by Andrew Geddis

The ACT Party's "plan to protect freedom of expression" is long on aspiration, short on detail, and would usher in an extremely unpleasant society should it ever be put into place.

This morning I had a chat to RNZ’s Morning Report about the ACT Party’s “plan to protect freedom of expression”.

Our Court of Appeal thinks that China's criminal justice system is so unsafe that it simply cannot try cases fairly - and our government ministers can't really trust China's promises that it will do better.

I am fortunate enough to be a citizen of three countries – New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Ireland – which gives me the right to live in all three places. So, let’s imagine I am a very bad person. Being such, I do a very bad thing here in New Zealand (inset heinous crime of your choosing), then hop on a plane to Ireland or the United Kingdom to settle into a new life.

The Government's proposed model for the forthcoming referendum on marijuana legalisation isn't ideal. But the difference between it and the ideal really is pretty minimal.

Today we sort-of found out what we are going to get to vote on at this election’s “reeferendum”. We are going to get to say whether we want to have an as-yet-unwritten Bill allowing for the legalisation of cannabis passed into law by whatever Parliament gets elected at that election.

Brian Tamaki says he just wants to help male prisoners become better men. He's got a funny way of going about achieving that goal.

For someone who says he simply wants his Destiny Church’s “Man Up/Tu Tanganta” programme (sorry, “lifestyle”) to help “restore men to their true identity” in prisons, Brian Tamaki sure seems to behave in some peculiar ways.

Parliament's Health Committee couldn't decide on any major changes to the End of Life Choice Bill. That doesn't mean, however, that it won't be changed.

The End of Life Choice Bill, a member's bill in the name of David Seymour that would permit aid in dying, has been reported back by Parliament's Health Committee.

Parliament's Justice Committee thinks it would be wrong for courts to force people to say sorry if they say untrue things about judges. So why should Parliament be able to force people to say sorry if they say untrue things about MPs?

In the aftermath of the Christchurch atrocity, the political life of the nation must go on; for as W.H. Auden so eloquently put it, "even the dreadful martyrdom must run its course".  Of course, for now much of this political life remains focused on what we ought to do in that event's wake.

The person accused of the Christchurch mosque attacks, Brenton Tarrant, has been called a terrorist. Why then hasn't he been charged with being one?

The killing of forty-nine people in Christchurch was an act of terror, allegedly committed by at least one individual motivated by white-supremacist ideology. We know this, as our Prime Minister already has publicly called this evil by its true name. 

The Police have referred their investigation into $100,000 in donations to the National Party to the Serious Fraud Office. It's hard to know just what that means, except that it's the quintissential political "bad look".

On its face, today's news that the Police have referred Jami-Lee Ross' now-five-month old allegations about Simon Bridges, the National Party and $100,000 in donations to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) looks like a very big deal.

National's decision to collapse a select committee meeting to make some sort of point may or may not be good politics. But it is bad for our parliamentary processes and long term constitutional culture. 

On Wednesday something happened in Parliament that was on its face a clever but petty political move designed to capture headlines, yet at a deeper level ought to concern anybody interested in how New Zealand governs itself. Forgive me while I set the scene with some bureaucratic jargon before I tell you why I think what happened matters.

Did you know that Parliament could imprison you for saying that Trevor Mallard is biased in favour of Jacinda Ardern over Simon Bridges? But it (almost certainly) won't.

Wednesday’s flare-up in Parliament, which saw the Speaker ordering both National’s leader and Leader of the House out of the chamber while most of their party colleagues (