MP bagged over lost luggage bill

[Dave Homewood]

MP bagged over lost luggage bill
11:45 am today

Mei Heron Political Reporter @meiheron [e-mail]

A bill on the best way for airports to advertise lost luggage has been roundly mocked, but the MP whose name it is under insists the bill is no laughing matter.

National MP Tutehounuku (Nuk) Korako has had his member's bill drawn out of the ballot, which means it will be debated in Parliament.



In frustration, some MPs have said their "more important" member's bills haven't been drawn, while Labour's Grant Robertson and others reacted on Twitter with the hashtag #NoLuggageLeftBehind.

But Mr Korako said his Airport Authorities Amendment Bill was not a time waster or a filler.

At the moment, airports must advertise lost property in a local newspaper before selling or disposing of the items. There is no requirement for any other form of communication.

Times have changed and there should be a better process for travellers, Mr Korako said.

"It may seem a bit patsy [but] I don't think it is. When we think about how many times we actually travel on aircraft now and use airlines, it's just something that needs to be fit for purpose, which is the reason I've stuck with this."

Transport Minister Simon Bridges backed his colleague.

"Clearly it's not the biggest bill that's ever been before Parliament, but I think it's worthy. Good on Nuk for seeing this issue that a number of locals in his area have talked to him about."

MPs who are not ministers rely on the luck of the draw to progress legislation close to their heart and some never have a member's bill drawn throughout their parliamentary career.

ACT leader David Seymour said Mr Kurako's bill was a new low.

"I wouldn't have thought it would be one of the biggest concerns on the mind of New Zealanders. Of course I have a bill that is very important to many New Zealanders to legalise euthanasia or assisted dying and I'm a bit gutted it wasn't drawn."

But Prime Minister John Key argued not all member's bills were on contentious moral issues.

"When you're a government member, putting on a member's bill is always going to be in a quite specific and often quite a narrow area because otherwise the government would probably pick it up on its work programme."

Labour Party MP Kris Faafoi was incredulous anyone would bring such a bill to the House.

"I haven't had one New Zealander, one airport, in my short time as tourism spokesperson who's red-eye raged about the advertising of lost luggage. I want to know what's going at the National Party caucus if [this bill] can get through their approval process."

But Mr Faafoi said if the issue was so important to National, Labour would support a straight amendment to the Airport Authorities Act, which would avoid wasting time in Parliament.

Also pulled from the ballot yesterday was a bill sponsored by Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei to strengthen renters' rights and a bill from New Zealand First's Mahesh Bindra to create a public register of all foreign owned land.

www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/310799/mp-bagged-over-lost-luggage-bill

[Dave Homewood]

Personally I see a change in the way the airports handle lost luggage as a good step, as it's clearly a problem that needs fixing, and if the bunch of children in Opposition saved all their bluster and negative energy and simply let the Bill process happen it may get through a lot faster and they can get onto their next "more important" Bills sooner. It shows what a waste of space some of these MP's who supposedly represent New Zealand are.

[errolmartyn]

National MP Tutehounuku (Nuk) Korako - clearly an MP with too much time on his hands!

Errol

[kiwithrottlejockey]

As this topic is politics and involves political parties slugging it out, then Rule 11 should apply here, as posters are already dragging their personal support of particular political parties into the discussion. When this has happened in the past (such as the celebration of Sue Bradford leaving Parliament), as soon as any opposing view was posted, then suddenly Rule 11 was invoked by those who were happy to post politics so long as it was only politics they agreed with.

[Dave Homewood]

Did you read ALL of Rule 11? This is an aviation issue which needs addressing by a law change, and in posting this here I am not favouring anyone, the politicians are all a bunch of time wasters but the opposition are particularly so on this issue.

In the old case you drag up, did you ever stop to think that the thread was removed because it was pointed out that the topic was NOT aviation or defence related and therefore breached the rules?

[kiwithrottlejockey]

Well in that case, good on some politicians for pointing out that this “aviation” bill is a total pansy time-waster when I think that there are many more important issues for Parliament to concern itself with.

[htbrst]

Aug 13, 2016 1:31:20 GMT 12 kiwithrottlejockey said:

Well in that case, good on some politicians for pointing out that this “aviation” bill is a total pansy time-waster when I think that there are many more important issues for Parliament to concern itself with.

I'd be more sympathetic if the people in question hadn't spent literally months on end filibustering their own members bill (for the Royal Society iirc) fairly recently - wasting so much time, dollars and not allowing any other bills to be processed in the meantime. The bill above that should be pretty short and sharp by comparison.

[Bruce]

Governance in New Zealand is not just about high-profile subjects, there are lots of little bits of "Nuts and Bolts" legislation essential to the smooth running of a country. Every sitting of parliament deals with these and in most instances it never gets anyones attention. things like allocating funding for roading renewals and local projects etc, changes to industrial legislation infrastructure etc. These are the core of our government process. The "big issues" get special places on the agenda, so these things dont take anything away from them.
Nothing wrong with this Bill, its one of those nuts and bolts items that needs addressing, and it should be a pretty quick and easy one providing it isn't stretched out by unneccessary politicing.

[Dave Homewood]

Aug 13, 2016 1:31:20 GMT 12 kiwithrottlejockey said:

Well in that case, good on some politicians for pointing out that this “aviation” bill is a total pansy time-waster when I think that there are many more important issues for Parliament to concern itself with.

It's not generally known how the system works in which a Bill enters the House for debate. It might pay to do some reading before making incorrect statements. This Bill has entered Parliament under normal Parliamentary process as has happened for over a century, it has not been specially selected in order to distract from other issues. The 'less important' Bills enter parliament all the time and go through the process normally just like the 'more important' Bills. The Opposition is making a huge, unwarranted fuss here.

[Peter Lewis]

Cool it guys.

[thomarse]

Hear, hear Peter.

[kiwithrottlejockey]

• Korako's inconsequential lost property bill reveals dark side of Govt tactic





And although it doesn't appear to be online, if you can get hold of a copy of the print edition of today's Dominion Post newspaper, read Jane Clifton's excellent piss-taking column titled “The lost cause of our luggage saint” - it appears on page A2.

BTW....if you actually read the bill (it is only one paragraph long and can be searched for and found on Parliament's website), you will quickly see that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with lost luggage, which is actually the responsibility of the airline and not the airport. It is actually to do with lost property left behind in the airport terminal, such as an umbrella or a mobile phone, or other similar personal effects. And even then, when you read that one paragraph, you rapidly determine that it isn't about making it easier for an airport authority to reunite said lost property with the owner, but instead makes it easier for the airport authority to flog-off that lost property and pocket the proceeds. But don't take my word for it....go and read the bill for yourself and see what it is really about.