The Herald reports:

A convicted murderer and gang member is on the run from police, and is doing everything he can to avoid returning to prison.

Graham “Choc” Te Awa, a long-serving senior member of the notorious Head Hunters gang, has been evading authorities since February 25. He has also told authorities he has a new job as head of security for Polynesian royalty, so does not believe he has to adhere to New Zealand laws.

Well that’s easy – he’s wrong.

It is understood Te Awa may be with John Monga, who goes by the title of High Chief of Aotearoa for the Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi, the ancestral name for Hawaii.

I wonder if he has a business card that claims that? The “Kingdom” has its own police force.

The Herald reports:

Auckland’s Town Hall filled with hundreds of supporters to hear legal experts and Opposition politicians speak out against the GCSB bill tonight.

The Government Communications Security Bill is expected to pass its committee stages and third reading this week with a one-vote majority.

Speakers took to the stage for seven minutes at a time to explain why they believed the Bill was flawed and unnecessary.

“Well this is what democracy looks like”, MC Martyn `Bomber’ Bradbury told a Town Hall at full capacity.

“Tonight we hear the other side of the argument.”

It’s impressive to fill the town hall up. I was in Auckland yesterday and saw posters all around town for it.

I wouldn’t say that people haven’t heard the other side of the argument though. I’d say most people have only heard the “other” (anti) side of the argument. Interesting that TVNZ did a live stream of the meeting. Would they also live stream a protest meeting against say a carbon tax?

Orcon founder Seeby (EDS: correct) Woodhouse said the National Party mistook George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 as a guide book.

While New Zealand was rated as the “free-est country in the world” that would change if the GCSB bill passed, he said.

“We must lead the world … we must do it again.”

With respect to Seeby, I doubt our rating will change at all.

The remainder of the committee stage will be debated this afternoon and evening, and I expect the third reading will occur tomorrow.

Also of relevance is:

Prime Minister John Key said last night that Opposition members of the Intelligence and Security Committee would be able to find out how many times the GCSB spy agency had received warrants to intercept the content of communications under its cyber security function.

Mr Key said that under changes to the bill, every year the number of warrants issued in categories would be declared to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which included the leader of the Opposition, David Shearer, and his nominee, Greens co-leader Russel Norman.

“At that committee, somebody would be able to ask the very obvious question – ‘when it comes to cyber security, have any warrants been issued that sought to look at content for New Zealanders?”‘ he said.

What I’d find useful is someone doing a side by side comparison of what would the law be if the bill did not pass, and did pass. People may be surprised by what such a comparison would show.

The Herald reports:

Cricketer Jesse Ryder tested positive for a performance-enhancing stimulant, RadioLive reported this morning.

If there was a cricketer who’d you guess was most likely to test positive, Ryder would be high on many lists.

A hearing by Drug Free Sport NZ was reportedly held earlier this month during which his lawyers said he had taken a poorly-labelled weight-loss supplement.

Yeah, right.

“Unfortunately for Jesse he wanted to lose some weight so back in March [he] walked into a chemist and, as I understand it, grabbed a product from the chemist.

“He went home, did the due diligence on it in terms of jumping on Google, checking all the ingredients were safe for him to have and not on the wider banned list.”

I wonder if he has receipts from the chemist? And would not a professional sport like Cricket have one or more doctors and experts who you could contact to check?

Mike Yardley at The Press writes:

Orion’s odious proposed price hike, which would gouge an extra $1000 off every Christchurch customer, over and above its existing 25 per cent share of power bills, has run into a brick wall.

The Commerce Commission’s draft report has virtually halved the scope of Orion’s planned cash-grab, while also noting that the community-owned lines company does not have to proceed with this increase.

No-one disputes the critical infrastructure repair and enhancement programme Orion has embarked upon.

But there are alternative ways to pay the $150 million bill for this 10-year project.

As the Earthquake Recovery Minister, Gerry Brownlee, has pointed out, the company’s balance sheet is very strong, its cash reserves are healthy – and Orion has generated $220m in profit in the past five years alone.

Brownlee has described Orion’s proposed price hike as “an appalling slap in the face to the community, by a council-owned company that is behaving like a rapacious capitalist”.

Well that is a clear stance by Gerry. But what about Lianne Dalziel? Are Labour not against price gouging by electricity companies?

So what is the position of our mayoral aspirants?

And should they be successful on October 12, what pressure will they apply on Orion to abandon this lazy financial assault on a captive market?

Paul Lonsdale swiftly responded to me, pledging to negotiate with Orion’s board to abandon the proposed increase.

But Lianne Dalziel took umbrage at my inquiry as to whether she would lean on Orion to jettison the increase.

Instead, I was emailed a diversionary missive from the red-hot mayoral favourite as to why Orion was an “over my dead body” strategic asset which must be protected.

So is Lianne saying that she supports Christchurch people paying an extra $1,000 a year for power, so long as she owns the company and can get to spend the dividends?

Dalziel also fired off a chapter and verse broadside about why the power retailers are the real “villains”. (Although, unlike the retailers, the customer can’t shop around for a lines company. And, unlike the lines company, the council has no control over power retailers.)

Retailers have competition, and effective competition also. Hundreds of thousands of people swap retailers when they can get better offer. Why would Lianne ignore the monopolist lines company? Oh, maybe because is she becomes Mayor their profits can fund her spending plans?

Of course, all of this is a big fat red herring by the mayoral contender and, surprisingly, Dalziel declined to give me a straight answer on whether she specifically supports Orion’s desire to fleece an extra $1000 out of your backpocket.

It seems like a very reasonable question.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s strongest service sector performance since October last year could signal falling unemployment and economic growth of as much as 5 per cent in the next year, according to the latest BNZ-BusinessNZ survey.

The Performance of Services Index (PSI) for July was 58.1, up three points from June and the highest level of activity since October 2012.

A result above 50 indicates services activity is expanding, while an index below 50 is indicative of a contraction.

July’s value was the highest recorded for the month since the survey began in 2007, and the most positive overall since October last year.

New orders in the services sector, a category of the PSI, were particularly strong, increasing 3.2 points from June to 63.1.

This was the highest level since November 2007, and was reinforced by strong activity and sales results, which were up 4.2 points to 61.8.

BNZ economists said the PSI results added to the story of accelerating economic growth.

“Indeed, the chances of getting 5 per cent GDP growth over the coming 12 months cannot be taken lightly,” BNZ said.

 That is probably too optimistic, but it has to be said most of the key indicators are now pointing towards strong growth in the next year or so. If that occurs, then we should see unemployment drop down also.

1. The Herald spends ten paragraphs on a story that claims WINZ purchase cards exclude tampons as a non essential expense. The first 10 paras are:

A financially strapped job seeker says she was told by Auckland Work and Income staff she could not use a supermarket card for tampons or sanitary pads because they were considered luxury items.

The Ministry of Social Development has said the only items that cannot be bought on payment cards are electronics, appliances, alcohol and cigarettes.

The allegation has ignited a storm on social media after blogger Tulia Thompson wrote about it and described it as “institutionalised sexism”.

Ms Thompson said the incident happened about six weeks ago at the Queen Street Winz office.

The woman was provided with a supermarket card and told it was for “necessity items only” and she could not use it for various “luxury items” including tampons and pads, she said.

“Supermarket cards are only given out when the beneficiary is in serious financial hardship. Nevertheless, the exclusion of tampons and pads from the list of ‘necessity items’ that beneficiaries can buy when in financial hardship is a fairly extreme example of institutionalised sexism,” she said.

Ms Thompson said another woman tried to use a Winz supermarket card at the check-out at her local supermarket, and the card didn’t work.

“The cashier called Winz to find out why the card wouldn’t work, and found out it was because she had tampons amongst the items she was purchasing. She had to return them.”

Ms Thompson said another woman had contacted her in response to the blog to say the same thing had happened to her at a supermarket and the reason her card was rejected was because her sanitary item had been incorrectly labelled in the supermarket system to “pull-ups”.

Ms Thompson said clearly there needed to be better communication between supermarkets and Winz to ensure women were not embarrassed at the check-out counter.

Only if you make it all the way past 10 paragraphs of allegations, do you get the response:

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Social Development said any claims that female hygiene products could not be purchased using the Work and Income payment card were “totally untrue“.

“Individual items are not tagged on payment cards. If someone’s card doesn’t work, it would be for a system reason and not because of what the person bought.

“The only items banned from purchase on the payment cards are electronics, appliances, alcohol and cigarettes.”

So the entire story is based on a false allegation. I would have thought you either then don’t run a story, or you make it very clear at the beginning of the story that it is a false allegation. The mention in paragraph two doesn’t actually refute the story to the degree that paragraph 11 does.

The story headline is:

Tampons a ‘luxury item’ – Work and Income staff

That makes it look like a direct quote from a WINZ staffer, when in fact it is an third hand allegation.

Just for good measure, the story includes half a dozen outraged tweets from people, based on the false allegation.

The Daily Telegraph shows photos of the dullest towns in the UK:

1. Thetford
2. Lemington Spa
3. Boston
4. Rhyl
5. Bury St Edmonds
6. Chipping Norton
7. Fort William
8. Camberlay
9. Hatfield
10. Maidenhead
11. Banbury
12. Burnham Market

Which towns in New Zealand would be the dullest?

Salient reports:

The Waikato Students’ Union (WSU) has announced it has temporarily withdrawn from the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA) and is withholding the remainder of its 2013 membership fees, a move which has been labelled a “stunt” by other students’-association Presidents.

Citing value for money, WSU President Aaron Letcher said the Union had significant concerns over what they were receiving from NZUSA in exchange for its membership levy.

“When you’re talking about large sums of money, like $20,000 a year, you need to be able to see $20,000 worth of value,” said Letcher, who met with NZUSA last week to discuss withdrawal from the national students’ association.

Salient understands that WSU is contractually bound to pay its second $10,000 membership instalment for the year, and may face court action in the event they fail to do so.

NZUSA suing WSU? That would be interesting.

VUWSA President Rory McCourt said WSU’s concerns were “completely” shared by VUWSA, although no discussions around withdrawing were currently taking place. Under the current NZUSA constitution, members have to give a year’s notice before departing.

“If you look at [WSU’s] particular concerns, they’re valid,” said McCourt, adding that the national body was being pulled in two different directions. He claimed that smaller associations were looking for core support in functioning, whereas larger ones were wanting a national voice.

McCourt said the current NZUSA President, Pete Hodkinson, had “struggled to straddle that divide”, didn’t share VUWSA’s vision, and that his recent activities “were not helpful for students”.

At the latest Executive meeting, members expressed that they thought Hodkinson was wasting his time on his current nationwide ‘Big Questions’ tour. The tour, which is the second of its kind this year, looks at decisions the Government could make to ensure New Zealand will be able to “afford our future” in the long term. When the topic came up at the meeting, it was met with an audible sigh.

Members were concerned the Big Questions tour was not relevant to students’ interests, with Equity Officer Matthew Ellison calling it the “least relevant” thing NZUSA could be doing. “The mind baffles,” added Vice-President (Academic) Sonya Clark.

I would have thought NZUSA would be better to focus on issues such as lecturer quality, tuition fees, facility fees, loans scheme etc.

Otago University Students’ Association President Francisco Hernandez told Salient that while there were some concerns around the direction of NZUSA, they provided a strong and important national voice for students. “You don’t reform an organisation by pulling out of it,” Hernandez said.

Actually the history of NZUSA is that withdrawal threats are what leads to reform. Ask Andrew Little!

NZUSA’s staffing consists of an Executive Director, a President and a part-time Communications Coordinator; it also has 659 ‘likes’ on Facebook.

That many?

Stuff reported:

New Zealand King Salmon chief executive Grant Rosewarne is being accused of using bullying tactics to scare groups off appealing a High Court decision that went against them.

Last week Mr Rosewarne said King Salmon would seek costs of about $150,000 against Sustain our Sounds and the Environmental Defence Society if they took an unsuccessful High Court appeal to the Supreme Court.

His company would probably seek costs even without a further appeal, he said.

Society chairman Gary Taylor said in 30 years of involvement with such cases, he had never encountered such intimidation.

This type of threat might not be illegal but it is unacceptable, he said.

How silly. Of course it is not illegal – nor unacceptable.

King Salmon is not suing the EDS. That might be an activity which could be seen as threatening.

The EDS effectively sued King Salmon. They lost. If you initiate a court case and lose, you should expect to end up with covering not just your own costs, but also some or all of the costs of the other parties.

Eric Crampton quotes a paper by Steven Stillman:

This paper examines the impact of a reduction in the legal drinking age in New Zealand from 20 to 18 on alcohol use, and alcohol-related hospitalisations and vehicular accidents among teenagers. We use both a difference-in-differences approach and a regression discontinuity design (RDD) to examine the impact of the law change. Our main findings are that lowering the legal drinking age did not appear to have led to, on average, an increase in alcohol consumption or binge drinking among 15-17 or 18-19 year-olds. However, there is evidence that the law change led to a significant increase in alcohol-related hospital admission rates for 18-19 year-olds, as well as for 15-17 year-olds. While these increases are large in relative magnitude, they are small in the absolute number of affected teenagers. Finally, we find no evidence for an increase in alcohol-related vehicular accidents at the time of the law change for any teenagers. In an important methodological contribution, we show that one approach commonly used to estimate the impact of changing the legal drinking age on outcomes, an RDD that compares individuals just younger than the drinking age to those just older, has the potential to give misleading results. Overall, our results support the argument that the legal drinking age can be lowered without leading to large increases in detrimental outcomes for youth.

I have previously blogged on how since 2001 there has been huge drops in the number of school students who drink, who drink regularly and who binge drink. We should be celebrating such a great trend, not flagellating ourselves over a manufactured crisis.

A guest post by Gary Lindsay:

As many of the readership probably already know, the rights of the 300,000-odd New Zealanders who have moved to Australia since the 26^th of February 2001 have been in the news on this side of the Tasman in the last few days.  It’s primarily been driven by K-Rudd’s brother Greg, who put out a press release on Saturday saying that Aussies were “ungrateful bastards.”  As somebody who has personal experience of this situation, and who also has friends and families in the same situation, I’d like to put some facts about the problem out there, and also offer some solutions.

Some background first.  Prior to 1973 there was an informal arrangement between the two countries, and free movement between them.  In 1973 the situation was formalised with the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement.  On the 1^st of July 1981 the requirement to carry passports was introduced by the Australian government.  In 1984 New Zealanders lost the right to register to vote in Australia (people who had previously registered can still vote).  On a side note, it might actually be unconstitutional to deny a New Zealander the right to vote in a federal election, since New Zealand is still defined as a state in the constitution of Australia (look at the definitions and clauses 8, 30, and 41) but it hasn’t been tested in court.  That’s another story.  On the 1^st of September 1994 the Australian government introduced a new visa for New Zealanders, the subclass 444 visa, otherwise known as the “Special Category Visa.”  It was introduced because of a change in the Migration Act requiring all non-citizens to hold a visa.  Prior to the 1^st September 1994 New Zealanders were considered “exempt non citizens” and were treated exactly the same as Australians, except for being allowed to vote.  The new 444 visa had no practical effect on New Zealanders moving to Australia, it simply grants a visa when there was no previous visa.  The visa was (and still is) granted at the border, with New Zealanders being processed the same as Australians at the border.  At the time it was convenient to class the visa as a “long term temporary” visa, since a new one is issued every time a New Zealander (who is not a citizen or on a different permanent residency visa) crosses the border.  For all practical purposes New Zealanders living in Australia were still considered permanent residents.

In 2001 the Howard government was under pressure to act on a public perception that deadshits from New Zealand were crossing the Tasman to live on the dole and smoke pot.  According to some sources, John Howard said at there was no such problem; however I have not been able to find a credible link to confirm that.  There was also a very real problem of people who were unable to gain Australian residency being granted New Zealand residency, becoming a citizen, and crossing the Tasman to live in Australia.  Despite negotiations between the two countries, the Clark government would not change its immigration policy (and I believe it still remains the same), so the Howard government made new New Zealand immigrants ineligible for welfare payments from the 26^th of February 2001.  There are now two classes of 444 Special Category Visa.  If the New Zealander was in Australia or was temporarily absent from Australia (i.e. they usually lived there) on the 26^th of February 2001 they are granted a Protected Special Category Visa, and if not they get a normal SCV.  The distinction is actually defined in the Social Security Act – the distinction is not mentioned in any migration law or regulation.  Since then, there have been several other benefits, such as disaster relief payments, that have been denied to New Zealanders because they are long term temporary residents and not permanent residents. 

Earlier this year the Gillard government announced the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which will pay a benefit to any person who is disabled.  It will be paid for by an additional levy on income tax.  But guess what?  444 visa holders have to pay the levy, but will never get access to a payout if they become disabled.  Other temporary visa holders, such as 457 (skilled temporary) visa holders, do not have to pay the levy.

The Australian government is inconsistent with how it treats people on unprotected 444 visas.  On one hand the Tax Office treats them as residents for tax purposes – that is, they have to pay exactly the same as an Australian on the same income.  The first home owner’s grant is available to all people on 444 visas.  New Zealanders get the same subsidy for tertiary education.  On the other hand, New Zealanders can’t borrow money through the HECS scheme to study at university.  Many welfare benefits are not available – the dole is not available at all, no matter how long that person has lived in Australia.  Unprotected 444 visa holders were unable to access the emergency payments for people who were caught out in the 2011 Brisbane floods.  An unprotected 444 visa holder cannot get a carer’s pension, even if the person they are caring for is an Australian.  On the other hand, if the person being cared for is an unprotected 444 holder, any other permanent resident or a citizen can get a carer’s pension.  In addition, a child born in Australia to two New Zealand parents is not automatically an Australian citizen until they have lived in Australia until age 11.  If a 444 visa holder wants to move to another country, he cannot cash out his compulsory super like other temporary residents (and permanent residents who cancel their visas) can.  Additionally, it is not possible for an unprotected 444 visa holder to access his or her super in a time of severe financial hardship since the criteria for severe financial hardship requires him to be on a Centrelink benefit, which is not possible because he is on an unprotected 444 visa!  As I mentioned, Australia will sometimes consider someone on an unprotected 444 visa a permanent resident; and as a temporary resident when it suits them.

Furthermore, it is not possible to apply to be an Australian citizen if you are on an unprotected 444 visa.  To get citizenship you need to have lived in Australia for two of the previous five years, with one of those years being on a permanent residency visa.  If it was possible to obtain citizenship this wouldn’t even be a discussion – the answer would be “apply for citizenship and shut up.”  That is exactly what most would do, if it was possible.

The only option for obtaining citizenship is to become a permanent resident first.  In the interests of full disclosure, it *might* be possible for me to get a 186 employer nominated permanent visa (it was initially intended as the next stage for 457 visa holders).  I will have to get my employer on board to make it happen.  I am planning on discussing it with my supervisor this week.  Having recently graduated with a masters’ degree in geotechnical engineering I might also be able to get the 175 independent skilled migrant visa; however that will require leaving my stable and well paying job as an exploration geologist to become a graduate engineer.  I have enough points to do it, but “geologist” is not on the Skilled Occupation List but “engineer” is.  Both those visas cost over $3000.  I am one of the lucky ones.  There are many others who cannot get a permanent visa at all, including people who run their own businesses.  These people have chosen to make Australia their home, they live and work here, but there is no option for them to make it formal.

Many people will be thinking “well, you knew about that when you moved there.”  Yes, I did.  And yes, Australia offers a better lifestyle for many New Zealanders than New Zealand does.  But after six years, it has begun to grate on me.  It pisses me off that there’s yet another government scheme that I have to pay for (the NDIS) but won’t ever be able to access – I have private insurance to cover that (and to be honest, I think that if Australians insured against it then we wouldn’t need the NDIS, but that’s a discussion for another day).  It annoys me that I pay a shitload of tax every year and have no say in how it is spent.  It further annoys me that I am paying tax so that deadshit Australians can live on the dole and bitch about how New Zealanders should go home.  It also annoys me that there are thousands of Australians who say things like “we should be giving jobs to our own first” when those people without jobs either don’t want to work or are too useless to show up to work.  If you don’t believe me, read the comments from the Courier Mail article (first hyperlink).
I have some ideas for solutions to this problem.  The bit from here on in is entirely my opinion.
Ideally, 444 visa holders could become “protected” after (say) five years of living and supporting themselves in Australia, which would allow them apply for citizenship.  Alternatively a new permanent visa could be created for 444 visa holders to apply for after they’ve been in the country for a certain amount of time, much like the 186 visa is available for 457 visa holders.
The 444 visa could be restricted to people who were New Zealanders at birth, which would remove the original rationale for the change.
The New Zealand government could make their immigration policy more compatible with Australia’s.
The Australian government could give 444 visa holders the right to vote.  That won’t happen unless there’s a high court decision that the current arrangement is unconstitutional, or there is a simultaneous change to the status quo, since kiwis will vote for whoever will serve their purpose best.  The second option won’t happen because there are probably a million Australian voters who disagree with that.

Additionally, the New Zealand political parties should be paying more attention to New Zealanders living in Australia.  There are about 600,000 living here (the additional 300,000 have protected 444 visas and don’t have the problems I have been talking about).  Most of them still have the right to vote in New Zealand, since the only requirement is to return to New Zealand once every three years.  Those 600,000 people are the equivalent to the population of eleven New Zealand electorates.  That is a shitload of constituents who are basically ignored.  At the very least, the New Zealand government should be actively and publicly pressuring the Australian government to give unprotected 444 visa holders a pathway to citizenship.
Additionally, I would like to see list MPs based in Gold Coast (where 50% of the population originate from New Zealand), Sydney (where there are 150-200,000 New Zealanders), and Perth (about the same).  Their role would be to lobby the federal and state governments in Australia, and to represent the interests of ex-pats in parliament in New Zealand.

I hope that this op-ed has helped to highlight the legal issues that New Zealand migrants to Australia have.   I still think it is worth living here, however it’d be nice to be able to call myself an Australian and to be able to have a say in how the thousands of dollars I am required to give Canberra each year are spent.

d

News.com.au reports:

Despite calling for a ban on new coal mines, the Greens have quietly announced they will put the Palmer United Party ahead of Labor and the Coalition in a raft of lower house seats.

The Senate balance of power party has also ironed out a Senate preference deal with Mr Palmer – a move designed to help South Australian Greens’ Senator Sarah Hanson-Young win her seat.

A clear case of power proving more attractive than principles!

The policies of the Palmer United Party including abolishing the carbon tax and subsidies for mining – yet the Greens preference them ahead of Labour!

The Herald reports:

The Government is warning synthetic drug manufacturers and sellers that a grace period for licensing their products and stores has lapsed and only Ministry of Health-approved psychoactive products can now remain on shelves.

Police Minister Anne Tolley reported that a Hamilton dairy had already been penalised under the legal high reforms, which put the onus on drug-makers to prove their products were safe before sale.

The dairy had 2000 packets of synthetic cannabis worth $40,000 confiscated under new rules which banned sales from dairies, petrol stations or any stores which were not licensed specialty outlets.

Manufacturers, sellers, and importers were given 28 days since the passing of the Psychoactive Substances Bill on July 18 to acquire interim licences for their products, stores or imports from a new regulatory authority.

It will be very interesting to see which products, if any, are approved as safe.

Stuff reports:

Six Canterbury couples are expected to wed today as the first same-sex weddings take place.

A law comes into effect this morning making New Zealand the 15th country in which same-sex couples can legally get married.

Cantabrians planning to marry today will start their big day at the registry office, which opens at 8.30am. This will be non-heterosexual couples’ first chance to pick up their wedding licences.

Department of Internal Affairs figures show six notices of intended marriage had been issued for the Canterbury region on Friday, indicating those people wanted to wed today. Nationally, 31 have been issued.

One couple hoping to make the rush from registry office to altar is Kim Earney, 38, and her fiance, Vicky, 24. She and her partner want to be one of the first couples to marry in Christchurch, and have planned an 8.30am ceremony at Del Mar in Ferrymead.

A great day for those who want to get married, but previously have been unable to. As a supporter of the institution of marriage, I think it is excellent that more loving couples who want to make a life-long commitment to each other can no do so through marriage.

Christchurch churches remain divided over same-sex marriages, with some happy to perform ceremonies at their premises and others firmly opposed.

No Catholic churches or Anglican churches would perform the ceremonies or allow them in their churches, as “marriage is currently defined as between a man and a woman”.

Their churches, including the Cardboard Cathedral and the Church of the Good Shepherd, would not be used for same-sex weddings.

However, other denominations in Canterbury welcomed the new law. Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and Hindus have left it up to individual parishes to decide whether to facilitate such weddings.

Crave Metropolitan Community Church spiritual leader Neil Hellewell said the church was “gay affirming” and would happily perform the ceremonies.

Durham St Methodist Church Reverend Mary Caygill said her parish was also in full support.

“The feeling of the congregation is that we want to be a place same-sex couples can come if they want to get married in a church.”

As it should be, it is up to each religion to decide for itself what their policy should be. Separation of church and state is a good thing.

Front Page report:

More than a third of New Zealander’s would support the reintroduction of the death penalty.

 In a Curia poll  for TV3’s “ The Nation”  of  624 respondents, 38 per cent were in favour of the death penalty, 55 per cent were against it, and 7 per cent were undecided.

35 per cent of Labour voters favoured the death penalty and National voters polled at 44 per cent. Least likely to be in favour were Green Party voters at 19 per cent, but the most in favour of capital punishment were New Zealand First voters at 84 per cent.

An interesting difference by party support.

The Stuff headline:

Radical musician barred on way to Nelson gig

A musician got barred due to his music? That’s appalling you’re meant to think.

A radical American singer-songwriter set to perform in Nelson this evening has been denied entry into the country.

David Rovics has written political songs on topics such as the Iraq war and whistleblower Bradley Manning.

He was to play six concerts throughout New Zealand as part of his world tour, including at the Free House in Nelson tonight.

The first three paragraphs makes it look like we now ban people from coming to New Zealand because of the lyrics of their songs. But read on.

The agent asked if he would make any money, to which he replied he hoped to make “a little money”. Rovics said he did not have a work permit, but hoped he could get one on arrival.

He was then questioned about being strip-searched on suspicion of drug smuggling in Norway.

He was also asked about being banned from Canada for a year when he tried to play a gig he did not have a work visa for.

Rovics quoted the agent as saying, “You can’t board that flight. You’re not welcome in New Zealand.”

Rovics then asked if the agent had read his political blog, to which she responded she had.

A spokesperson for Immigration New Zealand confirmed Rovics had been barred from boarding the flight because he did not meet immigration entry requirements. These included having sufficient funds and the work visa required.

“Mr Rovics has openly talked on his blog about his drug use and being banned from Canada for providing false information to an immigration officer.”

I think the moral of the story is don’t lie to immigration officers, and if you do lie to them, don’t blog about how you lied to them.

I’m pleased to see that Immigration NZ do some basic stuff such as googling on incoming travellers with no work visa.

Michael Laws writes in the SST:

In the week that former teacher James Parker was sentenced to preventive detention for his unchecked predations upon young boys in Northland, social development minister Paula Bennett announced tougher measures to combat child abuse.

Those policies that have drawn the most commentary and criticism relate to parents rather than paedophiles. Parents or caregivers who have seriously abused their kids will not automatically be allowed to have any more. And those who are suspected of being serious abusers will be banned from associating with any children, including their own.

In announcing these intended policies, Bennett rightly highlighted New Zealand’s appalling rates of child abuse. They are an enduring stain upon our country and particularly the Maori culture. Maori children are among the most endangered on the planet. In part, it is the ethnicity of the primary offenders and victims that has delayed proper government action. It is considered both uncultural and uncool to highlight Maori child abuse statistics, even though they are blindingly obvious.

Rightly, Bennett’s solution is universal. Stop habitual abusers having any more children and intervene swiftly where serious abuse is suspected, regardless of colour, culture or creed.

Sadly, but unsurprisingly, it is two Maori women who are leading the resistance to Bennett’s overdue toughness – associate health minister Tariana Turia and Greens co-leader Metiria Turei. Their argument is that Maori parents will unduly suffer and Turei raises the additional spectre of Aboriginal adoption. In fact, Turei goes further than that. More Maori parents abuse their kids because they are poor, she contends. If we removed “poverty”, she contends, “we’d remove a huge stressor on families that is connected to increased rates of child maltreatment and neglect”.

Yep, if you’re on welfare – or poorly paid – then abusing your kids is a natural response.

Which is bollocks. Abusing your kids is a deeply unnatural and sick response, and most parents on benefits or the minimum wage, don’t abuse their children.

Absolutely. It is beyond unnatural. Most of us feel protective and get distressed when we see any child in distress – ever a total stranger. To allow, or even be responsible, for harming your own child is as unnatural as it gets.

The HoS editorial:

It is a small victory but an important one. Parliament’s regulations review committee has upheld our complaint against the secrecy of teachers’ disciplinary proceedings.

Except it wasn’t their complaint. It was Graeme Edgeler’s. Graeme discovered that one could complain about it to the Regulations Review Committee, write the complaint and filed it. The Herald on Sunday then jumped on board and asked if they could be joined to the complaint – something Graeme agreed to.

The HoS has run a good campaign on the issue of teacher name suppression, and I think it is a good thing they joined the complaint. But would it have hurt them to acknowledge in their editorial the person who actually did the complaint, as the news story did?

The Herald on Sunday challenged the rule because we believe, like the Law Commission among others, it is inconsistent with the principle of open justice necessary for public confidence in judicial proceedings at any level.

Again, Edgeler challenged the rule, and the HoS jumped on board. Again – that was a good thing – but just grates to see no credit given to the person who actually was responsible for the victory.

UPDATE: To clarify, the HoS has run a campaign for some time against name suppression for teachers. They also made a complaint to the Teachers Council about the Council’s own rules. So they are not Johnny come latelys on this issue. However I stand by my point that the editorial should have mentioned that the complaint to Parliament was someone else’s – as their news story did. At the end of the day it was the complaint to Parliament’s RRC which got the successful outcome.  I doubt the complaint to the Council directly was going to lead to any change.

It’s partly a cultural thing. Blogs habitually hat tip, link and credit others. Newspapers tend to do so far less often.

The Herald reports:

A popular radio DJ accidentally sent a photo of his genitals to a Kiwi Paralympian – and appears likely to get away without disciplinary action.

The Edge morning host Dom Harvey sent the photo to London Paralympic gold medallist Sophie Pascoe through the Snapchat social media tool, which shows a picture for a set length of time before disappearing, so the viewer cannot keep it.

I have a theory. If you don’t take photos of your cock, then it is very very difficult to accidentally send someone a photo of them!

Harvey says the picture was intended for his radio producer Sophie Hallwright and he immediately apologised to Pascoe – who was in Canada, competing at the IPC Championship swimming meet.

What did his producer do to get sent his genitals!?

Pascoe tweeted about the incident before winning gold in the 100m freestyle in world record time. “Just finished eating dinner and opened Snapchat. #awkward surprise.”

She should have saved it and tweeted it 🙂

There are six candidates standing for Wellington Mayor. They are:

Rob Goulden
John Morrison
Karunanidhi Muthu
Jack Yan
Celia Wade-Brown
Nicola Young

I doubt any candidate will get over 50% of first preferences, so it will come down to how the preferences flow as candidates get eliminated

Dan Hodges provides his 10 mandatory tweets for the left:

1) “Great day campaigning on #Labourdoorstep”. To the uninitiated this may seem like some sort of code. But it simply means “I have pushed 30 leaflets through various letterboxes. I am a hard-working Labour party member. Now can I please be selected for a safe seat?” If possible, tweet with an attached photo of you standing next to Luciana Berger.

2) “Typical. [name of evil member of the Right] constructs another straw man”. This must be rapidly tweeted any time you see another member of the Left losing an argument on Twitter. It can also be combined with some sort of imaginary scoreline, such as “Oh dear. [name of member of the Left] 1 [name of evil member of the Right] 0”.

3) “Prayers/thoughts with Nelson Mandela”. Actually, that’s wrong. If you want to be a real member of the Left, you must always refer to the former South African president as “Madiba”.

4) “Why is it we never get any women x”. The x doesn’t actually matter. “On the Today programme” is a particular favourite, but any other current affairs news program will do. Women in positions of influence. Women talking about lumberjacking. Women elephant racing. Basically, the subject is up to you.

5) “Solidarity with x”. Every member of the Left must send a “solidarity” tweet once a month. You can express solidarity with anyone or anything, so long as they’re not officially an evil member of the Right. The great thing about this tweet is it neatly fits into 140 characters. You don’t need to bother explaining why you are in solidarity with your subject, or even what “solidarity” actually means in this context. In effect, solidarity becomes a verb. So having expressed your solidarity with, say, a group of Venezuelan miners stuck 500 feet underground, without air, water or hope, you can then go and make yourself a nice cup of tea.

6) “Louise Mensch”. One tweet a year must include a reference to the former Conservative MP for Corby. Why isn’t exactly clear. Some people on the Left have been pushing for her to be officially replaced on the LMT list by Melanie Phillips, without success. So for the moment, stick with Mensch. All tweets must be harsh and critical. But not sexist.

7) “Ed Miliband needs to be more x”. This is a relatively new addition to the list. Until recently the LMT would have been “Thank you Ed Miliband. Finally a Labour leader is saying x”. But the Left are now becoming a bit concerned about Ed. “He may win, he may not win. Ed Miliband needs to be [more proactive/clearer about what he believes in/taking the attack to the Tories more/etc]” is a much safer bet at the moment.

8) “Why don’t you just go away and join the Tories?” This should be tweeted at anyone on the Left ever caught disagreeing with anyone else on the Left. “Go away” is not compulsory; any hostile phrase will suffice. In fact, the more hostile the better. Can also be combined with the epithet “traitor”.

9) “It’s good, but not as good as the Shawshank Redemption.” For some reason, the Shawshank Redemption is the greatest film any member of the Left can ever see. As with many other LMT’s, the reason for this is shrouded in mystery. If, for some reason, you have never seen the Shawshank Redemption, it is now permissible to tweet something positive about “The Spirit of ‘45” instead. Or anything by Mike Leigh.

10) “Time to boycott x”. At least once a year every member of the Left must find something to boycott. The boycott has in effect become the Left’s version of Lent. Since the collapse of apartheid things to boycott are a bit thinner on the ground. But persevere. If you look hard enough you will eventually find something to not buy, watch or attend. And remember, it is not necessary for you to even have to been buying, watching or attending these things in the first place. It is perfectly permissible to boycott things you would never dream of touching with a barge-pole.

I must confess I also love the Shawshank Redemption.