Just been looking at all the complaints that the Advertising Standards Authority has had to deal with this year. There are a staggering 523 complaints, and reading through many of them, you see so many people with a total lack of sense of humour. For example:

The direct mail flyer showed a picture of a cow that had attempted to jump over a steel gate, but had got stuck half way. The position of the cow over the gate appears uncomfortable. Above the image is the heading “Rural broad band… no more obstacles”. Further information about the broadband packages is listed next to the image. …

Complainant, C. Bateman, said: in part “This image is disrespectful to animals, is offensive to anyone concerned about animal welfare and even if it’s meant to be “tongue in cheek” it is not even remotely humourous.”

Oh Good God. And that is one of the more sane complaints.

Anyway this has given me an idea for a regular feature – focusing on the idiotic complaints people send to to various regulatory bodies.

But I need some help to do this.

What I’m after is one or two people who will say once a week on alternate weeks go to the websites of the ASA, BSA and Press Council and have a quick skim of complaints. Then all you have to do is send me a link and/or an extract of the ones which are basically seriously demented or show someone totally lacking in humour.

If this appeals to you, just e-mail me. I think we’ll be doing a public service by highlighting the inanity of some of our serial complainers.

Probably looking to do one post a week highlighting no more than six inane complaints. I suspect a few names will reoccur!

Bean Heather at Stuff reports:

A tobacco giant is being accused of illegally advertising cigarettes under the guise of a “public awareness campaign”.

The Health Ministry has received 14 complaints against British American Tobacco New Zealand’s “agree/disagree” campaign opposing plain packaging.

The complainants say the company’s campaign – which has included television, radio and print ads – breaches the tobacco advertising ban.

But the ministry has disagreed, with chief legal adviser Phil Knipe claiming that there were “insufficient grounds to support enforcement action at this time”.

Of course the complaints went nowhere. The ban on advertising of tobacco is designed to stop marketing of cigarettes – not designed to stop a company from voicing its opinion on a regulatory issue. I suspect those who complained know that.

As it happens I think the BAT campaign is stupid, and in fact likely to be counter-productive to their cause. So don’t think I am defending the campaign. But BAT have the right to voice their concerns over a proposed law.

The name of the company is very different to the name of a cigarette brand. I doubt 99% of those who smoke a BAT cigarette know whom BAT is.

Advertising Standards Authority chief executive Hilary Souter said she had also received complaints calling the campaign illegal, all of which had been referred to the ministry.

“Whether or not the ad is a tobacco ad is outside our mandate,” she said.

On Friday, the authority also dismissed five complaints against British American Tobacco (BAT) regarding other aspects of its campaign. Most complainants felt the campaign was misleading, confusing facts with opinions.

One complainant called it “an attack on the sovereignty of political discourse in New Zealand”.

Actually those trying to suppress the rights of free speech are the real attack on the sovereignty of political discourse.

Thursday was in Tan Chau, which was out last stop before we crossed the border. we toured around partly by boat, partly on foot, and partyly by rickshaw!

A lot of fishing in this area. The Mekong is a vital part of the economy to six countries.

Some of the local boats are damn small. Luckily the crocodiles are now all upstream.

Some of the houses actually float on the river..

This is a fish farm. Incredibly they have around 35,000 fish in this 4 metre deep tank. You feel sorry for the fish. It seems to be the fish equivalent of what Auckland will be like under Len’s long-term plan of housing intensification!

The economics behind the fish farming are interesting. You have to pay the Government to fish on the river, but if you grow an farm your own fish, then there is no tax on it. So hence you get fish farms.

The river can rise two metres at different times of year, so they have to build high enough not to flood.

A local out in his boat.

This kid was running beside the boat as we drew up.

And he happily took the tour sign away from our guide, and became our guide for the next half hour!

A local female villager carrying crops.

A local farmer spraying the ground to prepare it.

The kids from the local school. We were visiting a village of around 500 people. Vietnamese kids are incredibly friendly, and chatty. They especially like doing high fives. I may have corrupted them though as they saw me check in on Four Square on my iPhone and were all excited it showed a map of their area. They all had a play with it, and when they got music to play (Bill Haley), they all wanted one!

Instead what we gave them were pens, pads and rulers for their school. They were pretty happy about that.

This woman crossed the river up to her head, carrying some goods across. Shudder.

While this guy bathed in it. You can see the soap.

We then visited a factory where they first dye the weaves.

Then the machine interleaves them.

And this is what gets produced. They manually decide the colours and patterns, so many different designs.

Finally we travelled by Rickshaw. Was an experience but not overly comfortable. But faster than walking!

Back to the world of birds today

Click for larger, higher res image

Amnesty International has a neat tool called Trial by Timeline. It accesses your Facebook history, interrogates your Facebook friends interactions with you, and works out how many crimes you have committed in other countries.

It says I would have been convicted 1071 times of 13 different crimes in 59 countries.

A very innovate way of making people realise how many rights are lacking in other countries.

I would have been beaten 271 times, tortured 203 times and imprisoned 438 times. Not shot though, which is something. However I would have been lashed 27 times and killed by extremists 342 times (this could still happen in NZ!). Also persecuted 538 times and forced to do something once.

Try it yourself and tell me below how many convictions you would have? The closest so far to me I have seen is 248!

Claire Trevett reports:

Andrew Little’s amendment had apparently time-travelled all the way from the 1920s and proposed off-licences shut at 8pm rather than the proposed 10pm.

The explanation for this early “lights out” was such a masterpiece of delicious, pious absurdity that it requires repeating: it was because people buying alcohol any later than 8pm were likely to be already a bit tipsy “and may not have the judgment and self-control necessary to make cogent decisions”.

Good God. The woser factor out in full force. We weak humans need protecting from ourselves because at 8 pm we’re already “tipsy”.

On Wednesday we went to Sa Dec. It’s another trading port and centre. It was also a base for US swift boats in the war. It has a population of around 100,000.

The market here specialised in seafood. Lots of crabs bundled up.

And a bowl of yummy squid.

You want fresh fish – these are still alive and kicking.

These prawns were also kicking.

Less keen on these though. Yuck.

I could make a joke about Trevor Mallard here 🙂

Some live frogs. Cribbet.

And these frogs are less live.

This is the house the French writer and file director Marguerite Duras lived in.  As a teenager she had an affair with a Vietnamese man, which she later detailed in various books and films.

In the afternoon we just cruised. It’s nice being on a river, as you see land and sights as you travel. This is a shot of some typical greenery.

The Republicans are doing their best to allow the Democrats to hold onto the Senate. To follow up Todd Akin, we have:

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock is standing by his statement that when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape “that’s something God intended.”

Mourdock, who has been locked in one of the country’s most expensive and closely watched Senate races, was asked during the final minutes of a debate Tuesday night whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realise that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen,” Mourdock said.

Mourdock maintained at the news conference that he was misunderstood.

“I think that God can see beauty in every life,” Mourdock said. “Certainly, I did not intend to suggest that God wants rape, that God pushes people to rape, that God wants to support or condone evil in any way.”

How do such idiots become candidates for high office. Even if you agree with their viewpoint on not allowing abortion for rape victims, there are non-moronic ways to express that view. Here’s how they should answer the question:

1. Don’t mention God at all. You’re standing for the Senate, not for Iman or Cardinal.
2. Empathise with all women who have been raped and say it is a terrible crime, and some never recover from being violated. Get in a quick plug about how you support longer sentences for rapists.
3. Say it is a terrible dilemma about what to do in such a situation, and how you don’t want rape victims re-victimised
4. However say that two wrongs don’t make a right, and as much as your heart goes out to victims of rape, you don’t think killing an unborn child is ever justified, and you hope victims of rape will show the love and tolerance they did not receive, and allow the child to be born

Now I don’t agree with the above. I think it is appalling to not support exemptions for rape victims, and in fact I support abortion being a decision in all cases for the pregnant woman, not the state, so long as the fetus is not viable. However if a candidate said something along the lines of the above to justify their view, they at least wouldn’t come across as a lunatic who implies God condones rape. I know that isn’t what he meant, but his choice of words was so appalling, it was open to that interpretation.

A candidate for even a junior office, should have a prepared response on major issues memorised off by heart. To have Senate candidates shoot themselves in the foot so badly, is woeful amateur hour.

The Herald reports:

 A telemarketer who told her supervisor she was going to “smash her” has been awarded $5000 for wrongful dismissal. …

Although the women disputed details of the cause, the ruling said it was accepted that they yelled at each other and Cumming said she would “smash” her boss if she did not shut her mouth. …

Immediate after management called at which Cumming had no support person.

At a second meeting she grudgingly apologised to Boon, but warned of further reaction if her supervisor “got in her face again”, said the ruling.

Cumming was then dismissed after director Craig Hudgell said “the threat of violence outweighed all other considerations”.

Absolute management acknowledged the dismissal was unjustified.

The authority ordered the company to pay Cumming $5000 and reimburse her filing fee of $71.55.

The company did get the process wrong, but how frustrating must it be to pay $5,000 to an employee you had to sack because she threatened violence against other staff. I think this is a good example of too much focus on process over substance.

I don’t think the initial outburst justified sacking, but to them in a disciplinary meeting assert your intention to do violence if her supervisor annoys her, is surely grounds. You have a responsibility to other staff. Again, they did not follow correct process and admit this, but how very frustrating.

The Financial Times reports:

Sir Mervyn warned there were limits to the BoE’s policy of quantitative easing, under which it prints money and injects it into the economy by purchasing bonds: “Printing money is not . . . simply manna from heaven. There are no short-cuts to the necessary adjustment in our economy.”

And the BoE only did it because their cash rate couldn’t go lower.

Sir Mervyn also rounded on those calling for his institution to cancel the government debt it owns. Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority and a leading candidate to replace Sir Mervyn as governor next year, mused about debt cancellation in a speech earlier this month. Calling such ideas “bad money creation” which would fudge monetary and fiscal policy, Sir Mervyn said “the BoE could not countenance any suggestion that we cancel our holdings of gilts”.

This will be the next policy from Dr Norman. Just have the Reserve Bank cancel all government debt. Bingo. Problem solved.

Oral Questions 2.00pm to 3.00pm

Questions to Ministers

1. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his answer on Tuesday regarding jobs “I think that the number of 170,000 may come from the initial Budget forecast for 2009, perhaps. I cannot remember the year exactly.”?
2. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Given the recent loss of Māori Party support for his Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, will he consider working with opposition parties on amendments to improve it?
3. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s infrastructure programme contributing to building a more competitive economy?
4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with the NZIER shadow board that “the growth outlook for the second half of 2012 looks weak and unemployment remains stubbornly high.”?
5. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made to review Child Youth and Family’s complaints process?
6. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made in the delivery of the Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Project announced in April of this year with an extra $11.3 million provided to support it?
7. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for the Environment: What reports has she received on the time taken for decisions on notified consents issued under the Resource Management Act 1991?
8. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Why did New Zealand pull out of a joint proposal with the United States to create a marine reserve in Antarctica’s Ross Sea?
9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by the answers he gave yesterday to supplementary question 5 on Oral Question No 7 and supplementary question 3 on Oral Question No 12?
10. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What progress has the Government made to support repairing damaged houses and infrastructure following the Canterbury earthquakes?
11. SUE MORONEY to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on 3News last night, on the subject of Business New Zealand’s assertion that women need retraining when returning to employment after extended parental leave that “no. It wouldn’t be my view”?
12. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Immigration: What is the Government doing to ensure that New Zealanders have first priority for jobs in the Canterbury rebuild?

Today there are 5 questions towards ministers from National, 4 from Labour, 2 from the Greens and 1 from New Zealand First

Labour are asking about the jobs forecast in budget 2012, economic growth and unemployment, youth mental health and paid parental leave.

Green’s are asking about the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and Marine Reserves in the Ross Sea.

New Zealand First are asking the Prime Minister about answers he gave in regards to Kim Dot Com in Parliament on Wednesday. In particular the answer he gave to question 7.

“When did he first learn of a German resident living in the Chrisco mansion in the Prime Minister’s electorate?” 

Pasty of the day

Today’s pasty of the day goes to question 7 from National asking about reports received on consents issued under the RMA

“JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for the Environment: What reports has she received on the time taken for decisions on notified consents issued under the Resource Management Act 1991?”

Government Bills 3.00pm to 6.00pm

1) Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill– 2nd reading – 12x 10 min speeches – 3.00pm to 4.00pm

This bill is designed to amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 which deals with the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in New Zealand via proposed changes including operational and technical changes to the ETS as a result of the review of the scheme conducted in 2011. One of the proposed changes is the intention to remove the requirement for our agriculture sector to be involved in the scheme from 2015. In addition, the bill gives forest owners more flexibility especially for forests planted before 1990.

2) Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill– 3rd reading – 12x 10 min speeches – 4.00pm to 5.00pm

This bill is designed to set the tax rates for the 2012/2013 year as well as minor changes to the filling and storage of tax returns. In addition, it amends acts such as the Kiwisaver Act 2006

3) Financial Markets Conduct Bill– 2nd reading – 12x 10 min speeches – 5.00pm to 6.00pm

This bill is designed to merge several other pieces of legislation into one act with the primary purpose of the bill is to promote  confidence in the financial markets for investors, business and customers of financial services products. In addition, this bill contains sections on how financial services products can be sold and adds additional regulation to people working in this sector including new rules for misleading or false statements.

I got e-mailed this graphic, which originally appeared in the ODT.  Very clear that the much derided reforms of Max Bradford were in fact great for consumers, and it was the changes made by Labour that saw price soar (despite Labour running massive surpluses and owning the companies).

In the CTU submission on the Lobbying Disclosure Bill, they said:

This submission is made on behalf of the 37 unions affiliated to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi (CTU). With some 350,000 members, the CTU is the largest democratic organisation in New Zealand.

There is a minor and a major porkie here. The minor porkie is that they have 37 members, not 350,000. They are a council of unions, not an organisation that members join directly. No member has the option of deciding whether or not the CTU gets a portion of their fee. Only the union as a whole decide swhether to join and pay.

But even putting aside that minor porkie, let’s say they do have 350,000 members. Does that make them the largest democratic organisation in NZ?

Not by a long way. The NZ Automobile Association has 1,329,572 members. Around four times as many.

So I hope the CTU will cease and desist making false claims.

I’ve just been reading most of the 100 or so submissions on the Lobbying Transparency Bill, and its really must come close to being the most incompetently drafted bill in some years. I know Holly Walker didn’t draft the bill herself – she inherited it from Sue Kedgley. But, as one lawyer said to me, it would have been nice if she had read it before submitting it in her name.

I’ll come to the various criticism in a few lines, including from the Clerk of the House and the Auditor-General, but will note for now it is obvious it can not pass in its current form. There seems to be four options open to the select committee:

• Radically rewrite the bill, and then call for further submissions on the amended bill as it will be so different to the current one.
• Ask the Law Commission to write a new bill around lobbying transparency and regulation, as recommended by the NZ Law Society, and vote this bill down.
• Look to implement a non-legislative solution, as I and others have proposed – such as through Standing Orders.
• Just vote the bill down, allowing a more competently drafted one to be resubmitted to the ballot.

So what do some of the submissions say. Let;s start with the joint submission from the Clerk of the House and GM of The Parliamentary Service:

 We are concerned about the bill’s potential to create barriers, both to participation by the public in democratic processes, and to the many legitimate means through which members, committees, Ministers and the House inform themselves of matters relevant to the exercise of their roles. The potential for public participation to be deterred by perceptions about the bill’s provisions is also a major question. Many hundreds of individuals and organisations have contact with members and Ministers every day, both in relation to matters of public policy and also in respect of personal grievances and concerns.

It is rare for these two parliamentary agencies to speak out on a bill.

Moreover, as currently drafted, the bill appears to result in staff members of the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service being potentially classified as lobbyists.

Under this bill, it will be easier to count those who will not be lobbyists!

Here’s Tainui:

We believe the Government Administration Committee should recommend to Parliament that the Lobbying Disclosure Bill should not be proceeded with for four principal reasons:

• It impinges on all citizens’ freedom of speech and their rights under the Bill of Rights Act 1990.
• The public policy underpinning the proposed legislation is not based on evidence and its provisions will discourage the discussion and debate critical to the development of good public policy.
• It would constrain the right of Maori to practice tikanga Maori in respect of kanohi ki te kanohi and whaikorero.
• If enacted, the legislation would be impossible to enforce and administratively costly.

Federated Farmers pulls no punches:

Members of Parliament, we feel, should be outraged as the Bill impugns your reputation. It fundamentally implies the only way to „keep you honest‟, is to make third parties disclose full details of when, where and what they met you about. It implies that politicians can not be trusted to make up their own minds. Those who are promoting this law are obviously extremely concerned about this. The best solution is for them to resign from parliament as soon as possible. This reduces the risk to “abuse” of the system, and brings in others who, by definition, must be “better” and obviously have more ethics and ability.

But why stop there? Why not just have a selection process operated by the Auditor General, whereby only “good” politicians are able to operate in Parliament. On the logic of this bill, this would reduce risk considerably of “lobbyists exerting undue or improper influence on Ministers or members of Parliament”.

You can almost feel the flames.

Ngai Tahu:

The flow on effect is that the iwi – Crown relationships are reduced to the same status as that between the Crown and, for example, tobacco industry lobbyists. This is an unacceptable step backwards in the Crown iwi/Māori relationship.

This is one of the problems of such heavy-handed regulations.  The University of Auckland notes:

On top of this, an aspect of the University’s engagement with Ministers, Members of Parliament and officials is in its legally defined role as critic and conscience of society. (Section 162 Education Act (1989).

The Lobbying Disclosure Bill runs counter to this role and to the stated (Education Act 1989 S161(4)) obligation of the Crown and its agencies to ensure the autonomy and academic freedom of universities.

The Human Rights Commission:

 The Commission agrees with the Attorney-General that the dramatic overreach of the Bill is an “unacceptable and dangerous limit on freedom of expression”. …

The Commission strongly opposes the passage of the Bill …

The Newspaper Publishers Association:

The NPA supports more openness in Government … However, this Bill in its intention to curb lobbyists is deeply flawed to the extent it is unworkable.

Normally the media would be supportive of something that opens up Government. But they know this particular bill is unworkable.

This is a naive Bill that seeks to address a non-existent problem in an unrealistic way. It proposes introducing another level of bureaucracy that would be costly and difficult to police and prosecute, making it well nigh unworkable. It is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights in cutting across freedom of expression.

The Association of NGOs says:

 Our submission, resulting from all these discussions, is relatively simple: if the significant problems with the Bill cannot be fixed – and we have not managed to find a way that can happen – then the way it is currently structured should be abandoned.

The Association of Universities says:

 That the Government Administration Committee return the Lobbying Disclosure Bill to Parliament with the recommendation that it not proceed. …

If the Lobbying Disclosure Bill was to be enacted, Universities NZ’s representatives would be required to register as lobbyists before they could communicate with the relevant Minister on any of these matters and many other issues directly impacting on Universities NZ’s statutory functions.

Two of the government agencies with whom Universities NZ works most closely in undertaking its statutory functions – the NZ Qualifications Authority and the Tertiary Education Commission – would also be required to have their representatives register as lobbyists before communicating on these issues with the relevant
Minister. Because they are crown agencies they are not listed in Schedule 1 of the State Sector Act and they are therefore not exempt from coverage of the Bill.

This is what I mean by incompetent drafting. The TEC and NZQA would have to register as lobbyists under the bill as drafted!

We doubt if the Speakers Science Forum series could continue under the regime that would be imposed by the Lobbying Disclosure Bill.

They conclude:

New Zealand is a small, open democracy which has been highly rated in international studies for its freedom from corruption. There is no evidence in NZ of the clandestine behaviour that might warrant the type of legislation proposed by this Bill. Indeed, the effect of the Bill will be to inhibit severely the existing freedom with which individuals and organisations can exchange views on matters of legislation, regulation and policy with Members of Parliament and Ministers.

Universities NZ recommends that the Government Administration Committee report to Parliament that the Lobbying Disclosure Bill is a flawed and unnecessary piece of legislation that should not proceed.

So against this Bill are the Office of the Clerk, the Parliamentary Service, the Law Society, major Iwi, the Human Rights Commission, the newspapers, the NGOs and the universities.  Anyone missing. Oh yeah the proposed regulator – the Auditor-General. Here is what she said:

The proposed functions and powers are unrelated to the Auditor-General’s core work as an auditor, and not consistent with the constitutional role of scrutiny of the Executive on behalf of Parliament. In essence, the Auditor-General would be a regulator of those who want to communicate with Members of Parliament (both Ministers and other MPs).

The majority of those to be regulated would be private sector entities and private citizens. This is inconsistent with the Auditor-General’s current role which is restricted to the audit of public entities (as defined in the Public Audit Act). A requirement to monitor and regulate the activities of private sector entities would be novel in the history of the office, and not part of the role contemplated when the Public Audit Act was drafted.

The Bill, if enacted, would give the Auditor-General direct enforcement powers, which is not consistent with the role of an auditor.

You’d think you’d consult an agency before proposing them as a regulator.

There’s a lesson here about members’ bills. They are draft pieces of legislation and should be taken seriously.  Don’t just submit something your staff give you, or a former MP gives you. Spend a couple of months or more consulting people on it. Show some lawyers a draft. The Office of the Clerk can even help. Talk to major stakeholders who could be impacted before you submit the bill – not afterwards. Even publish an early draft (as Kevin Hague has done) and ask for feedback on it.

Oh yeah also even the Waikato University Law School disses it.

On Tuesday we went around the floating markets of Cai Be in the morning, and looked at the local French Gothic Cathedral. Then in the afternoon e went to the fruit markets of Vinh Long which had some amazing looking and tasting fruits.

Each boat signifies what they are selling by hoisting it up on a stick. There are around 100 of these boats in total floating on the river, buying and selling and bartering.

You even have a soft drink dispenser!

They took us to a rice paper and candy manufacturer where they make amazing products from rice. This is of sand being mixed with brown rice, to make white rice products.

They then chop it up.

And package it. The staff get paid around $2 an hour, which is pretty reasonable for Vietnam.

This mother hen was picking at rice paper and feeding it to her chicks. Then they got noticed and chased off by stick wielding women!

Anyone fancy pickled snake for lunch?

Deshelling. She (and her mother) get paid 25c a kg and are pretty fast at it. The kids all go to school, but are expected to help earn money when not at school.

The exterior of the Gothic Cathedral. The rest of the town is pretty basic, so this sticks out somewhat.

And the interior.

This is from the afternoon at the fruit markets. These are in fact a type of apple.

I’m not sure if you eat the fruit on the right or use it as a weapon!

No plain packaging in Vietnam!

Yum, fish. The markets were fascinating – both from an economic perspective, but just to see the variety of fruit, and trying them out. We have such little variety in NZ.

Dom Post reports:

Broadcaster Sean Plunket will be taking over Michael Laws’ Radio Live show next year.

Laws made the announcement on his talk back show this morning.

The former Whanganui mayor said his replacement was to be Sean Plunket, who would take over the show after March 31.

‘‘I have decided to pursue something new, something, exciting and something that I’ve always wanted to do.’’

Become Deputy Leader of NZ First? 🙂

Radio Live will be interesting with both Plunket and Garner taking up shows there.

The NZ Drug Foundation has published a bingo card of “cliched phrases” they say MPs will use to defend the liquor industry.

Firstly I’m disappointed that the NZDF, normally fairly sensible on drug and alcohol issues, is now into denigrating motives of MPs. I expect Doug Selman to rant on about MPs defending the liquor industry, not the NZDF. The fact that MPs disagree with them on an issue, doesn’t mean they are defending the liquor industry. It means they don’t agree with the proposed law will have more benefits than harm.

What is interesting is the list of phrases they include, because I assume that in including them, they think that the proposition is flawed.

• Unfair to responsible drinkers
• We’re doing research on this
• Parental responsibility
• Education Is the answer

So are NZDF against doing research, against education, against parental responsibility and for punishing responsible drinkers?

I think NZDF do a good job overall, but they should stick to sensible research based advocacy, and avoid stupid stuff like this which may make them feel they are hip or cool, but will have no impact with those they are trying to influence.

Sunset on the summit of Aoraki / Mt Cook, New Zealand. Photography by Todd Sisson.

Welcome to the most timely Wallpaper Wednesday post in living memory (my memory only spans one month these days).

Having dissed sunset/sunrise images in my outro last week I now present you with a sunset image….

I almost blew the making of this image while indulging in a rare (in my humble opinion) dose of ego-mania. I had been set up for some time waiting for a thick valley fog to clear and provide a glimpse of the summit of Aoraki Mt Cook. While waiting, I got to talking with a couple of Australian photo enthusiasts and was modestly explaining how awesome I was – with my back turned to the mountain…. fortunately, one of the Aussies was sick of my rhetoric and kindly pointed out that the mountain was glowing orange. A frantic ‘practical demonstration’ of my awesome skills ensued. I was really lucky to get this, and one other, sharp shot out of the shoot as every other image was marred by sloppy technique.

Lesson learned. I never talk to Australians now 😉

See you next week.

Cheers – Todd

You may download the large version from this link:  [free iPad wallpaper] Password = freewallpaper

Also available on our website as a canvas print.

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd

[www.sisson.co.nz] [blog]

Well I only followed it on Twitter, but the polls show Obama was judged better by a clear majority. This is not a surprise. His approval ratings for foreign policy have been consistently high, and in my opinion he does deserve credit for some of his work in this area. He did basically exit Iraq gracefully (on much the same timetable as Bush proposed though), and the surge in Afghanistan has worked (as it did in Iraq) and they are on track to leave there in the next term. And you have to give brownie points for killing Osama Bin Laden. The mission was risky, and could have ended in a Iran style Carter disaster effectively ending Obama’s presidency. It was a gutsy call to do it.

The killing of the US Ambassador to Libya is of course a low point – especially the misinformation from the US Government on why and how it happened, and the revelations that they were asked multiple times for more security. That issue is yet to be resolved.

The biggest reason not to vote for Obama on foreign policy grounds is probably the fact that John Kerry is his likely next Secretary of State. I think Hillary Clinton has generally done a good job, and I actually have a lot of respect for her. I have almost none for John Kerry. Think how close we came to a Kerry/Edwards presidency!

Too soon after the debate to know how it may have influenced the polls. Five Thirty Eight is projecting Obama 291 and Romney 247 – pretty close.  Real Clear Politics has Obama 281 and Romney 257. Pollster has Obama 254, Romney 191 and 94 tossups.

All the focus is now going on the key swing states – especially Ohio.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR ON THE
MARRIAGE (DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE) AMENDMENT BILL TO THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
2. While not a detail I would normally include in a submission, I am heterosexual, so have no self-interest in this bill.

Overall Bill

3. I submit in support of the bill proceeding. To quote Dr Paul Hutchison, “I simply cannot construct a strong enough intellectual moral health or even spiritual argument against it … and the reverse is very much the case.” This bill will allow a couple of the same sex to marry each other, which I believe to be good for the couple, good for the institution of marriage, and good for New Zealand. I do support some amendments being made to clarify the impact of this bill on other Acts of Parliament

Equality

4. A same sex couple is of course different to a couple of the opposition gender. But this doesn’t mean that the law should discriminate in not allowing same sex couples to marry. Same sex couples fall in love, commit to each other, form households and raise children – the core of being a family. The law should allow such couples to marry. Why would we want an adult couple desiring marriage to not be able to marry?
5. Some argue that as a same sex couple can’t produce children naturally, that they should be ineligible to marry. I do not accept this argument as many married couples are infertile, choose not to have children, or have children from past relationships. We don’t ban woman who have reached menopause from marrying, and now should we ban same sex couples.

Strengthening Marriage

6. I think marriage is a wonderful institution, and the benefits of marriage are well documented. I believe allowing a same sex couple to marry, hence committing to each other for life, strengthens the institution of marriage.
7. I would like to quote three conservative leaders as to why same sex marriage is good for marriage. US Solictor-General (for George W Bush) Theordore Olsen has said “Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize.Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society.

   The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.”

   and“I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual.

   To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

8. UK Conservative PM David Cameron: “But for me, leadership on families also means speaking out on marriage. Marriage is not just a piece of paper. It pulls couples together through the ebb and flow of life. It gives children stability. And it says powerful things about what we should value. So yes, we will recognise marriage in the tax system.
   
   But we’re also doing something else. I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage.
   And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.

9. Former Australian Liberal Party Leader Malcolm Turnbull said “Families are the foundation of our society and I am firmly of the view that that we would be a stronger society if more people were married – and by that I mean formally, legally married – and fewer were divorced. …And I have to say that I am utterly unpersuaded by the proposition that my marriage to Lucy, or indeed any marriage, is undermined by two gay men or two lesbians setting up house down the road – whether it is called a marriage or not.

   Regrettably, this aspect of the debate is dripping with the worst sort of hypocrisy, and the deepest pools are all too often found among the most sanctimonious.
   
   Let us be honest with each other. The threat to marriage is not the gays. It is a lack of loving commitment – whether it is found in the form of neglect, indifference, cruelty or adultery, to name just a few manifestations of the loveless desert in which too many marriages come to grief.”

10. I agree with Messrs. Cameron, Turnbull and Olsen that allowing same sex couples to marry will strengthen the institution of marriage.

Welcoming diversity

11. Adolescence is a difficult time for many teenagers, and gay/lesbian teenagers especially can find it more challenging than most as they wonder whether there is something “wrong” with them as they are not attracted to the opposite sex like most of their peers are. We see the results of this in the significantly higher levels of suicide amongst gay and lesbian teenagers. The 2007 Auckland University study of around 9,000 secondary school students found 20% of youth attracted to the same (or both) sex attempted suicide in the last year. This is an appallingly high figure.
12. Knowing that despite their “different” sexual orientation, that one day they can love and marry someone will I think send a very powerful message to young gay and lesbian New Zealanders that there is nothing wrong in being different, and that the Parliament of New Zealand has said so by allowing same sex couples to marry.

Tradition

13. One argument against allowing same sex couples to marry is that this goes against the traditional definition of marriage.
14. This is no surprise. Up until 27 years ago, it was a criminal offence for a homosexual man to even have consensual sex with another adult man. So of course there is no recent tradition of same sex marriage.
15. If we go back far enough to be very traditional, I would point out that In the 1^st century AD Emperor Nero is reported to have married a male slave. Later in 342 AD Emperor Constantius II outlawed same sex marriage with a penalty of execution. This suggests that there were a number of same sex marriages prior to that.
16. Regardless marriage has in fact changed significantly over time. I follow with some examples.
17. Traditionally the age of marriage was the onset of puberty. In the 12^th century European canon law documented by Gratian allowed marriage from the age of seven onwards, and stayed in force religiously until 1918. In 1689 a nine year old Mary Hathaway was married in the US.
18. Interracial marriage was banned in the US until the California Supreme Court over-turned this in 1948 and then the US Supreme Court in 1967. The ban was not removed from the Alabama state constitution until the year 2000.
19. Married couples were prohibited from using contraception in the US until 1965.
20. Traditionally under English common law, a married woman had no legal identity outside that of her husband, until laws started to change in 1839. It wasn’t until 1981 that a married woman in the US had equal property rights with her husband.
21. I hope these examples show that the nature of marriage, and the eligibility of two people to marry, has changed over time and I think we would all agree for the better. Tradition should not trump equality.

Religious v Civil Marriage

22. Some people advocate that ideally the state should not decide who can or can’t marry. That marriage is primarily a religious institution, and that the state should merely register civil unions, and allow couples to get a “blessing of marriage” from a religion should they wish to.
23. I agree that this would be an ideal situation, respecting the origins of marriage as a religious ceremony. If an MP wishes to put up a bill abolishing marriage as a civil institution, then that would be good, and I would advocate for its passage,
24. However the reality is that marriage is a state institution in pretty much every country on Earth, and that it is unlikely to ever not be a state institution in New Zealand. While it remains a state institution, I believe it would be wrong to deny the institution of marriage to same sex couples.
25. PM John Key recently said that in politics you don’t start with a blank slate of paper, you start with the real world. In the real world marriage is a state institution, and rejecting same sex marriage on the basis that the state shouldn’t decide at all who can get married is turning a blind eye to the fact that the state does decide, and is likely to always do so.

Amendments

26. It is unclear to me whether this bill as currently worded would allow a married same sex couple to adopt under the Adoption Act 1955. I note a gay or lesbian individual can currently adopt, but not jointly with their partner.
27. The definition of adoptive parent in s2 of the Adoption Act refers to a husband and a wife. However in s3(2) it refers to “2 spouses jointly” being able to apply for an adoption order. I suspect a court would have to decide which clause takes precedence, which will mean uncertainty.
28. To remove uncertainty, I propose that this bill be amended with the addition of a clause stating that a married couple should be treated as eligible to jointly adopt under the Adoption Act. Arguably such a clause could be worded to apply to any other Act which refers to married couples, spouses or husbands and wives.
29. A benefit of having a specific clause amending the Adoption Act is it would allow MPs to vote explicitly on both the issue of same sex marriage and same sex (as a couple) adoption. I would advocate Parliament votes in favour of both.
30. Some people have expressed a concern that churches could be forced to marry same sex couples in contravention to their religious beliefs. I agree this is undesirable. I do not regard this as likely, and note neither does the Human Rights Commission. To remove doubt, I recommend an explicit clause be inserted to state no religious body, or minister of religion shall be required to perform a marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs, nor provide facilities for such a ceremony unless that facility is available to the general public.
31. Another concern is that it is an offence under s56 of the Marriage Act to allege that “any persons lawfully married are not truly and sufficiently married” and that this could capture someone saying that a same sex marriage is not in the eyes of their religion a “true” marriage. I recommend the select committee look at amending or repealing s56 to minimize this perceived risk. I note there has never been a prosecution (it appears) under s56, and other laws such as defamation may be sufficient to repeal it safely.

Thank you for considering this submission. I would like to make an oral submission in support, and look forward to appearing.

David Farrar

Oral Questions 2.00 pm -3.00 pm

Questions to ministers.

1. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What measures has the Government taken to support families through the global financial crisis?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on asset sales “It’s a minor delay, but in the overall scheme of things, sometimes the longest way home is the fastest way home”; if so, is he still confident that his asset sales schedule is on track?
3. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What is the Government doing to encourage businesses to invest, and grow jobs?
4. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development:Does she have confidence in Work and Income’s approach to privacy and the security of information?
5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “We’re not environmental bandits. If we don’t believe drilling can take place in a way that is environmentally sustainable and wouldn’t put at undue risk the environment, we wouldn’t go with it.”; if so, why?
6. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Associate Minister of Education: How many teachers and support staff were incorrectly paid in the latest pay cycle and what is the total amount of outstanding pay still owed to teachers and support staff due to errors in the Novopay system?
7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: When did he first learn of a German resident living in the Chrisco mansion in the Prime Minister’s electorate?
8. Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: What changes will the White Paper for Vulnerable Children make to better support professionals working with children?
9. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Education: Will any newly merged or reopened schools in Christchurch be expected to use some community facilities that are ordinarily provided on-site at a school?
10. CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Prime Minister: When will he be informed of the Inspector-General’s findings concerning the three cases where the Government Communications Security Bureau has been unable to assure him that its actions have been lawful, and how will he communicate those findings to the House?
11. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister for ACC: How will the Government improve accidental injury outcomes for under-six-year-olds?
12. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Has Hon John Banks satisfied the Cabinet Manual requirement of upholding the highest ethical standards in his political and personal capacity?

Today there are four questions to Ministers from National, five from Labour, two from the Greens and one from NZ First.

Labour are asking about asset sales, Work and Income information security, the teacher payroll system, the GCSB and John Banks. The Greens are asking about deep sea oil drilling ,the Christchurch schools restructuring and NZ First is asking about Kim Dotcom.

Patsy of the day goes to Dr Jian Yang for Q.11: How will the Government improve accidental injury outcomes for under-six-year-olds?

General Debate  Twelve five minute speeches

Government Bills 4.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Alcohol Reform Bill-Committee Stage (continued)

2.Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill (Third Reading)

3. Financial Markets Conduct Bill  (Second Reading)

The Alcohol Reform Bill seeks to implement the Government’s decisions on the reform of alcohol legislation; decisions made in response to the Law Commission’s 2010 report on alcohol. Specifically, it seeks to limit the sale of alcohol from grocery stores and creates an offence of being on licensed premises outside of licensed hours.

The Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill sets the annual income tax rates for the 2012/13 year, introduces amendments to the requirements for filing and storing of tax returns and amends other acts and regulations such as the KiwiSaver Act 2006.

The Financial Markets Conduct Bill was first introduced into the house last year under the former Minister of Commerce Simon Power, and is now being guided through the house by Craig Foss.  It seeks to reform the regulation of financial market conduct to promote confident and informed participation in New Zealand’s financial markets.

For the next seven days I’m on board the RV La Marguerite as we go up the massive Mekong Delta eventually crossing into Cambodia.

It’s a great wee boat, at 72 metres in length. It can take up to 90 people, but we have only 60 to 70 on board. The bedrooms are reasonably large (for a boat) at 21 square metres.

The 1st floor has the dining room, the second floor the lounge and the library and the top floor the pool and the gym. The wifi is in the lounge so I am there a fair bit – now 9.40 pm at night and only one still up! The free drinks (including spirits) on board helps!

They’ve done the pool area quite nicely with shades all around the pool, plus a bar on the pool level also – and yes they serve you in the pool – none of this nonsense about no glassware.

You can’t really do laps in the pool, but it;s still bloody relaxing. My routine each day is:

• NZ afternoon blogging 6 am – 7.30 am
• Breakfast 7.30 am – 8.30 am
• Morning tour 8.30 am – 11.30 am
• Read 11.30 am – 12.30 pm
• Lunch 12.30 pm – 1.30 pm
• Read 1.30 pm – 3.00 pm
• Afternoon tour 3.00 pm – 5.00 pm
• Swim and sun bathe 5 pm – 6.30 pm
• Briefing  6.30 pm – 7.00 pm
• Dinner 7.00 pm – 8.00 pm
• Morning blogging 8.00 pm – 10.00 pm

We passed under this bridge while I was in the swimming pool. It was a somewhat unusual sensation having people on a bridge waving at you as you have a drink in the pool.

One of the three boats we would go ashore in. Had to laugh that the Vietnamese captain assured us the lifejackets were not Made in China. Even in Vietnam, that signifies crappy and unreliable quality 🙂

I’m not a fan of cruises where you spend days and days at sea with nothing to do. But cruises where it is basically a floating hotel, and you’re in a new location every half-day or day is pretty good. And being a smaller boat makes a big difference too.