Date: Monday 17 October
Time: 6:30 pm
Location: Old Government Buildings lecture theatres (on the Stout Street side of the law school)

The speakers are:

For the Government – Paul Foster-Bell, Hon Christopher Finlayson, Stephen Whittington
For the Opposition – Charles Chauvel, James Shaw, Hon Shane Jones

The moot is “This house has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”.

The debate will be hosted by the Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University, Professor Pat Walsh. Drinks and nibbles will be provided after the debate.

Considering the furore last week over Chauvel denying Whittington’s (correct) claims that Labour MPs used homopohbic nicknames against Finlayson, the debate may be a bit more cutting than normal.

You can RSVP on Facebook, but don’t need to, to attend.

It is the second year in a row that Victoria has won the tournament, and the fifth time since 1975. The tournament features teams from all over Australia and Asia, including top universities like Sydney and Melbourne.

Victoria will defend the title as hosts next year in Wellington. I hope to get along and see some debates! The 2006 tournament in Wellington was excellent.

The winning team members are Seb Templeton, Richard D’Ath and Udayan Mukherjee. Well done on the win.

The moot is “that there should be a universal liquor allowance for students“.

For the affirmative:

• Simon Bridges MP
• James Nokise (two times Billy T Award Nominee)
• Josh Cameron – allround funny debater

For the Negative:

• Darren Hughes MP
• Jim Stanton (One half of Wellington’s Comediettes)
• Jerome Chandrahasen - stalwart of the Great Debate and Billy T nominee.

The debate is always a very enjoyable affair. Tickets will cost $10, and you can pay at the door.

This debate should be lots of fun:

If you wish to attend, you can RSVP on Facebook, or by putting VC Debate in the subject line of an e-mail to Vic Uni.

NZ had five teams make the octo-finals – the most in at least twenty years. Three NZ teams went onto make the semifinals, knocking out universities like Monash and Sydney who are the traditional heavyweights.

Victoria One faced Victoria Two in the semi-finals ensuring at least one Vic team would be in the final. Vic One emerged victorious. This reminded me of sporting contests in Dunedin when often the two leading teams would be Otago Uni A and Otago Uni B!

Auckland 2 defeated Melbourne I in the other semi ensuring a very rare all-NZ final!

Vic One affirmed ‘That the ICC should be able to prosecute for crimes against the earth’. They beat Auckland in  an 8-1 decision.

It is the first time NZ has won Australs since 1998 (when Vic won). It is Vic’s fourth Australs victory since 1975.

It is particularly great for Vic because they have reached the final in two of the last three years – losing closely each time (6-3 in 2007 and 5-4 in 2009).

The Vic One team is Udayan Mukherjee, Stephen Whittington, Ella Edginton.

Stephen was also the best speaker in the Grand Final and the second best speaker of the tournament (out of 300).  It is his third Australs Grand Final appearance, believed to be a record. Well done Stephen.

The Saturday night was not the normal teams, but a women’s night, with the top eight female debaters debating in four teams of two. The moot was “That the Government should promote atheism”.

The venue was, somewhat fittingly, the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Parnell – a magnificent location. Around 500 people attended the debate, and I enjoyed meeting a few of them afterwards. The MP for Auckland Central hosted the debate and spoke at the beginning, with her most memorable line being how ******* awesome it would be to be married to a hairdresser, as Aussie PM Julia Gillard is.

All teams did well, and it was an enjoyable debate. I especially loved the comment from the fourth speaker for the negative as she told the affirmative team they were going to lose, and pointed out that normally losing a debate just means you get ridiculed and hassled by your friends, but in this case it meant they were all going to hell

When listening to a debate, I always start imaging in my mind what I would say if I was taking part.

If I was debating for the affirmative I would have launched an all out assault on religion – detail the history of wars and torture stretching from 3,000 years ago to modern day religious terrorism. Go through all the current conflicts and point to the fact 95% of them have religion at their core. And then use that backdrop to say that promoting atheism is the best way to keep citizens safe.

If I was debating for the negative I would have attacked the proposition on two fronts. The first would be to point out that atheism is doing just fine by itself, and the last thing atheism needs is the Government trying to help it. It’s the oen thing which might kill off atheism. You’d have Royal Commissions trying to define it, government agencies fighting each other to be the lead support agency for it. a jungle of academic works talking about which strand of atheism is best, and frankly it would be a nightmare for atheists who really just want to be left alone, and don;t want the Government helping them.

The other front I would attack the proposition on is that the moment you go from voluntary atheism to state supported atheism, it turns into the very thing it is meant to be against – a form of religion – but with the Government as God, instead of God as God. Bring up examples of the USSR and China’s state promoted atheism which creates human rights abuses even worse than any religion has managed.

What do readers think? How would you argue for or against the proposition?

One amusing part of the debate for me, was the fact that the person two seats along from me (one of the organisers) kept clapping at the most inopportune times. At what appeared to be random intervals she would do a loud short clap, or a couple of claps. I actually thought she had ADHD or something until it finally dawned on me that she was the time keeper. I’m used to bells or buzzers – I’d never experienced a clap used to indicate time before. The other reasons it took me a while to catch on was that one of the claps occurred not at the end of the speeches, but one minute into them. I later found out that indicates that opposition teams are now able to interject.

All in all it was a very enjoyable evening. Watching a fun intelligent well argued debate is one of favourite activities.

The heats are from 15 to 18 March at various schools, and then two semi-finals and a final.

The first semi-final is Thursday March 18 5.30 pm at Mac’s Brewery on Taranaki Street, Wellington. The topic is “Our Police Ought to Be Armed”

The second semi-final is Tuesday March 23 5.30 pm at the Gus Fisher Gallery, Shortland Street, Auckland. The topic is “Our Liquor Laws are a Licence to Swill“.

The grand final is Wednesday March 24 5.30 pm at the Academy Galleries on Queens Wharf, Wellington. The topic is “We Should Look to the State for Moral Guidance“.

They should all be top debates, and well worth attending. There is no cost to attend but do RSVP by phone 04 471 8203 or e-mail.

The deputy prime minister’s daughter was in the Wellington team that won the New Zealand schools’ debating championship final in Parliament today, arguing for a motion that goes against politicians’ instincts.

The Wellington Black team of Carlos Bowkett (Wellington College), Maria English (Samuel Marsden Collegiate School), and Jodie O’Neil (Chilton St James School) won the national final in a unanimous decision over Wellington Gold, affirming the topic “That citizens initiated referenda should be binding on government”.

I commented to Bill a few months back that one day it won’t be Maria getting described as Bill English’s daughter, but Bill getting described as Maria’s father.

Maria English, who was in the New Zealand schools’ debating team that won the 2009 world championships in Athens this year, was named as captain of the New Zealand team to contest the 2010 world schools championships in Qatar.

Also in the team are Nick Cross (Scots College), Jasmin Moran (Chilton St James School), Josh Baxter (Auckland Grammar) and Aria Newfield (St Cuthbert’s College).

Congrats to them all, and good luck.

The Wellington team includes Maria English and the Canterbury team Robert Brownlee. Good luck to all participants.

New Zealand are the current world champions and this competition will help determine who will defend the title in 2010 at Doha, Qatar.

Also later that day on Monday the 10th is a public debate on the moot “This House believes that parents have the right to smack their kids”. It is hosted by Vic DebSoc and starts at 6.30 in Rutherford House Lecture Theatre.

The Kiwis beat England by a 6-1 margin, proposing the motion “That all illegal immigrants should receive amnesty”.

New Zealand were runners-up at the 2008 Championships, losing on a 4-5 decision to England, so this is great utu!

It is the first time since 1995 that New Zealand has won the Championships, and the fourth time since 1988, making New Zealand the second most successful country ever to compete in the tournament.

The team comprised Maria English (Captain, Samuel Marsden Collegiate), Holly Jenkins (Sacred Heart College), Jennifer Savage (Wanganui Collegiate), Tom Chen (Hillcrest High School) and Ben Kornfeld (King’s College).

Maria English was also ranked as the world’s second best student debater – a great achievement as she has only just finished Year 12/6th form.

Congrats to the Vic A team of Stephen Whittington and Polly Higbee who made the semi-finals. They were Opening Government on the topic “That governments should subsidise home ownership.” There are four teams in a debate at worlds (Opening Gov, Opening Op, Closing Gov, Closing Op). Opening opposition was Harvard A – featuring Lewis Bollard, son of Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard. Harvard A won the semi and were 2nd Gov in the final with the topic “This house would ban abortion at all stages of development”.

The overall winner was Oxford A on a 5-4 split.

Also congrats to former Vic student Christopher Bishop (G2) who was a judge, and chaired the judging panel for the other semi-final.

Congratulations to Jennifer (Jen) Savage from Wanganui Collegiate who won best overall speaker at the NZ Secondary Schools World Debating Champs.

Fellow New Zealanders Ben Kornfeld was 2nd and Holly Jenkins 4th.

As reported yesterday the team got all the way to the grand final and lost with the closest possible margin of 4-5.  The team captain is Maria English, and Stephen Franks points out (Stephen is on the board of Samuel Marsden – Maria’s school) that Maria has also a member of the N.Z. Secondary Schools Choir and was the winner of the 2008 Rodney Walshe Essay Competiton – the Ireland essay competition.

The NZ Secondary Schools Debating Team did amazingly to win 11 games in a row to get through to the Grand Final of the World Champs.

They went up against England, proposing the motion:

This House would expand the permanent membership of the UN Security Council

And they lost 4-5. Most decisions are unanimous, so to have four Judges say your team was best and five Judges give it to England is literally as close a call as you can get.

Any congratulations again to the team for a superb set of results. To represent your country while at school is a huge achievement in itself, let alone to make the world champs grand final.

This is the first time since 1995, NZ has made it through to the grand final. 39 teams have been competing from all over the world.

The team is:

1. Maria English (Captain, Samuel Marsden)
2. Holly Jenkins (Sacred Heart)
3. Jennifer Savage (Wanganui Collegiate)
4. Tom Chen (Hillcrest High)
5. Ben Kornfield (King’s College)

Their topics to date have been:

1. This house supports military intervention to deliver emergency aid in humanitarian crises’ – beat Greece 2-1 opposing
2. This House would ban strikes by workers in essential state services – beat Estonia 3-0 proposing
3. This house would ban the use of unethically obtained data in scientific research – beat Bangladesh 3-0 proposing
4. This House would make humanities subjects compulsory at undergraduate level – beat Japan 3-0 opposing
5. This house would make the directors of multinational companies personally liable for environmental abuses committed by their companies in the developing world – beat Scotland 3-0
6. A debates I don’t know topic for won 3-0 against Singapore
   
7. This house believes that governments have a duty to bail out failing financial institutions – beat Slovakia 3-0
8. A debates I don’t know topic for won 3-0 against Indonesia
9. This House believes that heads of government should be required to have a parliamentary majority to govern – - beat Netherlands 5-0 (octo-final)
   
10. This House regrets the holding of the 2008 Beijing Olympics – beat Ireland 4-1 (quarter-final)
    
11. This house would drop all US sanctions on Cuba – beat Scotland 7-0 proposing (semi-final)
    

The final motion is:

This House would expand the permanent membership of the UN Security Council

NZ goes up agains England in the final. It is being held at the Reagan Centre in Washington DC and will commence at 6.30 am NZST on Monday.

Winning 11 debates in a row is an incredible result. Best of luck to all of the team and support crew for the final.

1. How the current Government has ignored the lessons of the 1980s-1990s relating to public sector management, to the detriment of economic efficiency.
2. Alarming incursions by Cabinet ministers who have arbitrarily encroached on private property rights in the commercial arena.
3. Cabinet ministers bypassing Treasury and commissioning advice elsewhere for the re-nationalisation of the railways, without any cost-benefit analysis of whether it made economic sense to do so.
4. Telling examples of how Kiwi businesses are being tied in regulatory knots by the devolution of powers to overly aggressive bodies.
5. The major decline in the health sector, where the budget has increased by 54 per cent in recent years yet the amount of elective surgery has declined.
6. How the Beehive leaned on bodies such as the Electricity Commission and power generators to push prices up during the recent power “crisis” so that the Whirinaki back-up plant could be pulled into action, and then hammered them to drop prices.

I touched on some of these also, in my blog post on day one.

Also on day one was a good session on “bad law making” with several MPs (including one from Labour). Three examples were given of bad laws, and what drove them:

• Dog control – a response to demand
• Anti-smacking – elitism
• Electoral Finance Act – partisan politics

The dog control was cited by all sides as the classic “bad law” where a little girl gets bitten by a dog, the public demand the Government/Parliament do something, and hence micro-chipping is proposed as that “does something” to show MPs care about little girls bit by dogs. Only ACT voted against, and hence they are at 1% because the public think they don’t care about little girls being bitten by dogs!

Some incomprehensible or bad terms which should be avoided in laws was given, such as:

• Intrinsic values
• Treaty principles
• Sustainability
• Workable competition
• Price sensitive info
• Must not abuse a dominant position

They all detract from the principle that the law should be obvious and certain.

One participant suggested that a Regulatory Responsibility Bill was needed to protect the public from “good intentions” of MPs, and that it would have a similiar effect as the Reserve Bank Act and Fiscal Responsibility Act.

The session on taxation was of course also interesting.

One senior partner in a major accounting firm talked about how he always welcomed new staff members by telling them, they had three duties – in order:

1. A duty to themselves. A realisation that people work to further themselves, and that an employer needs to recognise this – that working for an employer is not the most important thing for an individual.
2. A duty to New Zealand – that employees (and employers) should look at how they can contribute to New Zealand, that there was a moral obligation to contribute – not just to make money.
3. A duty to the employer – this comes after the duty to yourself and New Zealand.

This might seem as a surprising position for a senior member of the Roundtable, but most of them are passionate about advocating for policies which will result in a better NZ, and that pushing for better tax policies, is part of this. That pushing for better tax policies, is not about pushing for more or less tax, but a more efficient and equitable tax system.

He defined the efficiency of a tax system as how to collect maximum revenue at minimum cost, and that the current system was a long way off this. The equity side can be met through a combination of tax and welfare.

Day Two also saw a debate between the Victoria and Auckland University Debating Clubs on the moot that Australia is the luckier country. Auckland affirmed and Victoria negated.

Auckland were somewhat helped by Roger Kerr introducing the topic with some slides which basically showed how Australia was kicking NZ’s arse in most areas. This didn’t stop Victoria University from a spirited defence of NZ.

In debating you often have to argue a proposition you don’t personally believe in. But never has this been funnier than seeing Christopher Bishop not just argue for how NZ in the last decade has done better than Australia, but when he starting promoting the benefits of the Swedish big state model, it was just too much for me. Maybe I could handle Bish promoting Swedish models, but not The Swedish Model. When they asked for questions at the end of the debate, I could not resist asking him if he actually believed a single word he had uttered during the debate. He could find only one sentence he stood by

I used to take part in debating at school and university also. Back then (God that makes me feel old) you could interject at any time, so loud funny interjectors could be devastating. It did often stop the smooth flow of a debate, so I was interested in the convention that has developed where if you wish to interject you stand up, and the speaker at the rostrum either tells you to sit down, or allows your interjection. It looks bad to refuse all interjections so each speaker normally allows a few and responds quickly to them.

The way the speakers dismiss an attempted interjection is quite amusing, as they just say “No, sit down” or make a sit down signal with their hands as they continue speaking. Polly from the Vic team was the best at dismissing interjections as her “No thank you Sir” was delivered with wonderful contempt, and in a tone you would use to instruct a canine.

The honours were shared, with attendees voting that they agreed with the Auckland team, but that the Vic team had performed the best with their argument.

Also on day two, the participants heard from a National and Labour candidate who talked about and answered questions about the future faces and directions of National and Labour. Both candidates were in their 20s or early 30s and performed well, with an interesting observation that as the newer candidates were at school during the ideological big battles of the 1980s and 1990s, they expect there will be less acrimony between them as the start to move into Parliament over the next few years.

People have all sorts of pre-conceived ideas about the Business Roundtable. Some on the left try and paint it at the centre of every conspiracy theory they have. But the reality is the NZBR is quite ordinary. Like thousands of other organisations they divided into small breakout groups, and workshop on flipcharts ideas for improving public policy which get reported back into the main session. There is no secret cabal setting the agenda – in fact the senior established order at the Roundtable seem more open to new ideas and new ways to operate, than most organisations I have observed.

I don’t agree with the NZBR on every issue. Far from it. But I do think our public policy debate in NZ is much stronger for having their input, and that it will be a welcome day when people debate their ideas, not supposed agendas.