Kiwiblog

Obviously delighted the VSM Bill passed its first reading last night. I’ll blog some of the speeches once they are on Hansard (or a helpful staffer could send me the advance copy!).

As I understand it National, ACT and United Future voted in favour which would be 64 votes, and Labour, Labour pretending to be a separate party, Maori and Greens voted against with 58 votes.

A great fun episode of Backbenches last night. Literally over a quarter of Parliament (we counted 32 MPs) was in attendance as the House has risen before 6 pm due to a lack of private members bills to debate. There was also a lot of people who had been there to see the VSM Bill (which passed yay).

The absolute most hilarious part of the night (in fact of the series) came from Hone Harawira (who was in the audience). Wallace had asked the four panelists about should there be an H in Wanganui. After the panellist had their say (and one funny answer was that the Government should agree to the decision to include the H as it is promoting literacy standards in schools and that includes correct spelling).

Anyway Wallace then asked some of those in the audience, and eventually Hone Harawira, who was standing next to Shane Jones. Hone’s response was:

Well my mate Jonesy just told me that spelling Wanganui without an H is like spelling Cunliffe without a T.

There was a moment of stunned silence, and then the place went into hysterics. I’m not sure but I think the Labour MPs may have been laughing even harder than the National MPs. I’d say it took almost a minute before Wallace could carry on with the show.

The quip about poor old David Cunliffe having a silent T is his name is not a new one. It first originated around nine years ago when he became an MP, and legend credits it to one of his colleagues. But what was unique about this situation was:

1. It was the first time someone had used the quip on live nationwide television
2. It was also the first time someone had used it in front of DC himself. Yes he was one of the 32 or so MPs in the pub audience

Wallace of course then went into the audience to ask DC for a comment, and he did take it all in good humour.

The genius of Hone’s comments was saying the Shane Jones had quipped it to him. Because Jones has a robust enough sense of humour that you couldn’t rule out that he might just have quipped that to Hone. As it happens Hone did admit to me that he did make it up and attributed it to Shane Jones as some “whanau love”.

As I said, it was a great fun episode with a packed pub and a quarter of Parliament there. If the Speaker had turned up, they could have probably convened a session and passed some laws! I was one of the last to leave and for my sins have lost my voice this morning!

1. Lindsay Mitchell has some kittens looking for a good home.
2. Cactus Kate blogs on the Lisa Lewis vs Steve Crow match on TV3 last night.
3. Alastair Campbell blogs on why Angela Merkel will be re-elected.
4. Phil Twyford blogs on Republicanism

NRO blog on a near miss for UNESCO:

The Egyptian favorite to run UNESCO has in the last hour failed in his attempt to become head of what is supposed to be the world’s leading educational and cultural organization. Among other things, he had called for the burning of Israeli books.

But then running a state censorship operation, as he has done for decades, ought to be a disqualification from the post in the first place.

The idea of someone who advocated burning books of being in charge of UNESCO is a chilling one. It was close though – four tied ballots until his opponent won.

A race that began with nine candidates, with Mr. Hosny in the lead, was affected by charges against him that he was in favor of burning books by Israelis and keeping restrictions on Egypt’s carefully edited press — incompatible with a United Nations agency that is supposed to defend press freedom.

The biggest threats to press freedom often come from so called defenders of said freedom.

The New Zealand Republic Handbook is being launched at Parliament tonight.

The Handbook is a guide to creating a New Zealand republic and covers the issues of New Zealand becoming a republic plus the arguments for and against republicanism in New Zealand.

The launch is in the Grand Hall at Parliament. Drinks and nibbles start at 5.30 pm and speechs are from 6 pm to 6.30 pm. Speakers are Hon Peter Dunne from United Future, Phil Twyford from Labour, Hauraki-Waikato MP Nanaia Mahuta and Green MP Keith Locke plus Republican Movement Chair Lewis Holden. And so long as my dentist appointment at 10 am today doesn’t end up involving anaesthetics, I am the MC for the function.

MPs, parliamentary staff and press gallery are all welcome to attend. Around 30 MPs, from pretty much every party, have already RSVP’d but there is no need to do so if you work in Parliament. If you do not work at Parliament and would like to attend e-mail events@republic.org.nz so your name can be given to security.

After that Parliament should be debating the 1st reading of the VSM Bill which will restore to tertiary students the right to decide if they want to join a student association or not. Not that many laws result in more freedom, not less, so worth supporting.

And later that evening, we have Backbenches at the Backbencher, with live filming from 9.10 pm. MPs are:

• John Boscawen, ACT
• Keith Locke, Greens
• Damien O’Connor, Labour
• Pesata Sam Lotu-Iiga

Topics include how to spell Wanganui and what should be on Letterman’s Top Ten for John Key.

Audrey Young takes a trip down memory lane to the last MP accussed of reading while driving. It was Richard Prebble, who was then Transport Minister and it turned into a Privileges Committee hearing!

The case of Dr Paul Hutchison reading while driving may remind some of you with a few grey hairs of the furore some years ago over the claims that Richard Prebble had been seen driving while reading – a serious allegation for a Transport Minister as he was at the time. …

It was the subject of a privileges committee hearing though the privileges case was not about the driving perse, but commentary and questions around it. Both Prebble and Radio Windy broadcaster Chris Gollins were “charged” with contempt of Parliament. …

On September 22 1986 Mr Chris Gollins in his regular commentary on Wellington’s Radio Windy stated that the Minister of Transport, the Hon Richard Prebble, had been observed on the previous day driving for a considerable period through Wellington while reading what appeared to be a copy of a Sunday newspaper spread across his steering wheel. …

The Radio Windy commentaries had two immediate consequences. Mr Winston Peters, MP, who had asked the question, raised the Minister’s reply as a matter of privilege on the ground that it had been given with the intention of deliberately misleading the House. At almost the same time, the Minister raised the commentaries as a matter of privilege on the ground that they misrepresented the proceedings of Parliament and reflected on him as a member by libelling him in his capacity as a Member of Parliament.

The committee heard evidence from Mr and Mrs Gollins, senior, the parents of Mr Chris Gollins who had observed Mr Prebble driving on the Sunday, from Mr Chris Gollins and from Mr Prebble. Mrs Prebble, who was a passenger in the car on that day, was unable to appear, but stated by telegram that Mr Prebble had not been reading while he was driving.

The committee has no doubt of the honesty of the evidence given by Mr and Mrs Gollins senior. They were both truthful witnesses endeavouring to assist the committee to the best of their ability. It was in fact only Mrs Gollins who had observed Mr Prebble for any period of time – Mr Gollins having concentrated on his own driving and only having glanced into Mr Prebble’s car while both cars were waiting at a set of traffic lights. Mrs Gollins testified
that she had seen Mr Prebble driving though Wellington central with a newspaper on the steering wheel and that at one point while the car was at a traffic light, he had made what she took to be a remark to Mrs Prebble based on what she had seen in the newspaper.

Mr Prebble strenuously denied that he had been reading the newspaper at any time. He gave evidence that he had purchased groceries and a number of newspapers on the day in question and had placed the newspapers in his lap towards the steering wheel but that he had not read these papers while he was driving the vehicle.

Mrs Gollins rang her son shortly after she arrived at her home that day. This was done in the expectation that Mr Chris Gollins would use the item in his commentary. …However although the first commentary expressly states that Mr Prebble had been observed reading a newspaper while he was driving, it is clear from the evidence that neither at that time or later, did Mr and Mrs Gollins state to their son that Mr Prebble had been reading the newspaper.

This was a conclusion drawn by Mr Chris Gollins, it was not a statement made by the principal witnesses themselves even though Mrs Gollins agreed in evidence that the conclusion was reasonably drawn by her son. Mrs Gollins stated that her son added this conclusion in broadcast on his own initiative.

And the conclusion:

Mr Prebble’s answer to the question in the House was a completely accurate reply and the allegation against him of contempt by lying completely insupportable….A minority of the committee considers that Mr Prebble’s reply was misleading…he was observed driving for a considerable period and a newspaper was spread across the steering wheel. The minority considers that it is a natural inference from the position of the paper that Mr Prebble was reading it at some point on his drive. In these circumstances a minority of the committee would find that Mr Prebble did mislead the House.

It finds [Chris Gollins and Capital City Radio] to have committed a contempt in the broadcast of September 24. The committee believes it was a misunderstanding as to the nature of the Minister’s reply which led Mr Chris Gollins to broadcast the offending remarks….in these circumstances the committee is disposed to recommend to the House that no further action be taken.

Geoffrey Palmer chaired the committee. Also on it were Bill Birch, Michael Cullen, Doug Kidd and Frank O’Flynn.

I presume Kidd and Birch were in the minority. Regardless a fascinating trip down memory lane.

Just. Stats have growth of 0.1% for the June 2009 quarter. At the beginning of the year the assumption was we would be in recession for all four quarters of 2009.

So the recession lasted five quarters – four of them in 2008 and one quarter in 2009.  Of course unemployment will not turn about for some time, as firms that have been losing money and laying off staff will want many months of growth before they are confident to expand.

And the US may still implode, and drag other countries down again.

The deficit in the Crown accounts will still be with us for some time, but with an early exit from the recession it is possible the Half Year Fiscal Update in December will be less doom and gloom than in the budget.

Damien was actually my nickname amongst some of my friends at school.

Reuters reports on the ten most feared names:

1) Damien
2) Myra
3) Carrie
4) Rosemary
5) Judas
6) Adolf
7) Pandora
Regan
9) Samara
10) Boris

Myra is obviously about serial killer Myra Hindley. Carrie from the film of the same name and Rosemary from Rosemary’s Baby.

Judas needs no explanation, neother does Adolf or Pandora I would hope.

Regan stumped me for a second but that is the name of the character played by Linda Blair in the Exorcist. I rate the Exorcist as the most scary movie I’ve seen.

Samara is from the Ring, and Boris I presume is a reference to Boris Karloff not Boris Johnson!

The Herald reports:

Hundreds of Auckland bars and restaurants will be forced to close at 11pm under planned city council liquor law changes.

The council wants all on-licence premises outside the CBD closed by 11pm, unless they are situated in entertainment precincts such as Ponsonby Rd, Parnell Rd, Newmarket or Mission Bay.

I’m glad I live in Wellington!

Don’t you love the shock headlines. The Dom Post reports:

Look around you at work – that annoying habit of your workmate could be the telltale sign of a psychopath in your midst.

Up to one in 10 workplaces “harbour a psychopathically oriented worker”, according to Giles Burch, a psychologist and senior lecturer in management from Auckland University.

A psychopath displays antisocial behaviour and a chronic disregard for ethical principles.

Wow we had a few of them at Parliament

Dr Burch points to character traits such as superficial charm, an inflated sense of self-worth, pathological lying, cunning, manipulation, lack of remorse or empathy and a sense of impulsive non-conformism.

These individuals were capable of functioning within normal society but psychotic traits showed up in victimising workmates with their “dark side”, he said.

His research shows psychopaths create “toxic” workplaces rife with bullying, manipulation, sexual harassment, lying and fiddling the books. “We all come across people at work from time to time who are difficult, devious and troublesome,” Dr Burch said.

My motto: fight fire with fire

Jason Walker, managing director of Hays Specialist Recruitment, said the ability of staff to work well together was increasingly important to businesses. The best way to avoid hiring psychopaths was to use behavioural questions in interviews such as asking for examples of teamwork then checking those with referees.

Psychometric testing is also on the rise for mid and top-level roles.

Post in comments your suggested questions to weed out psychopaths!

The television community site Throng had a nice review on Media7, and it also featured their new Throng TV site. Their initial show includes:

In this episode we interview Mark Jennings, head of news and current affairs at TV3; we search out how to get a writing gig on Shortland Street; attend the Maserati launch and Sax fashion show and hit the red carpet at the 2009 Qantas film & television awards.

The Jennings interview I found very interesting, and the Qantas Awards red carpet some nice voyeurism just to see what people were wearing!

Throng TV S01E01 from Throng TV on Vimeo.

The first episode is embedded above.

AP reports:

Police in the US had to resort to a stun gun and handcuffs to capture a runaway emu running loose on the road in central Mississippi.

Police Officer Kiley Culpepper told WLBT-TV in Jackson that motorists had been calling 911 since Friday to report sightings of two emus on I-20 and nearby US Highway 80.

Authorities had been unable to find the animals until Sunday, when one was spotted near an I-20 entrance ramp.

The big bird was dodging traffic. Culpepper and deputies were able to surround the animal but has to use the taser and handcuffs to finally get it off the road.

I guess a taser was preferable to a baton!

The Herald reports:

A diluted but still hardline version of Act’s three strikes policy is now on the negotiating table with the National Government.

Act MP and three strikes architect David Garrett said Act would support any amendment that would have impact, citing a “three strikes and the max” version.

Instead of the third strike offence leading to the offender being “struck out” with a 25-year-to-life sentence, they would instead get the maximum sentence for the offence.

Mr Garrett said this would see an offender whose third strike offence was aggravated robbery serving 14 years – the maximum prescribed in the Crimes Act – rather than the four or five years such an offender would likely serve now.

I wish to point out back in March I blogged:

I would change the third strike from life (with no parole for at least 25 years) to being the maximum penalty set down for that offence

I think this achieves the aim of dealing harshly with repeat offenders, but avoiding the possibility of someone getting a life sentence for a relatively minor offence.

The three strikes and the maximum version would also allow for a “life means life” sentence if the offender’s third strike was murder, which would satisfy the call of many law-and-order hardliners.

Yep. It is worth noting that murderers can also now get sentenced to life with no parole under changes introduced since the election.

I hope National can back the law as amended. The main issue will be what crimes qualify as a strike.

Of interest to some will be whether the amended law, if supported by National, meets the iPredict contract:

This contract pays $1 if the National Party votes for the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (2009) at its second reading. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill must include a requirement that courts impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years for the third qualifying sentence for this contract to pay $1.

It would seem not to meet the contact, based on the Herald story. The longer description is:

1. The National Party votes for the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (2009) at its second reading.

2. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (2009) includes a “three strikes requirement”, defined below.
For the purposes of this contract, a “three strikes requirement” means:

1. The definition of serious violent offense (or equivalent wording) in the bill includes, at a minimum, murder and attempted murder.

2. Courts are expected to be REQUIRED to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 20 years for the majority of offenders on their third serious violent offence.

As some serious violence offences have maximum penalties of less than 20 years, I think this contract will close at zero, even if National vote for the law as amended. However this is based on the NZ Herald story being accurate!

The Herald has two sets of Top Tens for Key. First some possible Qs abotu NZ:

9: Even if you stand on a chair, you still can’t see Russia.

7: Apart from Michael Laws, we have no poisonous animals.

5: Good news girls, Simon Dallow’s available again.

3: We dislike the French too.

1: Our leaders are identical; they both have homes in Hawaii and neither is a Kenyan-born Muslim.

Heh. No 1 is good.

And some possible Qs to Key:

9: Can you ride a sheep in New Zealand?

8: Do all the women in New Zealand look like Rachel Hunter?

7: Could you beat the Prime Minister of Australia in a fight?

2: How does it feel to be more girly than the last prime minister?

1: Isn’t it about time you stepped aside and let the Bill and Ben Party run the country?

I’m not sure if No 2 is more offensive to Clark or Key – I suspect both equally

The Dim-Post has a list of things John Key should not say to the UN General Assembly. My favourites:

• Okey-dokey.
• It is vital that we all work together to combat the terrible threat to our global climax.
• Allah Akbar!
• We open with Lot #1 – Fiordland! What am I bid for this lush temperate rainforest?
• Ban Ki, Imma let you finish but I just want to say that Boutros Boutros-Ghali was the best Secretary General of ALL TIME!.

Heh.

Salient reports:

Salient understands the recent VUWSA by-election was declared invalid by an independent panel following a complaint by Act on Campus vice-president Peter McCaffrey.

Sources revealed the decision to Salient last week. The report had not been officially released at the time of print.

McCaffrey complained because of irregularities between online and paper ballots, and lax identification procedures with paper votes.

Upon receiving the complaint the election committee released a statement saying the irregularities’ while “not strictly in accordance with the VUWSA constitution” had “minimal” influence on the by-election.

The matter was passed onto an independent panel, comprised of former NZUSA president Joey Randall, former VUWSA Treasurer Graeme Edgeler and Senior Lecturer in Statistics Dr Richard Arnold, who have reportedly found the by-election to be invalid.

I am not surprised. In fact I was amazed that the election committee upheld the by-election. Not only were the electronic ballot papers in breach of the constitution by offering a no confidence option when it should not, you had different ballot papers online and offline.  These are not minor issues.

If the election is invalid, the decisions of the VUWSA exec over the past two months may not be legitimate. …

Neilson said the panel’s decision put the exec “in a tight position”. …

“It puts the voting strength on or below six, [which is] what’s required to make quorum,” he said.

Five new executive members—Max Hardy, Caitlin Dunham, Guy Williams, Zachary Dorner and Luke Cao—were elected in the by-election held from July 27 to 29.

What is that old saying about ability to organise a piss up in a brewery? And they get $2 million or so a year in compulsory fees.

An amusing column by Karl du Fresne:

After wittily skewering the pretentiousness that frequently characterises restaurant reviews in newspapers and magazines (and of which I’ve probably been guilty myself), Joe confronts the terms “waiter” and “waitress”.

He notes that the “ess” suffix has fallen out of favour, supposedly because it’s demeaning. Disappointingly, he seems to capitulate on this issue when I would have expected him to put up a fight.

Although acknowledging that he has never met a waitress who said she found the word demeaning, he nonetheless turns his attention to the quest for an acceptable, gender-neutral alternative and comes up with “waiters”.

This term, Joe writes, describes their job precisely and is by definition sexually non-specific. But alas, “it has been deemed unsatisfactory by the people who resolve such matters. It seems that usage has smeared the word permanently with testosterone.”

He then pounces with glee on the preposterous neologism coined to get around this non-problem – namely, “waitron”.

I’ve seen this term used occasionally and assumed the usage was tongue-in-cheek; a satirical poke at the political correctness that now contaminates the English language. How could it be otherwise?

But no; it appears the word is making a serious bid for acceptance. It’s not in my 2005 edition of the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary (though the hideous “waitperson”, a word that almost justifies the reintroduction of capital punishment, is). However we have seen silly, gender-neutral words infiltrate the language before, and a googling of “waitron” indicates it might be gaining ground.

I’m with Joe when he laughs this ridiculous word off the page. He says there are only four words he can think of that end with -ron: cyclotron, electron, neutron and moron. “One is a machine for boffins, two are sub-atomic particles, and one describes the character who invented the word waitron,” he writes. Classic Bennett.

Heh. If someone put on their CV they had been waitron, I would not hire them on principle!

I agree with Joe that there’s nothing degrading about being described as a waitress – or an actress, for that matter. The words waitress and actress simply acknowledge the reality that these people are intrinsically different from their male counterparts.

Does anyone think less of Katharine Hepburn, Meryl Streep or Julia Roberts for being called actresses? Any discriminatory connotation exists only in the minds of crazed ideologues. …

But there’s more to it than that. The English language is a wondrous tool that enables us to narrow down meanings and nuances very precisely.

One of the purposes of words is to create mental pictures and impressions. A writer or journalist using the gender-neutral terms waiter or actor leaves the reader in doubt as to whether the person in question is a he or a she.

This can be a crucial distinction. If I were to write that I had chatted up a cute waiter in a Courtenay Place bar it would create a very different impression than if I had used the “ess” suffix.

Either scenario is highly unlikely – but it illustrates why people who use words for a living should fight like fury to prevent the English language from being de-sexed.

Someone should start a group on Facebook!

News.com.au reports on the scuba diving death:

HONEYMOON killer Gabe Watson could face the death penalty when he is released from an Australian jail and returns to the US.

Alabama Attorney General Troy King yesterday announced he would go after Watson for a capital murder, the worst category of murder in the state.

If he is convicted, Watson faces death by lethal injection or life without parole.

The 32-year-old bubble-wrap salesman has admitted to killing his new wife Tina Watson who drowned as they explored the Great Barrier Reef on their October 2003 honeymoon.

In June, he cut a deal with Queensland prosecutors and pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

He was sentenced to 4 1/2 years’ jail, to be suspended after a year, in a decision that devastated Tina’s family and provoked public outcry over its leniency.

Queensland Attorney General Cameron Dick appealed the sentence and the Court of Appeal on Friday ruled Watson should spend another six months in jail, which means he will be back in Alabama in December 2010.

I’d not heard of this case, so got curious. What made people think it was a deliberate killing, not an accident? Well as always, Wikipedia has the answers:

During an excursion to the site of the SS Yongala, a passenger ship that sank in 1911, Tina lost consciousness and sank to the bottom, 100 feet below the water’s surface. Gabe claimed that the currents were stronger than they expected and that he responded to a signal from her to return to the dive rope where he noted a look of worry on her face before she accidentally knocked his mask loose. When he recovered his sight, she was sinking too quickly for him to retrieve her and he surfaced to get help. He also stated there was nothing in his training as a rescue diver “about how to get somebody” in trouble to the surface.^[1] There were other divers nearby at the time, including one diver who saw Gabe engaged in an underwater “bear hug” with his wife, after which he headed for the surface while his wife fell to the ocean floor.

Okay I can see why it looked suspicious.

Tina’s father claimed that Gabe had asked Tina to increase her life insurance and make him the sole beneficiary shortly before their wedding. The insurance company confirmed that Gabe had twice emailed questions about the company’s dive insurance policies prior to the honeymoon and had asked about her insurance shortly after her death. Gabe also claimed hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance money from her death until he was named as a possible murder suspect

And now alarm bells ringing big time. Not only is Watson probably a killer, he is a very stupid one to have left a paper trial of guilt behind.

Now the Watsons were on their honeymoon. This is when you realise how chilling this is. He presumably pretended to love her, and got married to her just so he could kill her to claim the insurance.

Tina Watson is buried in Pelham. Her remains were relocated in 2007 to a different lot purchased by Gabe.

After being informed by her family that flowers and gifts were repeatedly being vandalized or disappearing from the grave site, even when chained down, Sergeant Flinn investigated. On hidden surveillance videos, he witnessed Gabe Watson removing them with bolt cutters and angrily discarding them in trash receptacles.

It’s circumstantial evidence, but wow is this one dump fucker.

Gabe moved into the house that he had inherited from Tina after her death.^[7]

On August 15, 2008 Gabe married Kim Lewis. Reporters have described her as a “Tina Watson lookalike”.

Oh dear. Why would you marry someone who has been charged for killing his former wife? As much as I despise the evil sociopathic men who abuse and kill their partners, I also despair at the women who ignore the warning signs.

It is a pity the Australian authorities did a plea bargain for manslaughter rather than risk trying him for murder. Considering he had given 16 different versions of what happened, I think he was so stupid he would have destroyed himself on the stand if he testified. Mind you, he probably would not be allowed to testify, so maybe the manslaughter plea was better than nothing.

There is further info on Watson on this site.

The Dom Post reports:

Students hurled eggs and grappled with security guards at a meeting about raising course fees at Victoria University.

About 30 protesters crowded the public gallery of the university’s council chambers yesterday, shouting slogans against a proposed 5 per cent increase.

They were also angered by a move to raise the Student Services Levy, which funds counselling, financial support, and career advice, from $251 to $510.

“We will not allow anyone who wants to raise fees to speak,” shouted one protester.

As university vice-chancellor Pat Walsh tried to explain the reasons behind the proposed increase, he was drowned out by chants demanding free education.

Chancellor Tim Beaglehole issued two warnings to the protesters, before closing the meeting to the public.

An orange and several eggs then rained down from the public gallery, just missing council members.

That crosses the line from protest to intimidation and thuggish behaviour.

Scuffles broke out with security guards as about 10 protesters moved to occupy the council chambers.

“The guy just launched into me,” said Joel Cosgrove, a former student president and veteran protester. “I just dropped to the floor. They were being pretty rough.”

I don’t suppose we can give the university security guards tazers, can we?

Incidentally I agree the increase to $510 is quite outrageous. 95% of students would not get even a fraction of $500 worth of value from the services that levy provides.

I suspect the university is increasing the student services fee, because it can not increase the tuition fee. Another reasons why the fee maxima policy is flawed.

UPDATE: I now understand that this was an incomplete article by the Dominion Post.  The projectiles did not miss.  At least two Council members were hit by eggs and VUWSA President Jasmine Freemantle was visibly shaken after being hit square on the head by an orange.  It was clear that the members of the Workers Party (wearing tee shirts and carrying banners advertising their membership) seemed to be targeting Freemantle who was expelled by the party earlier in the year.

Another politics quiz from the Dominion Post. I got 10/10 again. Mind you on two of them I had advance knowledge as a Dom Post gallery staffer rang me up on the weekend to check who was the last National PM to address the UN General Assembly and when!

A neat little website that allows you to plan walking and cycling journeys in Wellington.

I’ve tested it out and it actually knows stuff like going up the stairs at Grass Street to get to Roseneath, rather than along the road. It also estimates calories burnt off on a trip.

A very useful site.

The Herald reports:

A blogger who came to New Zealand from Britain has been warned to stop giving immigration advice on her blog – or face prosecution under the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act.

The Immigration Advisers Authority says Helen Winterbottom was breaking the law by posting on avalonsguide.com, and has told her she must get a licence if she wants to continue.

Yes Immigration advisers are now licenses, but those enforcing the law should be able to recognise the difference between someone who is in business charging fees for immigration advice, and a blogger talking about their immigration experiences online.

And if no such discretion is possible under the law, it is a damn stupid law that should be repealed.

Sadly it may not be the only one. The new regulating of financial advisers may also capture far more widely than intended, according to Stephen Franks.

But the former pharmacist said she was only “speaking her mind” on her blog, which she started last November, and did not have any intention of becoming an immigration adviser.

Ms Winterbottom said she did not have the written warning, but had been told by the authority that one of her blog entries broke the law.

“I can’t believe that in New Zealand we have a law that makes it a criminal offence to offer advice to someone,” she said. “It really takes away our basic right to freedom of speech.

“My blog is an immigration support forum, so discussing the topic openly is what we do, just like support forums for people who have a specific illness.

That sort of blog should be encouraged, not discouraged.

Mr Smedts said the act was in place to protect migrants from poor advice.

“If someone is giving immigration advice, they must be licensed, unless exempt.

“Helen Winterbottom has suggested in her blog on July 6 that she is exempt, but she does not fit any category of exemption that we are aware of.”

Lawyers, diplomats and MPs are exempt from licensing.

“If bloggers wish to continue writing about immigration issues, they need to consider if they are giving immigration advice as defined by the act,”Mr Smedts said.

“If the answer is yes, are they licensed or exempt, and if not, I recommend they either apply for a licence or invite a licensed adviser or exempt person to contribute to their blogs.”

My suggestion is every blogger in New Zealand starts giving immigration advice on their blogs, and we all appear in court together.

The Act may be well intentioned, but the vast majority of people realise that free advice on a blog or a forum, is just that – free advice. It is not official advice. It is not paid advice. It is not expert advice. It is people sharing experiences. Now the site does have an e-book available for sale but it appears to be a general read about why people should move to NZ etc.

I hope Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman investigates this situation, and if a law change is needed, promotes one. The Government does not want a blogger in court charged with the crime of talking about immigration issues.