text:
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Bill
23 Jun 2010 archivespeech
This speech is in relation to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Bill. This bill will mean that the operation of the following professions of medical, nursing and midwifery, dental, physiotherapy, chiropractic, pharmacy, psychology, optometry, osteopathy and podiatry will transfer to the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme from 1 July.
Adjourned debate on second reading.
(Continued from 22 June 2010.)
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (21:10): I do thank the honourable members who yesterday enabled me to speak last so that I could make a further contribution this evening. This bill will mean that the operation of the following professions of medical, nursing and midwifery, dental, physiotherapy, chiropractic, pharmacy, psychology, optometry, osteopathy and podiatry will transfer to the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme from 1 July. Interestingly, the occupational therapists have been excluded until 2012, and in addition, medical radiation practitioners, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health professionals and Chinese medicine practitioners will come on board from 1 July 2012.
The new scheme, which is to be administered by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, will have offices in each state or territory. A national board has been established for each of the professions, which was enabled by the passage of bill A and bill B through the Queensland parliament. I was slightly confused yesterday about the structure of all the different bodies and so forth, and so I am grateful that I have a copy of a document, which I assume was downloaded for me—
Members interjecting:
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I would also be grateful if you did not have to compete against too many conversations, too.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thank you for your protection, Mr Acting President—the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. It is a four or five-page document, if anybody is interested in googling it, entitled 'Frequently asked questions'. It actually has a physical drawing of the structure, which is quite useful.
So from this I understand that the peak body involved is the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council, under which sit the advisory council, the national boards and the agency. Beneath the national boards are accreditation authorities and national committees, state, territory and regional boards, and there are a lot of arrows going in lots of directions, so I would encourage anyone who is interested to go and find that themselves.
The ministerial council has the overarching role, which is something that is not ideal, given that it is not a directly elected body, but be that as it may, and it provides directions to the national agency and national boards about policies. There is also the Australian Health Workforce Advisory Council, which is there to provide independent advice to the ministerial council.
The agency, which I think is having a number of state staff transferred to it, is the regulatory authority, and therefore it has largely an administrative role. The boards themselves (and there will be boards to represent each health professional group) have the role of registration, standards, codes, approving accredited programs of study, assessment of overseas trained professionals, referring matters about registered health practitioners to their respective tribunals and, in addition, maintaining a national register.
The boards will consist of members appointed by the ministerial council and will have a mixture of practitioners and community and consumer bodies. It is not abundantly clear as to what the state and territory boards are exactly going to look like, and I note from the minister's second reading explanation that we can have some idea of what five of the 10 professionals will look like in that at a state level nursing, midwifery and physiotherapy will have state boards and dentistry and psychology will have a form of regional board.
I would appreciate it if the government could provide some idea of what is going to happen with the other five professions and how it was determined that those structures would be formulated in that way because it is not immediately apparent on reading all of the material that I have read, which is quite a large amount of material.
In terms of registration, there will be a number of categories: general, specialist, provisional, limited, non-practising and student registration. There will be requirements for continued professional development and having some form of professional indemnity insurance which has been in place for some time and which is why I actually dropped my own professional registration, because I was not about to pay for indemnity insurance when I was not using it.
There is a requirement for each state and territory to have an external complaints and review process, and I understand that it has been left in the hands of each of the states and territories to determine their own process. In South Australia, this will be the South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal, and the government has tabled some amendments to that.
It will be a significant change for the health practitioners because it is the role of the boards themselves at the moment, which are larger bodies. The tribunal will have three members sitting to hear most of the complaints and so forth. Again, I think there will be some teething problems in adjusting to the way that those operate, so I wish the tribunal well in determining how it sees its way forward.
There are some other specific South Australian amendments in the bill, including licensing of pharmacies in relation to which the government again has some amendments. There will also be continued restrictions on the sale of optical appliances and protocols to ensure that there is cross-communication with the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner such that complaints that are received by boards must be referred to the commissioner, which is appropriate.
Again, I foresee that these provisions do have the potential to become messy given that the bill states that the relevant board and commissioner must find a way to agree. If they cannot, it defaults to the South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal and the commissioner then has the right to complain, if you like, to the minister if they are not satisfied with that process.
We have had a lot of rhetoric about the importance of making sure that all of the provisions are identical so that it is consistent, but I note from the contribution from the member for Morphett that this has been undermined by the fact that New South Wales has succeeded in having its practitioners excluded from the new NRAS disciplinary process, which I find a little bit alarming. I think that, in the way South Australia's disciplinary matters have been managed, it has been a very important role for the boards and this should be made consistent.
In the case of New South Wales, it will not be NRAS but it will be their Health Care Complaints Commissioner.
My question for the government on that matter is: what advice has it received in relation to the risks posed by the concession to New South Wales and does it believe that there has been some compromise in the integrity of the scheme by excluding all those practitioners in Australia's most populous state? Those are my general remarks on the larger matters in the bill.
There are a few of us, I think, who received some correspondence from specific health representative bodies, and I will conclude by making some reference to those. The Australian Psychology Association, which I think has not had a great relationship with this government particularly in regard to the way they choose to consult with it, produced a 26-page submission which it provided to the government.
They have said in their correspondence to us that they sent in submissions relaying the concerns of their profession. I am disturbed that they say that they have had no reply or response to these and as such they have only just been made aware that the bill was being introduced into the Legislative Council. I regret that on this occasion we will not be able to assist them with their concerns, which we have stood for strongly in the past, mainly in relation to the issue of psychometric testing, which is defined as 'the administration and interpretation of tests of intelligence and personality'.
I have been a strong supporter of their position on this for some time. I can understand that the issue of hypnosis is a little bit harder to nail down because it is quite vague and open to different professional interpretation, but certainly in relation to psychometric testing I am very strongly of the view that they should not be tests which are administered by some sort of clerk within either a human resources company, WorkCover or any other body that may seek to use them because, if they are not applied and interpreted correctly, then the person who is being tested can be at some significant disadvantage through incorrect reports. Be that as it may, it is too hard, and I apologise to the psychologists who wish that we would be able to have that kept within legislation, but from our side of the benches we are unable to do so.
The pharmacists have also sought legal advice and, in relation to corporate pharmacy services providers and the issue of restricted pharmacy services, they are concerned that there is some grey area I think in relation to directorships and whether they would continue to be able to be involved. That is a grey area for which I understand the government has drafted amendments which we will discuss in due course.
The Australian Medical Association wrote a letter to the Chief Executive of SA Health which has been provided to a number of us. They express concern, as we have, about clause 4 of the bill. That is something that has been discussed extensively, and I will not talk about that again. They have sought a public interest test to accompany ministerial intervention. As I referred to last night, I understand there were three Senate recommendations from the committee that reported in August last year which were adopted by the ministerial council in some way. I was not able to ascertain by what means that was done—whether it is just a policy decision or whether there is some instrument—so I will seek a clarification from the government on that point. In any case, we have an amendment drafted which we will be moving in due course.
They hold concerns about exemptions for mandatory reporting in relation to spouses and partners. They also hold concerns about the use of the terms surgeon and physician. People using those terms and therefore holding themselves out and misleading the public is a consumer safety issue. There were concerns expressed with tribunal arrangements as well, but I understand that we have not actually drafted an amendment in that regard. I think that would be rather too complex from this side of the benches.
The suspension of registration in the public interest and the inclusion of the Pharmacy Practice Act provisions are in the draft bill, however that latter matter I think is fairly reasonable and we support that. I indicate those specific professional contributions we have had, to outline that not everybody has been happy with every provision in this bill. With those comments I will largely endorse the bill, except for those areas I have outlined that we are not supportive of and commend the bill to the house.


Now available from Bring Arts, a collection of 10 different tradable weapons from the game NieR:Automata.
These weapons can be equipped to figures in the Bring Arts series. Bring to life your favourite scenes from the game by combining them with the previously released 2B figure and soon-to-be-released 9S and A2 figures. These weapons come with an original pedestal, meaning that they also look great displayed on their own. Thanks to the painstaking addition of elements of weathering such as rust and fading, they embody the ambiance of the game. Immerse yourself in the world of NieR:Automata with these weapons. Each weapon comes with a story booklet!


The Vancouver Island Real Estate Board released its 2013 Buyer Profile at the end of July/beginning of August which I discovered and downloaded the other day when I grabbed the August stats package. I presented data from the 2005-2012 Buyer Profiles back on July 20, 2013. I am going to take a look at the 2013 Buyer Profile in this new thread and might delve a little deeper into the survey results - no promises though.
The survey is mailed out to "buyers" of residential homes listed and sold through MLS within all of the VIREB market areas over the course of the year (Note: lots and acreages sales are not surveyed).
The table below show how many questionnaires were mailed out and returned during the last three surveys. The level of response has been fairly consistent and is accepted as a "reasonable" reflection of buyers overall within the VIREB real estate market.
This post is a quick look at "Buyer Origin" and the VIREB chart directly below shows the results for the Board overall. My table showing buyer origin for all VIREB sub-markets follows the chart.
The table shows that for the most part buyers in each market area tend to come from: A) within the same area; or B) elsewhere on Vancouver Island excluding Victoria and the Gulf Islands which have been treated separately.
The table format is not the best representation of the data; however, because I need the "Buyer Origin" information for an upcoming post this will have to do for now. A series of charts would be nice, but that is for the future.
I have quickly perused the 2013 Buyer Profile and some of the results are very interesting. I will try to present that data in future posts. However, if you would like to explore the survey results on your own, you can download the .pdf from the VIREB's Market Statistics page.


text:
Jyoti Basu & Ors Vs. Debi Ghosal & Ors [1982] INSC 26 (26 February 1982)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION: 1982 AIR 983 1982 SCR (3) 318 1982 SCC (1) 691 1982 SCALE (1)115
CITATOR INFO :
F 1983 SC1311 (7,16) R 1984 SC 135 (8) RF 1985 SC 150 (26) E 1985 SC1133 (20) F 1987 SC1577 (14)
Representation of the People Act 1951, Ss. 82 and 86 (4) Election Petition-Parties to-Who are-Corrupt practice alleged against person who is not a candidate-Such person whether can be impleaded as respondent.
Election Law-Right to elect-Neither fundamental right nor Common Law right-Statutory right subject to statutory limitations.
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Or.1 r. 10-Concept of 'proper parties'-Applicability of to election petitions.
The Representation of the People Act 1951, by Section 81 prescribes who may present an election petition. It may be by any candidate at such election, by any elector of the constituency, and by none else. Section 82 clause (a) provides that the petitioner in an election petition shall join as respondents to the petition the returned candidates if the relief claimed is confined to a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void and all the contesting candidates if a further declaration is sought that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. Clause (b) of the section requires the petitioner to join as respondents any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. Section 86 (4) enables any candidate not already a respondent to be joined as respondent.
The first appellant in the appeal is the Chief Minister and appellants 2 and 3 State Ministers. They had been impleaded by the first respondent as parties to an election petition filed by him in the High Court questioning the election of the second respondent to the House of the People. It was averred in the election petition that the Chief Ministers and the State ministers who were impleaded as parties to the election petition had colluded and conspired with the returned candidate to commit various alleged corrupt practices. The Chief Minister and the other Ministers denied the commission of the various alleged corrupt practices and claimed that the election petitioner was not entitled to implead them as parties to the election petition, as they were not candidates at the election. They filed an application before the High Court to strike out their names from the array of parties in the election petition. It was dismissed on the ground that the appellants were proper parties to the election petition and therefore their names could not be struck out of the array of parties, 319 In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the concept of a proper party was not relevant in election law and that only those persons could be impleaded as parties who were expressly directed to be so impleaded by the Representation of the People Act 1951, and that they were entitled to be struck out from the array of parties. On behalf of the first respondent it was submitted that the appellants were proper parties to the election petition and their presence was necessary for a complete, final and expeditious decision on the questions involved in the action.
Allowing the Appeal,
HELD: 1. No one can be joined as a party to an election petition otherwise than as provide by Section 82 and 86 (4) of the Representation of the people Act 1951. A person who is not a candidate may not be joined as a respondent to the election petition [331 C-D] In the instant case the names of the appellants and the 7th respondent in the appeal are directed to be struck out from the array of parties in the election petition. [331 D]
2. A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously neither a fundamental right nor a Common Law Right. It is a statutory right. So is the right to be elected, and the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected, and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An Election petition is not an action at Common Law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the Common Law nor the principles of Equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A Court has no right to resort to them on considerations of alleged policy because policy in such matters, as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes, Court is put in a straight jacket. [326 F-H; 327 A-B]
3. The contest of the election petition is designed to be confined to the the candidates at the election. All others are excluded. The ring is closed to all except the petitioner and the candidates at the election. Such is the design of the statute. [328 C]
4. While clause (b) of section 82 obliges the petitioner in an election petition to join as a respondent any candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition, it does not oblige the petitioner to join as a respondent any other person against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made. While any candidate not already a respondent may seek and, if he so seeks, is entitled to be joined as a respondent under section 86 (4), any other person cannot, under that provision seek to be joined as a respondent, even if allegations of any corrupt practice are made against him.
[328 A-C] 320
5. The concept of `proper parties' is and must remain alien to an election dispute under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition who are mentioned in section 82 and section 86 (4) and no others. However desirable and expedient it may appear to be none else shall be joined as respondents. [328 D]
6. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked to permit that which the Representation of the People Act 1951 does not permit. The Civil Procedure Code applies subject to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1951 and any rule made thereunder. Section 87 (1) expressly says so . When the Act enjoins the penalty of dismissal of the petition for non-joinder of a party the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be used as a curative means to save the petition. [328 F-H; 329 A-C] Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar Taparia & Ors. [1961] 1 SCR and R. Venkateswara Rao & Anr. v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi & Ors. [1969]1 SCR 679, referred to.
7. Parliament has expressly provided that an opportunity should be given to a person who is not a candidate to show cause against being 'named' as one guilty of a corrupt practice. Parliament, however, has not thought fit to expressly provide for his being joined as a party to the election petition either by the election-petitioner or at the instance of the very person against whom the allegations of a corrupt practice are made. The right given to the latter is limited to show cause against being 'named' and that right opens up for exercise when, at the end of the election petition notice is given to him to show cause why he should not be 'named'. The right does not extend to participation at all stages and in all matters, a right which he would have if he is joined as a 'party' at the commencement. [329 E-G] 8 (i) The election petitioner cannot by joining as a respondent a person who is not a candidate at the election subject him to a prolonged trial of an election petition with all its intricacies and ramifications. [329-G] (ii) Mischievous minded persons may harass public personages like the Prime Minister of the country, the Chief Minister of a State or a political leader of a national dimension by impleading him as a party to election petitions. All that would be necessary is a seemingly plausible allegation, casually or spitefully made, with but a facade of truth. To permit such a public personage to be impleaded as a party to an election petition on the basis of a mere allegation, without even prima facie proof an allegation which may ultimately be found to be unfounded, can cause needless vexation to sush personage and prevent him from the effective discharge of his public duties. It would be against the public interest to do so. The ultimate award of costs would be no panacea in such cases, since the public mischief cannot be repaired. Public Policy and legislative wisdom both point to an interpretation that the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1951 does not permit the joining, as parties of persons other than those mentioned in sections 82 and 86 (4). [329 H; 330 A-D] 321 9 (i) The legislative provisions contained in section 99 enables the Court, towards the end of the trial of an election petition, to issue a notice to a person not a party to the proceedings to show cause why he should not be 'named' is a sufficient clarification of the legislative intent that such person may not be permitted to be joined as a party to the election petition. [330 E-F] 9 (ii) If a person who is not a candidate but against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made is joined as a party he would also be entitled to 'recriminate' under section 97. Such a construction of the statute would throw the doors of an election wide open and convert the petition into a 'free for all' fight. The necessary consequence would be an unending, disorderly election dispute with no hope of achieving the goal contemplated by sec. 86 (6) of the Act that the trial of the election petition should be concluded in six months.
[330 H; 331 A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1553 of 1980.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 3rd July, 1980 of the Calcutta High Court in Election Petition Case No. 1 of 1980.
Somnath Chatterjee, Rathin Das and Aninda Mitter for the Appellants.
Sidhartha Shankar Ray, R.K. Lala and T.V.S.N. Chari for Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The first appellant, Jyoti Basu, is the Chief Minister and appellants two and three Budhadeb Bhattacharya and Hashim Abdul Halim, are two Ministers of the Government of West Bengal. They have been impleaded by the first respondent as parties to an election petition filed by him questioning the election of the second respondent to the House of the People from the 19- Barrackpore Parliamentary Constituency in the mid-term Parliamentary election held in January, 1980. There were five candidates who sought election from the Constituency.
Mod. Ismail, the first respondent, whose candidature was sponsored by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was, elected securing 2,66,698 votes as against Debi Ghosal, a candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress led by Smt. Indira Gandhi who secured 1,62,770 votes. The other candidates Ramjit Ram, Robi Shankar Pandey and Bejoy Narayan Mishra secured 25,734, 12,271 and 2,763 votes respectively.
The first respondent filed an election petition in the High Court of 322 Calcutta questioning the election of the second respondent Mohd. Ismail on various grounds. He impleaded the returned candidate as the first respondent, and the other three unsuccessful candidates respondents 2, 3 and 4 to the election petition. Besides the candidates at the election, he impleaded several others as respondents. The District Magistrate and Returning Officer was impleaded as the fifth respondent, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, the Minister for Information and Publicity, Government of West Bengal as the sixth respondent. Jyoti Basu, the Chief Minister as the seventh respondent, Md. Amin, the Minister of the Transport Branch of the Home Department as the eighth respondent, Hashim Abdul Halim, the Minister of the Legislative and the Judicial Department as the ninth respondent and the Electoral Registration Officer as the tenth respondent. It was averred in the election petition that the Chief Minister and the other Ministers of the Government of West Bengal who were impleaded as parties to the election petition had colluded and conspired with the returned candidate to commit various alleged corrupt practices. Apart from denying the commission of the various alleged corrupt practices, the Chief Minister and the other Ministers claimed in their written statements that the election petitioner was not entitled to implead them as parties to the election petition. They claimed that as they were not candidates at the election they could not be impleaded as parties to the election petition. The Chief Minister and two of the other Ministers, Hashim Abdul Halim and and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya filed an application before the High Court of Calcutta to strike out their names from the array of parties in the election petition. The application was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court on the ground that the applicants (appellants) were proper parties to the election petition and, therefore, their names should not be struck out of the array of parties. The appellants have preferred this appeal after obtaining special leave of this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
Shri Somnath Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the concept of a proper party was not relevant in election law and that only those persons could be impleaded as parties who were expressly directed to be so impleaded by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He claimed that in any case such persons were entitled to be struck out from the array of parties. On the other hand Shri Sidhartha Shankar Ray, and Shri R.K. Lala, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the appellants were proper parties to the election petition and their presence was 323 necessary for a complete, final and expeditious decision on the questions involved in the action.
To properly appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India and the two Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951.
First the Constitution. Part XV deals with elections.
Art. 324 vests in the Election Commission the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the Electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and to the Legislatures of the States. Art. 325 provides that there shall be one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency and that no person shall be ineligible for inclusion in such rolls on grounds only of religion, caste, sex or any of them. Art. 326 provides that election to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assemblies of States shall be on the basis of adult franchise. Art. 327 enables Parliament to make laws with respect to all matters relating to elections to either House of Parliament or to the Houses of the Legislature of a State. Art. 328 enables the Legislature of a State, if Parliament has not made such legislation, to make laws with respect to all matters relating to elections to the Houses of the Legislature of the State. Art. 329 bars interference by Courts in electoral matters and clause (b), in particular, provides that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature.
Next, the Representation of People Act, 1950. This Act provides for the delimitation of the Constituencies for the purpose of elections to the House of the people and the legislatures of States, the qualification of voters at such elections, the preparation of electoral rolls and other matters connected therewith.
Last, the Representation of the People Act of 1951, Part VI of the Act deals with "Disputes regarding elections". Sec. 79 defines various terms and expressions used in the Parts VI and VII. Clause (b) defines a 'candidate' as meaning "a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election, and any such person shall be deemed to have been a candidate as from the time when, with the election in prospect, he began to 324 hold himself out as a prospective candidate". Sec. 80 imposes a statutory ban on an election being called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Act. Sec. 80-A vests in the High Court, the jurisdiction to try an election petition. Sec. 81 provides for the presentation of an election petition on one or more of the grounds specified in Sec. 100 (1) and Sec. 101 by any candidate at such election or any elector who was entitled to vote at the election. Sec. 82 is entitled "Parties to the petition" and is as follows:
"82. Parties to the petition-A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition- (a) Where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidate is void claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition".
Sec. 83 prescribes the contents of the petition. Sec. 84 provides that a petitioner may, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void, claim a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. Sec. 86 deals with trial of election petitions. Sub-Sec. (4) provides for an application by a candidate who is not already a respondent to be joined as a respondent. It is in these terms:
"(4) Any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon application made by him to the High Court within fourteen days from the date of commencement of the trial and subject to any order as to security for costs which may be made by the High Court, be entitled to be joined as a respondent".
Sec. 87 is concerned with the procedure before the High Court and it is as follows:
325 "87 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made there under, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accor with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits;
Provided that the High Court shall have the discretion to refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to examine any witness or witnesses if it is of the opinion that the evidence of such witness or witnesses is not material for the decision of the petition or that the party tendering such witness or witnesses is doing so on frivolous grounds or with a view to delay the proceedings.
(2) The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to apply in all respects to the trial of an election petition".
Sec. 90 enables the returned candidate or any other party to 'recriminate' in cases where in the election petition a declaration that a candidate other than the returned candidate has been elected is claimed. Sec. 98 prescribes the orders that may be made by the High Court at the conclusion of the trial of an election petition. It provides that the High Court shall make an order dismissing the election petition or declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected. Sec. 99, enables the High Court to make, at the time of making order under Sec.98, an order recording a finding whether any corrupt practice has or has not been proved to have been committed at the election, and the nature of corrupt practice; and the names of all persons, if any, who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of corrupt practice and the nature of that practice. The proviso to Sec. 99 (1), however, prescribes that no person who is not a party to the petition shall be named in the order unless he had been given notice to appear before the High Court to show cause why he should not be so named and he had also been given an opportunity to cross examine any witness who had already been examined by the High Court and had given evidence against him and an opportunity of calling evidence in his 326 defence and of being heard. Sec. 100 enumerates the grounds on which an election may be declared void. The High Court, it is said, among other grounds, shall declare the election of a returned candidate void in cases where corrupt practices are proved, where such corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent. Where the corrupt practice has been committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate must also be shown to have been materially affected. Sec. 101 prescribes the grounds for which a candidate, other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected. Sec. 110 provides for the procedure when an application for withdrawal of an election petition is made to the Court. Sec. 110 (3) (c) says that a person who might himself have been a petitioner may apply to the Court to be substituted as a petitioner in place of the party withdrawing. Sec. 112 (3) provides for the continuance of the election petition on the death of the sole petitioner in an election petition or of the survivor of several petitioners, by any person who might himself have been a petitioner and who applies for substitution within the stipulated period.
The nature of the right to elect, the right to be elected and the right to dispute an election and the scheme of the Constitutional and statutory provisions in relation to these rights have been explained by the Court in N.P.
Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors.,(1) and Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh.(2) We proceed to state what we have gleaned from what has been said, so much as necessary for this case.
A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a Common Law Right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An Election petition is not an action at Common Law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the Common Law nor the principles of Equity apply but 327 only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statutory creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A Court has no right to resort to them on considerations of alleged policy because policy in such matters as those, relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes, Court is put in a straight jacket. Thus the entire election process commencing from the issuance of the notification calling upon a constitutuency to elect a member or members right up to the final resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the election is regulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, different stages of the process being dealt with by different provisions of the Act. There can be no election to Parliament or the State Legislature except as provided by the Representation of the People Act 1951 and again, no such election may be questioned except in the manner provided by the Representation of the People Act. So the Representation of the People Act has been held to be a complete and self contained code within which must be found any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute. We are concerned with an election dispute. The question is who are parties to an election dispute and who may be impleaded as parties to an election petition. We have already referred to the Scheme of the Act. We have noticed the necessity to rid ourselves of notions based on Common Law or Equity. We see that we must seek an answer to the question within the four corners of the statute. What does the Act say? Sec. 81 prescribes who may present an election petition. It may be any candidate at such election; it may be any elector of the constituency; it may be none else.
Sec. 82 is headed "Parties to the petition" and clause (a) provides that the petitioner shall join as respondents to the petition the returned candidates if the relief claimed is confined to a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void and all the contesting candidates if a further declaration is sought that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. Clause (b) of Sec. 82 requires the petitioner to join as respondent any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. Sec. 86 (4) enables any candidate not already a respondent to be joined as a respondent. There is no other provision dealing with 328 question as to who may be joined as respondents. It is significant that while clause (b) of Sec. 82 obliges the petitioner to join as a respondent any candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition, it does not oblige the petitioner to join as a respondent any other person against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made. It is equally significant that while any candidate not already a respondent may seek and, if he so seeks, is entitled to be joined as a respondent under Sec. 86 (4), any other person cannot, under that provision seek to be joined as respondent, even if allegations of any corrupt practice are made against him. It is clear that the contest of the election petition is designed to be confined to the candidates at the election.
All others are excluded. The ring is closed to all except the petitioner and the candidates at the election. If such is the design of the statute, how can the notion of 'proper parties' enter the picture at all ? We think that the concept of 'proper parties' is and must remain alien to an election dispute under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Only those may be joined as respondents to an election petition who are mentioned in Sec. 82 and Sec. 86 (4) and no others. However desirable and expedient it may appear to be, none else shall be joined as respondents.
It is said, the Civil Procedure Code applies to the trial of election petitions and so proper parties whose presence may be necessary in order to enable the Court 'effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved' may be joined as respondents to the petitions. The questions is not whether the Civil Procedure Code applies because it undoubtedly does, but only 'as far as may be' and subject to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules made there under. Sec. 87 (1) expressly says so. The question is whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code can be invoked to permit that which the Representation of the People Act does not. Quite obviously the provisions of the Code cannot be so invoked. In Mohan Raj v. Surendra Kumar Taparia & Ors.,(1) this Court held that the undoubted power of the Court (i.e. the Election Court) to permit an amendment of the petition cannot be used to strike out allegations against a candidate not joined as a respondent so as to save the election petition from dismissal for non- joinder of necessary 329 parties. It was said, "The Court can order an amendment and even strike out a party who is not necessary. But where the Act makes a person a necessary party and provides that the petition shall be dismissed if such a party is not joined, the power of amendment or to strike out parties cannot be used at all. The Civil Procedure Code applies subject to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and any rules made thereunder. When the Act enjoins the penalty of dismissal of the petition for non-joinder of a party the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be used as a curative means to save the petition." Again, in K. Venkateswara Rao & Anr. v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi and Ors.,(1) it was observed:
"With regard to the addition of parties which is possible in the case of a suit under the provisions of O.l r. 10 subject to the added party right to contend that the suit as against him was barred by limitation when he was added, no addition of parties is possible in the case of an election petition except under the provisions of Sub-sec. (4) of Section 86".
The matter may be looked at from another angle. The Parliament has expressly provided that an opportunity should be given to a person who is not a candidate to show cause against being 'named' as one guilty of a corrupt practice.
Parliament however, has not thought fit to expressly provide for his being joined as a party to the election petition either by the election-petitioner or at the instance of the very person against whom the allegations of a corrupt practice are made. The right given to the latter is limited to show cause against 'named' and that right opens up for exercise when, at the end of the trial of the election petition notice is given to him to show cause why he should not be 'named'. The right does not extend to participation at all stages and in all matters, a right which he would have if he is joined as a party at the commencement.
Conversely the election petitioner cannot by joining as a respondent a person who is not a candidate at the election subject him to a prolonged trial of an election petition with all its intricacies and ramifications. One may well imagine how mischievous minded persons may harass public personages like the Prime Minister of 330 the country, the Chief Minister of a State or a political leader of a national dimension by impleading him as a party to election petitions, all the country over. All that would be necessary is a seemingly plausible allegation, casually or spitefully made, with but a facade of truth. Everyone is familiar with such allegations. To permit such a public personage to be impleaded as a party to an election petition on the basis of a mere allegation, without even prime facie proof, an allegation which may ultimately be found to be unfounded, can cause needless vexation to such personage and prevent him from the effective discharge of his public duties. It would be against the public interest to do so.
The ultimate award of costs would be no panacea in such cases, since the public mischief cannot be repaired. That is why public Policy and legislative wisdom both seem to point to an interpretation of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act which does not permit the joining, as parties, of persons other than those mentioned in Sections 82 and 86 (4). It is not as if a person guilty of a corrupt practice can get away with it. Where at the concluding stage of the trial of an election petition, after evidence has been given, the Court finds that there is sufficient material to hold a person guilty of a corrupt practice, the Court may then issue a notice to him to show cause under Sec. 99 and proceed with further action. In our view the legislative provision contained in Sec. 99 which enables the Court, towards the end of the trial of an election petition, to issue a notice to a person not a party to the proceeding to show cause why he should not be 'named' is sufficient clarification of the legislative intent that such person may not be permitted to be joined as a party to the election petition.
There is yet another view-point. When in an election petition in addition to the declaration that the election of the returned candate is void a further declaration is sought that any candidate other than the returned candidate has been duly elected, sec. 97 enables the returned candidate or any other party to 'recriminate' i.e. to give evidence to prove that the election of such candidate would have been void if he had been a returned candidate and a petition had been presented to question his election. If a person who is not a candidate but against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made is joined as a party to the petition then, by virtue of his position as a party, he would also be entitled to 'recriminate' under sec. 97. Surely such a construction of the statute would throw the doors of an election petition wide open and convert the petition into 331 a 'free for all' fight. A necessary consequence would be an unending, disorderly election dispute with no hope of achieving the goal contemplated by Sec. 86(6) of the Act that the trial of the election petition should be concluded in six months. It is just as well to remember that 'corrupt practice' as at present defined by Sec. 123 of the Act is not confined to the giving of a bribe but extends to the taking of a bribe too and, therefore, the number of persons who may be alleged to be guilty of a corrupt practice may indeed be very large, with the consequence that all of them may possibly be joined as respondents.
In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the opinion that no one may be joined as a party to an election petition otherwise than as provided by Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act. It follows that a person who is not a candidate may not be joined as a respondent to the election petition.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Students visit the local library or a historical collection to look through source materials (newspapers, magazines, photo collections, etc.) to find dates and/or photos of annual festivals related to phenology (apple festivals, lilac festivals, maple sugar festivals, etc.). Created by Signs of the Seasons: A Maine Phenology Program.


The third in a new and updated series of Specialty Coffee Maps. The Berlin map includes 50 of the best cafés in and around the capital city; all of which have been curated by the experts at Best Coffee. Complete with café addresses, location pins and iconic landmarks.
Printed on 100% recycled Cyclus paper at 140gsm, and measuring 297 x 420 (A3) when flat, or 105 x 148 when folded (A6).


text:
The Grinnell
Annual Solar PV Production
140,000 kWh
Electricity Usage Offset
Multifamily Cooperative
The Grinnell Cooperative Shareholders
The Grinnell's cooperative board wanted to offset their building's electricity usage with solar photovoltaic (PV), but until recently, there was no way for each individual shareholder to reap individual financial benefits. Most co-ops and condos have separate electricity meters for common area and in-unit residential accounts, as was the case at The Grinnell. In the past, co-ops and condos could usually only use the electricity generated from the solar PV system to offset the common area consumption.
But with New York State's commitment to renewable energy, policy changes allowed "community solar," where power generated by a solar PV system gets sent to the utility grid in exchange for energy credits. Now, the power that the system produces at The Grinnell can be credited to both common area and individual residential meters, allowing each participating shareholder to receive financial benefits directly on their Con Edison bills. The 115 kilowatt (kW) system will offset approximately 40% of the building's total electricity usage.
The Grinnell received recognition for its leadership in commitment to renewable energy at the 2019 Energy New York Awards (ENYA) organized by New York Energy Consumers Council (NYECC).
115 kW Solar PV Design
115 kW Solar PV Installation
New York Energy Consumers Council (NYECC) 2019 Energy New York Award (ENYA)
We wanted to show people they could actually do solar in a way that could save money on their individual unit costs. It's a double-e win: environment and economics.
Alan Gardner
Green Committee Co-Chair, The Grinnell
The Grinnell Pivot
By Habitat Magazine Staff
Even the best laid plans for a building project often pivot. Sometimes it's when dangerous and unanticipated conditions are found that need to be addressed. Other times it's when opportunities arise that weren't imagined at the outset. Such was the case at the Grinnell, an 82-unit HDFC co-op in Washington Heights. Read the full article… Read More about The Grinnell
The Greening of the Grinnell Co-op
By Adam Janos
"The Grinnell is not just going solar – it's going community solar. The 83-unit co-op has installed a 320-panel photovoltaic (PV) system and is awaiting final Con Edison approval to throw the switch. Once the system is operational, it will harvest approximately 112,000 kilowatt-hours of energy from the sun each month – approximately 40 percent of the building's total electricity… Read More about The Grinnell
Bright Power Installs Community Distributed Generation on The Grinnell
One of the first ten community distributed generation installations on a cooperative in New York State and one of the first in New York City and on a landmarked building Washington Heights, NY – The Grinnell is proof that solar can work for cooperatives and condominiums throughout New York City. The 82-unit cooperative on Riverside… Read More about The Grinnell


text:
Regional Transportation Body Reactivates Project To Widen U.S. 441 With Bishop Bypass In Southern Oconee County
GDOT Pledges Engineering Money
The Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study (MACORTS) Policy Committee this morning took the first step toward reactivating the construction of a bypass of Bishop and the four-laning of U.S. 441 from Watkinsville to the Apalachee River.
The project now goes to the public comment stage, with a key meeting to be held from 5 to 7 p.m. on Feb. 24 in the Community Center at Oconee Veterans Park.
If the project is approved again by the Policy Committee on April 8, the Georgia Department of Transportation has promised to provide $1 million for preliminary engineering in the current fiscal year for the roadway.
The route of the bypass around Bishop, which has been an obstacle to the project in the past, has yet to be determined and will be established in the design stage.
Land Use Meeting
The U.S. 441 widening and Bishop bypass were an element of a somewhat contentious meeting of the county's Citizen Advisory Committee for Land Use and Transportation Planning last night at the Community Center in Veterans Park.
The Committee defeated by a 5-4 vote a motion to tell the Board of Commissioners that the Committee considered the construction of a multi-grade intersection at SR 316 and the Oconee Connector a higher priority than widening of U.S. 441 and construction of the Bishop bypass.
Committee member Stuart Cofer was particularly outspoken in opposition to the construction of a bypass around the city of Bishop, saying that the county should just move Bishop and widen the road. Member Flynn Warren joked that one option would be to buy Bishop and burn the city down.
The video below starts with County Public Works Director Emil Beshara explaining the changes made officially by the MACORTS Policy Committee this morning. Cofer, wearing a green shirt, has his back to the camera.
OCO: Cofer On Bishop from Lee Becker on Vimeo
Confused Discussion
The Land Use Committee spent most of the hour it sets aside for its meeting trying to figure out what its goals were as it struggled to create a priority ranking of projects the county has before MACORTS.
That discussion ended without a clear resolution of the issue.
As part of that discussion, Oconee County Public Works Director Emil Beshara updated the group on the U.S. 441 widening project.
Cofer, who owns a garden store in Athens-Clarke County but lives in Oconee County, offered his comments on the Bishop bypass at that time.
At a later point in the meeting, Bob Isaac offered his motion that instructed the Board of Commissioners to move the SR 316 interchange ahead of the U.S. 441 widening project.
Joining Isaac in the vote were Maria Caudill, Courtney Gale and Cofer.
Warren, Bob Sanders, Bill Tolner and Jim Butler voted against, and Committee Chairman Abe Abouhamdan broke the tie by voting against the resolution.
(A full video of the Land Use Committee meeting is available on the Oconee County Observations Vimeo Site.)
MACORTS Action
The MACORTS Policy Committee, meeting in a 15-minute session at the Athens-Clarke County Planning Department this morning, officially approved an amendment to the FY2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program for the urbanized parts of the three counties.
The Transportation Improvement Program had been approved in September of last year and did not include the U.S. 441 project.
Instead, the U.S. 441 widening and bypass were part of the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, approved by MACORTS in October of last year.
The change in the Transportation Improvement Program would include the $1 million of funding for preliminary engineering in the current fiscal year but would leave right of way and construction designated as long range.
The Policy Committee cannot finalize action on the changes in the Transportation Improvement Program until after the public is given a chance to comment.
Federal Requirement
The MACORTS action is required because $800,000 of the preliminary engineering funding will come from the federal government. The remainder will come from the state. The county is not obligated to provide any of the preliminary engineering funds.
MACORTS is one of 16 federally-mandated metropolitan planning organizations in Georgia. All federal transportation funds for the urbanized area made up of all of Athens-Clarke County, the northern half of Oconee County, and the southernmost part of Madison County must pass through MACORTS.
Starting in 2013, small portions of Oglethorpe and Jackson counties were designated as urban areas based on population data, but those two counties have chosen not to participate in the MACORTS planning process.
Oconee County is represented on the MACORTS Policy Committee by Oconee County Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis and Sanders from the county's Land Use and Transportation Planning Committee. Both attended the meeting today.
GDOT Request
Radney Simpson from the GDOT Office of Planning in Atlanta sent Sherry McDuffie, MACORTS transportation planner, an email message on Jan. 12 of this year asking her to amend the existing Transportation Improvement Program to include the U.S. 441 widening and Bishop bypass.
MACORTS initiated action on the request on Jan. 28, when the Technical Coordinating Committee approved the draft amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program and sent it to the Policy Committee for today's action.
The southern part of the county is not designated as urbanized, and MACORTS' jurisdiction ends at SR 186 (High Shoals Road), north of Bishop.
McDuffie told me today that the whole widening project, including the bypass, is lumped together as one project by GDOT because SR 186 would not be a "logical terminus" for the roadwork.
In the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, the whole project is estimated to cost $66.5 million, with $13.3 million of that for the portion of the roadway that is from Watkinsville to High Shoals Road.
The document does not divide up costs among the federal, state and local governments.
Reason For Push
McDuffie told me that GDOT is pushing the widening of U.S. 441 because the highway is part of the Governor's Road Improvement Program and because it is considered to be a major freight corridor for the state.
U.S. 441 runs from the Florida border to the North Carolina border and will be a major route to move cargo unloaded in the deepened Savannah Port.
The Oconee County section of U.S. 441 is one of only a few in the state that is not already four lanes wide, McDuffie said.
Beshara told the Land Use Committee last night that more than a dozen routes for the bypass had been proposed in the past.
McDuffie said that GDOT "is starting over" in the search for an appropriate route.
"It is clearing the drawing board," she said
Until the project is back in the MACORTS Transportation Improvement Program, the state cannot start work on the design.
The public will not be looking at any proposed design at the information meeting on Feb. 24, McDuffie said. It only will be looking at the proposed change in the Transportation Improvement Program moving the time line for preliminary engineering forward.
MACORTS will take public comment on the change in the Transportation Improvement Program from Feb. 23 to March 9.
Video Of Policy Committee Meeting
The Policy Committee received a brief overview of the changes to be made to the Transportation Improvement Program by McDuffie this morning
It voted to approve without any discussion. The presentation and vote took only 90 minutes.
I was not able to attend the meeting, but Russ Page did.
Page recorded the video below. As the video starts, Athens-Clarke County Mayor Nancy Denson is seated at the table, with Oconee County BOC Chairman Davis on her right.
Denson is chair of the Policy Committee.
OCO: MACORTS And US 441 from Lee Becker on Vimeo
Labels: Bishop Bypass
Dixie2011 said...
Aren't we glad Stuart Cofer is leading the committee? What a stupid remark.
My remark was to prove a point that to spend 66 million dollars for a small bypass that traffic is really not bottle necked in Bishop is not needed now but that building an over pass at the Hwy 316 interchange with the Oconee Connector for 25 million is a better use of tax payers money....come to our meetings if you want to hear what we really say and not what is cut out by this blog.
Stuart Cofer
The point I was making is that to spend taxpayers money to the tune of 66 million dollars to bypass a very small town with historic buildings was not needed at this time since traffic does not bottle neck going thru Bishop. A better use would be to spend 25 million on an overpass at the Hwy 316 and Oconee Connector interchange which is and will be a bottle neck in the near future. I invite you to attend our meetings and hear what we really say and mean and not just the short snip its in this blog. You could literally move every building in Bishop that has historic value a lot cheaper then spending 66 million to go around it.....plus those business in Bishop will see the current traffic flow gone and their business hurt by it.
PS I am not the chairman. Stuart Cofer
Lee Becker said...
I have uploaded the full video of the Land Use Committee meeting to the Oconee County Observations Vimeo Site. The direct link to the video is:
Why is there a long-term MACORTS plan, when Melvin Davis and realtor/State Transportation Board member Jamie Boswell can move around project timelines behing closed doors, with absolutely no public transparency.
Time for a Freedom of Information act on all coorespondence between Melvin, Jamie and deep pocketed developer Frank Bishop.
Anyone who says "traffic does not bottleneck through Bishop" obviously does not drive 441 very often! This has been put off too long already. The citizens of South Oconee need the bypass built yesterday!
Johnny Pritchett Mayor Town of Bishop said...
I want to thank you for posting this. After reading the comments from some of the board members I am very disturbed that they would make the comments they did especially the disturbing comment about burning the town and our homes down. This project has been discussed for over 20 years and is needed more now than ever before. I think those board members making such comments should resign their positions on the board and be replaced with someone that can look at the projects that benefit the State best. 441 has by-passed all Towns in it's path except Bishop.
I drive through Bishop daily and multiple times per day. Traffic does NOT back up through Bishop. Yes, when cars are turning by Golden Pantry, it is occasionally a hassle, but it doesn't even come close to qualifying as "traffic".
Nedra Johnson said...
Those of us who live in Bishop would be glad to have any of the committee members spend a day with us and be educated and understand the problem with U.S. 441 through downtown. Comments from some show a complete lack of understanding and/or concern for people. They talk about buildings, but not the citizens. Buy it and burn it indeed. How tacky was that.
Xardox said...
66 million dollars for the infrequent "bottleneck" with miles of twisty two-lane to the river?
Dude! C'mon.
Are they talking about widening the actual stretch of 441 that goes through Bishop? Or just a bypass around Bishop? I'm new to the area and I am trying to get a understanding.
The plan is to leave U.S. 441 as two lanes through Bishop and build a bypass of the city.
Regional Transportation Body Reactivates Project T...


text:
Home News and Updates New features in Google Play Games with its 2.0 version
New features in Google Play Games with its 2.0 version
It's quite clear that a good interface is fundamental to getting avid gamers hooked on a particular platform, as Xbox Live and Playstation Network are there to attest. Google attempted to win such gamers a year ago when it launched Google Play Games, a service that aimed to unify the entire Android gaming experience in an app where you can manage your achievements, launch installed games, and check your friends' scores. Now version 2.0 of the service has been launched with new features along the same lines.
The initial idea goes far beyond Google Play and Android systems, given that, for a start, Play Games for iOS was also launched four months ago. In fact, any app can use the Google Play Services API to add achievement and multiplayer game support with real-time connections. To these features are added new usage statistics, a system of levels, and a sort of menu with pending "missions".
Now you'll have a level that is set based on the amount of time you've played and the achievements you've unlocked in each game, a tag that will give you benefits beyond being able to crow at beating your friends. The XP earned can be viewed broken down into the different genres of the titles you've played.
From the left drop-down menu you can now access an inbox divided into three tabs: game invitations from your friends, gifts, and game requests as well as your pending missions for certain titles. All this, together with a notifications system that you can add to Play Services, aims to create gamer dependency with all these interlinked features.
Material Design comes to Google Play Games and Play Movies
Google Play Games now also available on iOS. Next: A unified social gaming platform?
Google presents Android 4.3 and launches Play Games
Irafan Manzoor Suffi July 16, 2014 At 23:40
O no yr


text:
Afrobarometer
Afrobarometer is an independent, non-partisan research project that measures the social, political, and economic atmosphere in Africa.
Afrobarometer surveys are conducted in more than 30 African countries and are repeated on a regular cycle. Because the instrument asks a standard set of questions, countries can be systematically compared. Trends in public attitudes are tracked over time. Results are shared with decision makers, policy advocates, civic educators, journalists, researchers, donors and investors, as well as average Africans who wish to become more informed and active citizens.
URL: http://www.afrobarometer.org/ All Users
Afrobarometer: An African-led series of national public attitude surveys on democracy and governance in Africa
Afrobarometer is an African-led, non-partisan survey research project that measures citizen attitudes on democracy and governance, the economy, civil society, and other topics.
We are the world's leading research project on issues that affect ordinary African men and women. We collect and publish high-quality, reliable statistical data on Africa which is freely available to the public.
We currently conduct surveys in more than 30 African countries. We are proud of what we have achieved so far and our goal is to have Afrobarometer surveys in all African countries.
Arab Barometer
The Arab Barometer was established in 2005 by scholars in the Arab world and the United States. Leadership was initially provided by the University of Michigan and Princeton University in the U.S. and by universities and research centers in Jordan, Palestine, Morocco, Algeria and Kuwait. In 2010, a partnership was formed with the Arab Reform Initiative (ARI: www.arab-reform.net) in order to expand the project's scope and range of activities, building off ARI's regional survey work carried out in 2006-2008.
The Arab Barometer was developed in consultation with the Global Barometer project, a network composed of regional barometers in Latin America, Sub-Saharan, East Asia and South Asia (http://www.globalbarometer.net/). Like other regional Barometers, the objectives of the Arab Barometer are to produce scientifically reliable data on the politically-relevant attitudes of ordinary citizens, to disseminate and apply survey findings in order to contribute to political reform, and to strengthen institutional capacity for public opinion research.
Type: Microdata, Open Data
URL: http://arabbarometer.org/ All Users
Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)
A database of 24,619 U.S. economic time series. With FRED® you can download data in Excel and text formats and view charts of data series.
URL: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ All Users
Ghana Open Data Initiative
The portal is intended to be used by Government of Ghana Ministries/ Departments their organizations to publish datasets, documents, services, tools and applications collected by them for public use. The objective of the initiative includes promoting transparency in Government transactions and creating business opportunity for reuse of open government data. The initiative Involves rethinking governance and how administrations should adapt their procedures to meet the demands and necessities of their citizens.
URL: http://data.gov.gh/ All Users
Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, International
IPUMS-International is a project dedicated to collecting and distributing census data from around the world. Its goals are to:
Collect and preserve data and documentation
Harmonize data
Disseminate the data absolutely free!
URL: https://international.ipums.org/international/ All Users
Kenya Open Data
This site makes public government data accessible to the people of Kenya. High quality national census data, government expenditure, parliamentary proceedings and public service locations are just a taste of what's to come. Our information is a national asset, and it's time it was shared: this data is key to improving transparency; unlocking social and economic value; and building Government 2.0 in Kenya.
URL: http://www.opendata.go.ke/ All Users
Latinobarómetro
Latinobarómetro is an annual public opinion survey that involves some 20,000 interviews in 18 Latin American countries, representing more than 600 million inhabitants.
Latinobarómetro Corporation is a non-profit NGO based in Santiago, Chile, and is solely responsible for the production and publication of the data.
Latinobarómetro Corporation researches the development of democracy and economies as well as societies, using indicators of opinion, attitudes, behaviour and values. Its results are used by social and political actors, international organizations, governments and the media.
URL: http://www.latinobarometro.org/lat.jsp All Users
London DataStore
The London Datastore has been created by the Greater London Authority (GLA) as an innovation towards freeing London's data. We want citizens to be able access the data that the GLA and other public sector organisations hold, and to use that data however they see fit – free of charge.
URL: http://data.london.gov.uk/ All Users
NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons
This website was created by Rapid Intelligence, a web technology company based in Sydney, Australia. We produce original sites that provide people with unique views of content. All statistics on this site are cited. If you are concerned about authenticity and authorship, please view the "Source:" field, found below each graph. Or when viewing country statistics, click the "View with citations" link below the bottom of the page.
URL: http://www.nationmaster.com/ All Users
New South Wales Government OpenData (Australia)
data.NSW brings together a list of NSW Government datasets available in one searchable website.
URL: http://data.nsw.gov.au/data/ All Users
New Zealand Government Data
data.govt.nz is a directory of publicly-available, non-personal New Zealand government held datasets. This site does not host data, instead it links to datasets held on other government websites.
URL: https://www.data.govt.nz/ All Users
Open Government Data Platform India
12,106 RESOURCES IN 3,352 CATALOGS , 320 VISUALIZATIONS BY 81 DEPARTMENTS
URL: http://data.gov.in/ All Users
Passport (formerly named Passport GMID)
Passport is a global market research database providing statistics, analysis, reports, surveys and breaking news on industries, countries and consumers worldwide.
The Library subscribes to the following modules in Passport:
Countries & Consumers - Provides in-depth analysis on trends impacting consumers and countries around the world. It delivers research and analysis on the evolving economy, business environment, population, and income and expenditure patterns in 210 countries worldwide.
Industries - Includes global statistics and analysis for 27 major consumer industries worldwide. Contains historic and forecast market sizes, distribution channel analysis, company and brand share data, company profiles, global industry reports, expert and breaking news & articles and more.
Cities - Provides socioeconomic data and analysis on 850 of the world's largest cities.
Survey - Consists of online consumer survey data from 16 countries covering consumer habits, attitudes, opinions, values, behaviours and motivations on a variety of topics.
Industrials (Canada) - Breaks down the Canadian economy into 177 different industry sectors from a B2B perspective. Data and analysis is provided for Agriculture, Forestry, Mining, Alcoholic Beverages and many other industries.
URL: http://libaccess.mcmaster.ca/login?url=http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/portal/server.pt McMaster Users
Pew Global Attitudes Project -- International public opinion polls, data and commentaries
The Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project conducts public opinion surveys around the world on a broad array of subjects ranging from people's assessments of their own lives to their views about the current state of the world and important issues of the day. More than 240,000 interviews in 57 countries have been conducted as part of the project's work.
URL: http://www.pewglobal.org/ All Users
Pew Research Center: Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. We conduct public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other data-driven social science research. We do not take policy positions.
URL: http://www.pewresearch.org/ All Users
Registry of Research Data Repositories (re3data.org), formerly Databib
re3data.org is a searchable catalog / registry / directory / bibliography of research data repositories.
URL: http://www.re3data.org/ All Users
Saudi Open Government Data
Open Data offered by Gov. Agencies in Saudi Arabia.
URL: http://www.saudi.gov.sa/wps/portal/yesserRoot/aboutKingdom/openGovernmentData/!ut/p/b1/hZHJbqNAAES_JR8Q0c1izLFZzL52NwYuiAQHAwlE0DbL1w8jzXWSY0lVUlU9ruAyrhiqZ9tUrB2H6vOvLk4lMjUV2yIPQplAYEuyJiAJQtOC3JXLgFjiDkyhu_XjVmtRqmdL_ZH7LS0DumeLB7qACnrkgZltMwt2zJJ3o59x All Users
Statistical Year Book, India, 2013
The Statistical Year Book provides data sets, not only on the various facets of the Economy of India, but also on the vital social aspects like housing, health, environment, infrastructure, tourism and crime. A new chapter on Millennium Development Goals has also been added to this year's publication.
URL: http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/SYB2013/index1.html All Users
Statistics New Zealand
Statistics New Zealand Tatauranga Aotearoa is a government department and New Zealand's national statistical office. We are New Zealand's major source of official statistics, administer the Statistics Act 1975, and lead the Official Statistics System.
URL: http://stats.govt.nz/ All Users
The Asian Barometer
The Asian Barometer Survey is a cross-national survey project. The success of the project required collaboration among the thirteen participating country/territory teams and the funding support from many national and transnational sources. Under the data-sharing agreement among our East Asian collaborators, we have made our merged dataset and all the variables contained in our core questionnaire freely accessible to scholars and experts worldwide upon application.
URL: http://www.asianbarometer.org/ All Users
The World Bank Data
The World Bank has one of the largest repositories of microdata for development which is fully searchable and includes a citation index. The data include census and survey data on a range of development topics. It uses international norms for documenting microdata (DDI, Dublin Core). Currently, it covers 125 countries. Data for all studies listed are available to researchers either through direct download or a more detailed application process.
URL: http://data.worldbank.org/ All Users
The World Factbook by CIA
The World Factbook, produced for US policymakers and coordinated throughout the US Intelligence Community, marshals facts on every country, dependency, and geographic entity in the world.
The Factbook provides information on the history, people, government, economy, energy, geography, communications, transportation, military, and transnational issues for 267 world entities.
URL: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/ All Users
UNdata Explorer
The United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) launched a new internet based data service for the global user community. It brings UN statistical databases within easy reach of users through a single entry point (http://data.un.org/). Users can now search and download a variety of statistical resources of the UN system.
Useful features like Country Profiles, Advanced Search and Glossaries are also provided to aid research. The numerous databases, tables and glossaries containing over 60 million data points cover a wide range of themes including Agriculture, Crime, Education, Employment, Energy, Environment, Health, HIV/AIDS, Human Development, Industry, Information and Communication Technology, National Accounts, Population, Refugees, Tourism, Trade, as well as the Millennium Development Goals indicators.
URL: http://data.un.org/Explorer.aspx All Users
World Public Opinion.ORG
WorldPublicOpinion.org is an international collaborative project whose aim is to give voice to public opinion around the world on international issues. WorldPublicOpinion.org seeks to reveal the values and views of publics in specific nations around the world as well as global patterns of world public opinion.
The WorldPublicOpinion.org website provides information and analysis about public opinion on international policy issues from around the world. While the studies of the WorldPublicOpinion.org network figure prominently, the website draws together data from a wide variety of sources from around the world. We have found that data from all reliable sources are important contributions and that as more studies are integrated into analyses, world public opinion comes into increasing focus.
URL: http://worldpublicopinion.org/index.php?nid=&id=&lb=hmpg All Users
(-) Languages (21)
(-) International (31)