other off-licence premises to 20.

Mr Goff also said it would be up to each Labour MP how they voted on the drinking age, but he supported a split age because it was better to have 18 and 19-year-olds drinking under supervision rather "than out of the back of a car in a reserve somewhere".

Of 44 MPs who expressed a preference on the subject to 3 News, 29 favoured the 18/20 split, seven preferred keeping the age at 18 and eight favoured returning it to 20.

Labour MP Lianne Dalziel, who will be leading her party's response to the Government's alcohol reform legislation, also favoured the split.

"It takes the debate away from the age which is not so much the issue but whether people are drinking in a supervised versus unsupervised environment."

Other considerations included alcohol prices, outlets and access to takeaway alcohol.

"If we don't have a debate about accessibility and have a debate only about age, we will not fix the problem."

Mr Hughes said he was disappointed the Government would not allow a conscience vote on his bill - which would lower the drink-drive limit from 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 0.05 - if it was drawn out of the ballot.

"It would have been great to have all the politics put aside and National MPs voting for it as well."

But Mr Joyce said Mr Hughes was "playing politics" himself.

"This is a party that had nine years to make some changes in this area ... and they didn't bother and now it's the most urgent thing since sliced bread."

Mr Joyce said National's caucus felt the Government had made a call to revisit the issue in two years once additional research had been completed "and they were keen to back the decision with a party vote".

Other drink-driving measures planned by the Government included a zero drink-drive limit for recidivist drink-drivers and drivers under 20 years of age and tougher penalties for people who drink and drive causing death.

National would also look at alcohol interlocks for repeat drink-drive offenders.

THE NUMBERS

*44 MPs polled

*29 preferred the 18/20 split for clubs and off-licences

*8 preferred raising age to 20 for both

*7 wanted age kept at 18

But the New Zealand public may want the age increased to 20 years for all drinking, as it was before the last drinking law changes in 1999. Their opinion could be interesting, one year out from the next elections.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Official photo of Russel Norman, Co-leader of ...

Image via Wikipedia

Brutal truth behind China's pleasant smiles and New Zealand lawmaker finds out the hard way ...

"Russel Norman has done us all a favour. He got roughed up for flying the Tibetan flag in front of he visiting Chinese vice-president, but he leaves us an image and a symbol of great value. He showed the real face of the Chinese police state, not the smiling one it wears at cocktail parties and diplomatic ceremonies. The goons who pushed and shoved him and tore the flag out of his hands also tore off China's mask. The Chinese state oppresses not only the Tibetans but its own people. It does to protesters what it did, astonishingly, to an elected MP in a foreign land: trampled on his rights and treated him with brickfaced contempt. And all in front of TV cameras. This will remain as aa glowing reminder of brutal truths and as a counterpoint to the vapidities of official ritual. Vice-President Xi raises his wine glass and gives a pleasant smile. He shakes hands with John key, carefully angled for the cameras. He has a pleasant talk with Phil Goff, another "great friend" of China. Inside the gilded halls,Xi is surrounded by fawning smiles. Outside, his guards smear our sovereignty and spit on on our democratic values.

Everybody knows, of course,that New Zealand needs China's money. Politicians of both main parties have worked for years to win a free-trade deal with the emerging Chineses super-state. Without China as a market, New Zealand would be much poorer than it is. Without the growing Chinese markets in future,New Zealand's economic prospects would be much dimmer. New Zealand cannot restrict its trade to democracies. We must sell in the real world, which contains more despots than elected leaders. And this presents a problem."

The opening paragraphs in the New Zealand Sunday Times editorial of June 20, 2010.

Russell Norman the young co-leader of the New Zealand Greens Party had protested on the grounds of New Zealand's Parliament against Chinese policies regarding Tibet and had waved a Tibetan flag. He was then manhandled by Chinese security guards and had his flag taken off him and trampled into the ground. Russel Norman is an elected member of New Zealand's Parliament and should not have been physically manhandled. That was offensive and is actually assault under New Zealand law. NZ police provide all official security and protection for visiting dignatories such as the Chinese vice-president and his entourage. His security guards should have remained at his side and not become involved in any fracas. Also under New Zealand law foreign security guards cannot be armed. The NZ Diplomatic Protection Squad provides armed protection for foreigners. These security guards breached New Zealand law and could have been liable for prosecution. Of course they won't and not much will be said by those who govern New Zealand at present. They will bend over backwards not to offend Vice-president Xi, who could become the next president of China. This action offended not only members of New Zealand's parliament, but the New Zealand people who are represented by members of parliament such as Russel Norman.

Related articles by Zemanta

Monday, May 24, 2010

Image via Wikipedia

Teasing turned into cowardly bullying of disabled youth by four teenage bullies...

Four teenage bullies allegedly forced a disabled boy into a home in the US and tattooed the word "poop d***" on his behind.

Police have charged the teens over the May 10 incident, in which the 14-year-old victim was told he'd no longer be teased at school if he agreed to be inked, The Smoking Gun website reports.

An affadavit said the New Hampshire student, who suffered from self-esteem issues, was frequently ridiculed because he once wore a Spider Man cap to school.

The group took the boy to a home in the city of Concord, in New Hampshire's south-east, where he was tattooed with a penis and the words "poop d***".

The group allegedly told the boy they would bash him if he tried to escape and that "he was going to get tattooed whether he liked it or not".

A raid on the home turned up tattooing equipment.

The teens have been charged with assault, endangering the welfare of a minor and tattooing without a licence.

A fifth boy is expected to be charged.

Want more news? Go here: MSN NZ News stories

Sunday, March 07, 2010

Image via CrunchBase

Overseas technology companies will have to find Kiwi directors within New Zealand...

Google, Microsoft, TelstraClear, Cisco and Dell are among technology companies that would have to find Kiwi directors for their New Zealand businesses if moves to tighten up company registration processes are approved.

Commerce Minister Simon Power is considering whether all New Zealand-registered businesses should be required to have at least one New Zealand-resident director after receiving a report from officials which engaged in "targeted consultations".

The rule change is one of a package of measures floated by Mr Power in January, after it was discovered an Auckland-registered shell company, SP Trading, had been implicated in shipping arms to Iran.

Mr Power said it would be consistent with requirements in other countries, including Australia, Canada and Singapore.

A spokesman for the minister says that if the Government decides to press ahead, that would probably require a change to the Companies Act and interested parties would be able to have their say at a select committee.

Mr Power said there had been an increase in the number of businesses registering with the Companies Office that had only overseas shareholders and directors. They comprised about 5 per cent of more than 1125 firms that were newly registered in January.

Microsoft, Cisco and Google's New Zealand subsidiaries all have just two directors – the minimum number allowed – all based in the United States.

Google and Dell refused to comment.

Microsoft New Zealand managing director Kevin Ackhurst says it would comply with any requirements and didn't see any particular upside or downside "but I haven't seen the full details of the proposed changes, so it is hard to comment on what might come in place".

Cisco New Zealand managing director Geoff Lawrie says the company would not shirk from legal responsibilities but he is unsure what having a New Zealand director would mean.

"We don't have a board structure. That is consistent with just about every international organisation represented here I would think."

Mr Lawrie says that from the point of view of preventing undesirable activities by shell companies, it might be more important that companies had a "responsible officer" in New Zealand rather than a resident director.

TelstraClear believes efforts to harmonise regulations between Australia and New Zealand could mean that having only Australian directors may remain allowable, even if the law is changed.

"The governments of New Zealand and Australia are working toward a single economic market framework to ensure transparent and ethical business practices," says spokesman Chris Mirams. "The initiative is designed to form a seamless trans-Tasman environment for established, credible businesses such as TelstraClear, that operate on both sides of the Tasman."

Ad Feedback
Institute of Directors chief executive Nicki Crauford forecasts some overseas firms might seek to appoint a "token" local director if caught by the rule change. But she would not recommend anyone take on a company directorship without proper payment as a board seat comes with the risk of "huge liabilities".

The practicalities for overseas-owned firms were unclear. "If they currently hold their board meetings in the United States, then are they going to fly a New Zealand resident to those once a month and is it going to be practical for that person to be legitimately involved in the business?

"I suppose they could dial-in, but I guess if they never physically go to a board meeting they would not be terribly effective in the role."

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

THE NEW ZEALAND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON NOV 8 2008 SHOULD BE A PHOTO FINISH...

The New Zealand parliamentary elections on Nov 8 2008 should be a photo finish.

The social democratic Labour Party are seeking their fourth 3 year term. They will be supported by another left of centre party, the Greens, and one or two other minor parties. The right of centre National Party opposition doesn't have too many options on the right of the spectrum. The ethnic Maori Party could be the kingmakers depending on how many Maori seats they hold; they have four of seven at present with the Labour Party holding three.

NZ has an MMP proportional electoral system - mixed member proportional. Half of the 120 seats are electorate and the other half party based on the percentage of votes the party has won. If a party wins more than their percentage dictates, that becomes an overhang and extra seats added to parliament.

The Labour Party has been a minority government supported by other parties whenever necessary.

There is about ten days to the election day; the polls are erratic and falsely representative. The National Party could win the most seats but not enough to form a government. The Labour Party could have less seats but form a government with the support of the Greens and other minor parties. That is the European style of proportional representatiion; something New Zealand voters have to accept, whether they like the results or not.