Chris Trotter writes in the Taranaki Daily News:

 I’m told there were six of them, and that they hunted as a pack. Their prey?

Delegates who had voted the wrong way.

Moving through the excited crowds at the Ellerslie Conference Centre last November, an angry group of Labour MPs was seen taking dissidents aside and telling them, in no uncertain terms, which way was up.

Leading the pack was Labour’s employment relations spokeswoman, Darien Fenton, and her grim lieutenant, Dunedin South MP Clare Curran.

No surprises there. Ms Fenton and Ms Curran were among the caucus members most alarmed by the Labour Party rank-and-files’ sudden outbreak of democratic distemper. The other members of the pack, however, came as a surprise.

I had never thought of Jacinda Ardern, Megan Woods, Kris Faafoi or Phil Twyford as attack dogs, but my sources assure me that they were there – chewing people out. So what?

The fact that Chris has enough information to name the six “pack” members shows how many people in Labour must be spilling details of their internal conflicts.

It was Chris Hipkins who drew me aside long before the dramatic conference floor fight to murmur conspiratorially: “Our problems aren’t external – they’re internal.”

The “enemy within” that Chauvel referred to.

Even from the media table, the animosity directed towards caucus members who spoke in favour of the rank- and-file’s resolutions (the most effective of whom, by far, was Leanne Dalziel) was unmistakable.

Dalziel has now been dumped from the shadow Cabinet.

The first thing all politicians learn how to do is count and the people backing Mr Shearer were fearful that a democratised party (with sufficient support in caucus) might decide to wrest the power of choosing the party leader from their hands.

They were terrified that they would then be saddled with the rank-and-file’s choice of December 2011: David Cunliffe. And it wasn’t Mr Shearer’s faction alone, who were counting heads.

Labour’s deputy leader, Grant Robertson, had as much to fear from the leadership question being decided early, by the party, as his boss.

Absolutely.

On November 20, Mr Cunliffe is demoted and his faction isolated. On February 4, Mr Shearer manages – just – to secure the backing of 60 per cent-plus-one of his caucus colleagues. On February 19, six days before the long- awaited shadow cabinet reshuffle, Charles Chauvel, a supporter of Mr Cunliffe, quits Parliament.

On February 25, Mr Shearer’s new lineup is announced. The Pack are well rewarded. Ms Fenton and Ms Curran both rise two places in the pecking order, while Mr Twyford goes up three to take a seat on the front bench.

Megan Woods enters the top 20 – a backbencher no longer.

Mr Little rises with her.

Mr Shearer’s chief swordsman, Mr Hipkins, climbs five places to claim the shadow portfolio of education from Mr Cunliffe’s running- mate, Nanaia Mahuta.

Ms Dalziel’s eloquence on behalf of rank-and-file democracy is rewarded with demotion to the back benches.

Mr Cunliffe remains outside the magic circle. In Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express all the suspects wielded the fatal knife.

Labour’s MPs seem equally impressed by the advantages of collectivised bloodletting.

Long may it continue.

Some people are saying that The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, as reported back by the Select Committee will remove husband and wife from the Marriage Act and people will just legally be spouses.

This is incorrect.

The Marriage Act 1955 currently refers to husbands and wives in two main sections, and both are unaffected by the Bill. The first is S31(3) which says:

During the solemnisation of every such marriage each party must say to the other—

• (a)“I AB, take you CD, to be my legal wife or husband”; or

• (b)words to similar effect; or

• (c)in the case of the solemnisation of a marriage in accordance with the rules and procedures of a specified body that require different words to be used as a marriage vow than those set out in paragraph (a), those words.

Again, this section is totally unchanged by the bill. The requirement to refer wife or husband (or similiar words) is unchanged.

The other section is s33(2) which is about marriages before the Registrar.

During the solemnisation of every such marriage each party to it shall declare:

I solemnly declare that I do not know of any impediment to this marriage between me AB and CD, And shall say to the other party: I call on the people present here to witness that I, AB, take you, CD, to be my legal wife (or husband), or words to similar effect.

This section is also unchanged.

In a section to the Act on forbidden marriages, there is a schedule of people whom a man can not marry and a schedule of people whom a woman can not marry. The two separate lists are now combined into one, so rather than saying you can not marry your wife’s mother or husband’s father it now says your spouse’s parent.  No big deal. This change is only to the schedule of forbidden marriages and is not a change to the main Act which still refers to husband and wife.

The Bill does make what is called consequential amendments to 15 other acts, which for the sake of convenience the term spouse is used.

The term husband is actually used in a total of 67 Acts of Parliament. It remains in the Marriage Act, and remains in the vast majority of Acts. It is not being removed from the Marriage Act, and it is not being removed from the law books. All that is happening in in a few Acts the term spouse is being used because it is more convenient.

And you know what – the term “spouse” is already used in 136 Acts of Parliament!

So no the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill does not remove the term “husband and wife” from the law books. It doesn’t remove it from the Marriage Act. It doesn’t introduce the term spouse into the law as a replacement – the term is already used in 136 Acts of Parliament. This issue is a red herring.

I’ve blogged the latest Roy Morgan poll at Curiablog.

The centre-left have dropped 6%.

As I blogged yesterday resigning Labour List MP Charles Chauvel called for those responsible for the 2011 election loss to exit Parliament. This was a few seconds after he he said Labour should stop trying to locate the enemy within!

Calling for a purge seems a bit inconsistent with a call for unity!

I said that I can only presume Chauvel was calling for Goff, King, Mallard and Robertson to go. It seems Trevor sees it that way also as he tweeted during the speech:

My decision to seek Hutt South nomination just reinforced

Pete George has details of how well this has gone down on The Standard.

It is obvious that Labour has massive internal tensions. If they manage to form a Government after 2014, the tensions will be fascinating. With the Greens, NZ First and Mana all thrown in with a party that is at war with itself – well stable Government isn’t the phrase that comes to mind.

Stuff reports:

Their supporters call them heroes. The Japanese government calls them terrorists.

Now the United States’ largest federal court has declared them pirates.

Which they are. You can be against whaling, yet also against Sea Shepherd who a dangerous bunch of liars.

In doing so, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals castigated Paul Watson and members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society he founded for the tactics used in their relentless campaign to disrupt the annual whale hunt off the dangerous waters of Antarctica.

“You don’t need a peg leg or an eye patch,” Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

Kozinski is a brilliant judge.

“When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.”

So very true. They have a long record and history of violence, including ramming ships and mining ships to sink them.

Now the Supreme Court has cleared the sale of Mighty River Power, I expect the taxpayer funded gathering of petition signatures will be presented to Parliament, and Labour and Greens will call for no partial sales to occur until after the referendum.

The response to that should be when will Labour and Greens vote to repeal or amend the anti-smacking law, which 85%  of New Zealanders rejected in a referendum? You can’t claim referenda should triumph over election results in one case, but not in another.

Anyway what is the possible timing of the waste of money that Labour and Greens have forced on us. It is appalling that the Greens used taxpayer funding to hire peopel to collect signatures. CIRs are meant to be about citizens petitioning Parliament, not parliamentary parties using taxpayer funding to re litigate election results.

The Clerk of the House has two months to audit the petition, estimate duplicate or invalid signatures and certify if it has made the 10% threshold. It will of course make it, as the taxpayer funded collectors make it easy to do. If presented in March 2013, then expect certification in May 2013.

If for some reason they do fall short, then they have two further months to collect more signatures and repeat the process. So resubmission would be by July 2013 and certification by September 2013.

If it is certified in May 2013, the Speaker announces it to the House and the Government has one month to decide when the referendum will be held. The referendum must be held within 12 months of the Speaker’s announcement so no later than May 2014.

75% of Parliament could delay the referendum beyond 12 months.

The referendum would almost certainly be a postal referendum, which will mean a three week voting period starting and finishing on a Friday.

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

Each district in New Zealand will have to come up with a single planning document for development with an agreed list of definitions under proposed resource management reforms to be released this morning. …

At present, New Zealand’s 78 authorities have more than 170 planning documents for 2272 different zones or management areas. Officials noted as a comparison that Scotland, with a population of 5.2 million people, had a just 37 planning documents.

A very good comparison.

The announcement by Adams is here.

Under the current system, consenting requirements are often out of proportion- especially for those activities that have reasonably minor effects.

The proposals in the discussion document would introduce a simple 10-working-day time limit for processing straight-forward, non-notified consents accompanied by a proposed national requirement for some types of application to be processed without notification.

Good.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm -3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers.

A fun survey at Truth.

You can vote on what to call Annette King’s return to the Labour front bench, whether Hayley Holt or Oscar Pistorious should open for the Black Caps (with photo of Hayley) and how much do you want to pay for a convention centre.

Paul Easton at the Dom Post writes:

Just a few days after getting a promotion, Labour MP Chris Hipkins has received the chop from his leader David Shearer.

Mr Hipkins was shorn of his red locks this morning to raise money for a cancer charity.

David should have left it hard down. Then Chippie would look the part to be MP for Rimutaka 🙂

Looking like a younger Trevor Mallard 🙂

While the general consensus was positive, Mr Hipkins was not so sure when shown the results.

”Oh my goodness, it’s really short. What have I done?” he said.

Mr Shearer also had concerns.

”I just hope I can get the red hair off my suit,” he said.

Heh, he may need decontamination.

Mr Shearer revealed he had pledged to have one Labour MP a year shave their head for the cause, Leukaemia and Blood Cancer New Zealand.

He hoped to line up a woman MP for next year, he said.

”I had a word to Annette King last night, but she wasn’t too impressed.”

Labour MP Jacinda Ardern, who watched on from the sidelines this morning, also seemed less than keen on the idea.

If Jacinda takes the place of Chris next year, I’m pledging $1,000 in advance to the cancer charity! 🙂

The fatal shark attack yesterday at Muriwai reminds me of my one and only shark encounter.

A couple of years ago I was holidaying at a pacific island. Was staying in a bungalow on the beach and got there a day before FOD (Friend of DPF). The sea looked lovely so I went in for a swim.

Had a lovely half hour enjoying the warm ocean, swimming around.

The following day was joined by FOD and we decided to go swimming. I’d found that the coral reef around 20 metres out was shallow enough that you almost scraped yourself swimming over it, so suggested we dive off the end of the wharf, around 75 metres out.

I dove in first and the water was beautiful. The whole sea was warm but at the end of the wharf was an especially warm spot. You were surrounded by tropical fish. It was like being in a movie set.

I encouraged FOD to dive in also but she said she was concerned about sharks. I laughed and said that I was out swimming yesterday and didn’t see any sharks and not to be so silly and to come in.

She again said she was worried, and how could I know that there were no sharks. I pointed out that there was a second coral reef around half a km out and I doubted sharks could even get in past it.

Frustratingly she still expressed concern and her shark phobia was getting annoying. Now by chance I had been reading that very morning the book Superfreakonomics. One of the chapters of this excellent book was on shark attacks and on how the Jaws movie had terrified the world about sharks, but in fact fatal shark attacks are very rare.

So I quoted Superfreakonomics to FOD, and cited the passage that on average there are only four fatal shark attacks a year and 200 fatal elephant attacks so 50 times as many people die from elephants (and I suspect people spend more time in oceans than they do near elephants).

Now around 10 seconds after I finished citing the incredibly low probability of shark attacks to FOD, she then yelled out “David there’s a shark behind you“.

Now naturally I laughed. I’m not that gullible. I responded that I’m not going to fall for such an obvious joke and remained where I was in the water, facing the wharf and the shore.

FOD then yelled out “No I’m serious, there is a shark behind you, get out“. I paused briefly and considered that this may not be a practical joke. It is the sort of practical joke I would play on someone else, but not the sort of joke FOD would play. So I responded with a challenge and said if she was having me on I would make it my mission to throw her in the water until an actual shark does turn up.

FOD then yells out “Get the fuck out now”. It dawns on me that she is actually serious and there is a shark approaching me from behind. I immediately start swimming very very very quickly towards the wharf and haul myself out of the water as quickly as possible. Adrenaline is flowing and the heart beat elevated.

Once up on the wharf I start looking for this alleged shark and I’m still a tiny bit skeptical that there really was a shark behind me. After around 20 seconds no sign of a shark and I am threatening to throw FOD in the water. But then I see a shark swim in front of the wharf. It is around 5 feet in length and I turn slightly pale. It has enough of a jaw on it that it would be highly unpleasant (to say the least) to have it on your leg or arm.

I gracefully concede to FOD that there was a shark, and I may owe her my thanks. She remarks though that she doesn’t think that is the shark she saw. I say of course it would be. Then a few seconds later an approx 11 foot shark swims by, and she exclaims “That’s what I saw“.  I turn an even more pale shade of pale as this shark is definitely big enough to make a meal of you. Then two more sharks turn up and I am watching four sharks swim about the exact spot I was in less than a minute earlier. I begin mentally cursing the authors of Superfreakonomics!

It occurs to me that we should warn someone that there are now four sharks in the water. I locate the resort manager and tell him about the four sharks. He exclaims “Oh yes, they come around every day“. He then offers me the chance to see him feed them at 5 pm. The time was 4 pm.

A thought occurs to me, and I ask “Where exactly do you feed them?” and he said “Off the end of the wharf“.

The remaining blood in my circulation freezes as I consider not only was I in the water with four sharks, I was swimming in their dining room!

Needless to say there was no more beach swimming on that holiday.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Rules aimed at taking some of the heat out of the housing market and providing greater financial stability could be agreed as early as the middle of the year, Finance Minister Bill English says.

Those rules are likely to include requiring home buyers to have bigger deposits.

Good for landlords as tenants will stay tenants for longer as they save for a deposit!

In a speech to a business audience in Auckland today, English said the Reserve Bank would consult over the next few weeks on proposals giving it a greater ability to influence the amount of lending done by banks and other financial institutions.

These might include requiring lenders to:

* Restrict high-loan-to-value ration lending in the housing sector.

* Hold additional capital on their balance sheet as a buffer during an economy wide credit boom.

* Hold additional capital against loans in specific sectors if risks emerge in those sectors

All well motivated, but my concern is unforeseen consequences.

ANZ chief economist Cameron Bagrie said the mid-year target date suggested “there’s been a lot more thought gone into getting monetary policy a few more mates”.

He was not a fan of rules on the loan-to-value ratio of mortgages, saying it was “akin to throwing a rock into a creek.

“You will find the water gets around the rock.”

Indeed.

Bagrie cautioned against action that might restrict the flow of credit, and said the criteria for using the instruments being proposed needed to be very clear.

He described the housing market as “frothy”, and doubted it was heading into bubble territory.

While some action was needed on the demand side if there was a desire to take heat out of the property market, action also needed to be taken on the supply side given the shortage of houses.

Absolutely. The supply side is key.

Stuff reports:

Wellington would have the biggest council in New Zealand if either one of a working party’s super-city options for the region goes ahead.

A local government reform working party is proposing two options: one with a mayor and 29 councillors, the other with 22 elected members including a mayor, plus community boards.

Is there a third option?

Councils need to be manageable sizes. 29 and 22 is not.

You need fewer Councillors and more decisions done at local board level.

THE OPTIONS

TWO TIERS

One unitary authority for the Greater Wellington region.

One mayor for the region, and 21 councillors elected by wards.

The wards would be Lower Hutt (4 councillors), Kapiti (2), Porirua (3), Upper Hutt (2), Wairarapa (2), North-Central Wellington (5), South Wellington (3).

Eight local community boards based on the seven wards, but with North-Central Wellington split into two.

ONE TIER

One unitary authority.

One mayor for the region, and 29 councillors elected by wards.

The wards would be the same as the two-tier model, but with more representatives.

My preference is the first option but with fewer Councillors.

A rather extraordinary valedictory speech by Charles Chauvel which makes clear how fragmented and divided Labour is.

Before we get to that, also amused by this statement:

Journalists working in much of our undercapitalised, foreign-owned media are under constant professional pressure. This comes from many quarters, including the constant need to sell newspapers and air time, and also the need to compete with instantly available online sources. In the case of the two better-known right wing blogs, those online sources are proxies for the present Government, and much copy is supplied to them directly out of Ministers’ offices at the taxpayer’s expense.

I tweeted in response that having Charles accuse people of planting information with the media is akin to Jim Jones warning people against drinking the kool-aid!

Some on the left always have these conspiracy theories about supplied copy. If only it was true. I recall once I did a comprehensive rebuttal of a Labour press release 60 minutes after it came out with links to all sorts of official sources. A blogger said I must have had the info supplied to me, and I facebooked my browser log for the last hour which showed my Google searches and references.

I am the only person who writes copy for Kiwiblog, unless I indicate it is a guest post.

I blogged at the end of last year links to several dozen blog posts where I criticized or disagreed with the Government.

Anyway enough with Charles’ conspiracy theories and accusations under parliamentary privilege. Let’s look at what he said about Labour:

Secondly, it is unproductive to keep trying to locate and exclude the supposed enemy within.

The enemy within! What a phrase. I suspect that Charles is someone that his colleagues have used that phrase about!

Instead, in order to avoid history repeating, it is time for an honest, open, and overdue assessment of why the 2011 campaign produced Labour’s worst ever electoral result. Those responsible for it should make dignified exits

That is a stunningly provocative statement for a valedictory. The four MPs he must be alluding to are then Leader Phil Goff, then Deputy Annette King, campaign manager Trevor Mallard and campaign strategist/spokesperson Grant Robertson.

You expect a statement like that at The Standard, not in an MPs valedictory speech. No love lost there!

and all the undoubted talent and diversity of the caucus should be included in the shadow Cabinet.

A plea to stop excluding Cunliffe and the Cunliffe faction.

To put it another way, in Gough Whitlam’s immortal words, the party must have both its wings to fly.

Remember that when next a Labour MP tries to tell you the caucus is not divided, and there are no factions!

I can’t recall a previous valedictory speech which so obviously ripped open the factional feuding, and called for four senior MPs to leave Caucus.

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled all decisions on the share sales are reviewable for consistency with Treaty obligations.

Not yet clear though if the actions have been deemed legal. More to come.

UPDATE: But it appears they have said the sale will not materially affect Govt’s ability to settle Treaty claims. Hence it looks like the Government can proceed.

Note this is based on tweets from those in court room.

Yes, a number of sources are saying the Maori Council have effectively lost.

The Government will be very relieved.

Winter sunrise looking across the Tasman River towards Aoraki / Mt Cook. New Zealand landscape photography by Sarah Sisson.

Brrrrr….

The mornings are getting dark and chilly down this way – we are not too many weeks away from scenes like this appearing on my lawn (minus the 3,700m mountain peak and glacier fed river obviously).  Fortunately for me, this image was made by Sarah a couple of years ago, while I slept in my nice warm bed.

Here’s a question for the photographers amongst you.  At the time that this image was made we were shooting on both Canon and Nikon equipment – can you guess from the colours which brand this was made on?

Free Wallpaper Download

You may download the large version of today’s image from this link:  Password = freewallpaper.

This image is available  as a canvas print. on our  website.

See you next week – and thanks for all the great comments last week!

Cheers – Todd [www.sisson.co.nz] 

The Press has done an investigation:

Is there a housing crisis in Christchurch? The Press examined statistics, attended open homes and spoke to experts and members of the public. Anna Turner reports.

Difficult, pressured, heated – yes. But a crisis where ordinary people can’t buy or rent homes and flats and many homeless are roaming the streets or living in cars – No.

Those are the findings of a two-week investigation by The Press.

Well done to The Press for doing a comprehensive investigation and going beyond the headlines.

High and average income earners were simply in a more competitive market, with people having to pay more and make an offer faster to get a house.

People on low incomes and benefits, as usual, were suffering the most, The Press inquiry found.

Residential property prices were up across the city since the earthquakes – but not outrageously – and the number of homes being sold was at a level similar to before the earthquakes.

Figures from the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand (REINZ) showed median house prices across Christchurch city have risen 8 per cent from January 2010 to January 2013. The median house price in January 2013 was $28,800 more than in January 2010.

Median house prices in Auckland rose 13 per cent in the past three years and the median price of an Auckland house sold in January 2013 was almost $60,000 more than it was in January 2010.

Auckland needs more land.

Timaru’s median house price rose 20.4 per cent from January 2010 to January 2013, while on the West Coast the median rose 10 per cent.

So an 8% increase in house prices over three years isn’t to bad.

The Press’ investigation found Christchurch’s rental market was closer to crisis than the property market.

Tenants Protection Agency manager Helen Gatonyi said many of the issues of substandard housing and poor access to housing were there before the earthquakes.

“There have always been these issues around housing and people who are living in houses of a poor condition. There have always been people living in garages and sleepouts. It’s not new,” she said.

“It’s just more visible now and people have to live in that kind of housing for longer than they did before the earthquakes because there are fewer options.”

Trade Me figures showed in Christchurch the average rent was up 26 per cent between the last quarters of 2012 and 2011.

And that is a lot. But the answer to that is to increase the number of houses available for renting. A rent freeze will do the opposite and make the problem worse in the long term.

Kennard Real Estate director Colin Lock said the rental figures in Christchurch were “misleading”.

“If you take a snapshot of all the figures across the whole rental market you’d think rents had gone through the roof.

“There’s two distinct markets – people renting fully-furnished properties at a higher price for a short time and people renting properties long-term for lower prices,” Lock said.

His own rentals had gone up an average of 11 per cent in the year to January 2013.

“My insurance has virtually doubled and my rates are up. The tenants aren’t being ripped off by the average landlord.”

That is a fair point on insurance and rates. The Council has just put rates up, and even in Wellington insurance premiums have doubled. Blaming the landlord for everything is unfair.

Mayor Bob Parker said he had never spoken to anybody, even those who were struggling, who hadn’t been able to find somewhere in the end.

The Press spoke to many people who said they had found a rental easily.

Kim Thompson said: “We moved after all the earthquakes, have an awesome house with fabulous landlords and great rent.”

Serra Kilduff said while it took her longer than usual to find a nice place, she and her partner managed it.

“It took a couple of months to find a place that wasn’t falling down, had insulation and heating, a garden, and wasn’t $600 a week. We have been very lucky in finally finding a great place with fantastic landlords.”

Christchurch’s social housing also failed to reflect a city-wide crisis. Housing New Zealand had recorded a marked decrease in the number of people on its waiting list for social housing units – dropping from 744 people in 2010 to 195 in 2013.

Again really good to see a story that both looks at the hard data, but also interviews a variety of people, not just those with the loudest voice.

That is not to say things are not very tough for many. Of course it is. But the term “crisis” has implications that do not match the reality.

What an admission from Brian Rudman in the NZ Herald:

With job lay-offs, unaffordable housing and a call for better public transport, Labour should be making inroads.

Despite the best efforts of Opposition politicians, single-issue campaigners and me and my colleagues in the media, most Kiwis seem resolutely unconvinced that this country is heading for hell in a handcart.

A stunning admission by Rudman. Not a huge surprise that he admits to trying to convince people the country is heading for “hell in a handcut” as Rudman is well known as a left wing columnist. But his inclusion of  his colleagues in the media speaks volumes.

They see their role to convince New Zealanders that their country is fucked, with the implication being unless of course they change the Government.

Will the NZ Herald let Rudman’s comments stand that the role of his media colleagues has been to use their best efforts convince people the country is damned?

The Government Administration Select Committee has reported back Louisa Wall’s Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.

The changes to the bill are:

• Will not come into force immediately upon royal assent, but up to four months later
• A new s29(2) which says “Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), no celebrant who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1, and no celebrant who is a person nominated to solemnize marriages by an approved organisation, is obliged to solemnize a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation.”
• Repeals s56 which made it an offence to deny the validity of a marriage
• Has consequential amendments to the Adoption Act, Crimes Act and other Acts

These are very helpful amendments, and meet the concerns of many whom submitted they were concerned that a law change could force Ministers of Religion into being forced to conduct same-sex marriages. It was doubtful it would, but the proposed changes remove doubt.

Another change, which I submitted on, was that if someone said a same sex marriage was not a “true” marriage they could be charged under the obscure s56. There never has been a prosecution, but removal of the section again removes doubt.

One consequential change is that if a married person legally changes their gender identity, they will no longer be automatically divorced.

Also there was some doubt over whether married same sex couples would be eligible to adopt children as a couple, based on this law change. The consequential amendments make it clear they will. Note that a gay or lesbian can already adopt a child, and many have. They are just currently restricted to adopting by themselves, rather than with their partner.

I expect the second reading is likely to be on Wed 13 March, and committee stage on Wed 27 March and finally a third reading on Wed 17 April. But this all depends on what local bills or other members’s bills are around, so dates may change.

The MPs on the select committee had over 20,000 submission to wade through and heard hundreds of oral submissions. While people will disagree on the main purpose of the bill, I think most will appreciate the improvements made to the bill – which is the main job of a select committee. It is up to Parliament as a whole to really decide if a bill proceeds or not. The Select Committee’s job is to improve it, and I think they have done this.

Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:

Sir Peter Jackson was so frustrated by a “snake” union official he was unable to think about The Hobbit for three weeks.

Documents released under order by the Ombudsman reveal the award-winning director said Cabinet minister Gerry Brownlee was “played like a fool” by Simon Whipp, a former director of Australian union Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA). …

The Government had “engaged with a snake, who now feels quite fearless”, Sir Peter said.

“I really can’t [take] much more of this toxic nonsense. All I want to do is make films! I haven’t been able to think about the movie for 3 weeks.”

The full e-mails are here. I think they show the incredible strain that Jackson was under, caused by one Australian union official aided and abetted by barely a dozen locals. MEAA is not an NZ union, and it controls the NZ Actor’s Equity which represents less than 10% of NZ actors. It was a classic case of destructive behaviour and you see what was really driving it was MEAA trying to establish a massive income stream for itself.

The e-mail from New Line Cinema is also revealing. They state that “momentum was growing to find alternatives – including New South Wales” and detail how there would be less risk there. Anyone who claims the films were in no danger of moving is dreaming.

Oral Questions.

Questions to Ministers.

1. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to encourage investment, business growth and jobs?
2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all of the Minister of Economic Development’s statements made regarding the Hobbit dispute?
3. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
4. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on this quarter’s national health targets?
5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Prior to his resignation as CEO of Solid Energy, on what date was Don Elder’s contract last renewed?
6. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister for Economic Development:What support has the Government given to the film industry in New Zealand?
7. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What expectations has he set for District Health Boards and subsidiary entities for 2013/14?
8. AARON GILMORE to the Minister for Building and Construction: Has the Government changed the system for dealing with earthquake-prone buildings?
9. DARIEN FENTON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the living wage is “simplistic”?
10. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Broadcasting: What percentage of households in the South Island have gone digital ahead of the digital switchover on 28 April 2013?
11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Primary Industries: Has he received a report from the Ministry for Primary Industries that identifies the pathway by which Psa bacteria entered New Zealand?
12. HOLLY WALKER to the Minister of Housing: Is the Government on track to build the 2,000 new state houses promised by Rt Hon John Key and Hon Bill English over the next two financial years, or was the Minister correct when he said “I am not yet at the point where I can tick off and say they are going to meet all of those targets”?

Today Labour are asking four questions, The Greens two and New Zealand First one. Labour are asking a standard does the Prime Minister stand by all his statements question, the former Solid Energy CEO Don Elder, District Health Boards and the Living Wage. The Greens are asking about the Hobbit dispute following the release of documents yesterday and state housing. New Zealand First is asking about the PSA Kiwifruit virus.

Patsy question of the day goes to Aaron Gilmore for Question 8:  Has the Government changed the system for dealing with earthquake-prone buildings?

General Debate 3.00 PM -4.00 PM.

12 Speeches of no more than 5 minutes in length.

Valedictory Speech of Charles Chauvel MP 5.45-6.00 PM

The Wikipedia entry on Charles Chauvel can be found here.

Government Bills 4.oo PM- 5.45 PM and 7.30 PM – 10.00 PM.

1.Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Covered Bonds) Amendment Bill – Second Reading

2.Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

3.Child Support Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Covered Bonds) Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by Bill English, the Minister of Finance.  This bill seeks to establish a legislative framework for covered bonds.

The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by Chris Tremain, the Minister of Local Government. This bill extends the Canterbury Regional Council’s governance arrangement and special water management decision-making powers in the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2012

The  Child Support Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by Peter Dunne, the Minister of Revenue. The bill will make three changes to Child Support. These are a new child support calculation formula, secondary changes to update the child support scheme more generally and amendments to the payment, penalty, and debt rules for child support.

Hat Tip: Keeping Stock

As always captions should be funny, not nasty.