Had a very good night last night at the annual Saunders Unsworth function. It is normally at the Backbencher, but due to their fire was at the Boat Shed. I have to say I love the Boat Shed as a venue – great views on the harbourfront, but also lots of space so you can get around people easily.

The catering there was first class. Not sure who does their catering, but I so want them for any function I’d plan in future. Had far too many scallops!

What I like about the SUL function is you meet so many interesting people at them, plus see so many people you know. I think there were around 70 CEOs there. Amusingly the major topic most people wanted to talk about with me is how was it driving the BMWs on snow 🙂

As usual, there is an after-party also, and many of us ended up at Havana – a nifty wee venue hidden away.

Today would normally be a recovery day, but sadly I have to fly to Auckland, chair a meeting (by video-conference), chair a public meeting on .nz review, and then find a place to watch Parliament TV (prob on the Internet) for the conscience vote tonight.

On Thursday and Friday I’m at The Project revolution Social Media Conference organised by AUT and the US Embassy. Monday, I have a polling related meeting in Auckland so away from Wellington for almost a week. I really should sub-let my apartment for my absences 🙂

Stuff reports:

The reviled sex predator dubbed The Beast of Blenheim has walked free from prison this morning under the cover of darkness.

Stewart Murray Wilson, 65, walked into self care unit No 5 outside the wire of Whanganui Prison about 6am.

It is understood he has already been fitted with a new GPS monitoring system. Security guards with dogs are patrolling the perimeter.

The plan looks as good as one can do, in the circumstances. I just hope that he doesn’t actually get to harm anyone before he inevitably breaks his conditions.

The Dom Post reports:

Several years of belt tightening does not appear to have affected satisfaction with the public service. The State Services Commission has measured satisfaction with 42 frequently used public services and found it had improved since the last survey three years ago.

The survey results recorded the overall service quality score for public services rising from 69 points in 2009 to 72 this year.

State Services Minister Jonathan Coleman said the only service to show a big drop in satisfaction was in applying for or receiving a student loan or student allowance.

Ha, wonder what the score is for having to pay back the loan 🙂

But seriously, good to see an increase in public satisfaction.

New Zealand alpine tussocks in early morning sun with Mt Taranaki in background. Pouakai ridge Mt Egmont National Park. Photography by Todd Sisson

Hello all and welcome to this week’s edition of the Wednesday Wallpaper.

I’ve decided to mix it up again with another vertically oriented image for this week’s wallpaper – this will work nicely on an iPad and on a vertically mounted monitor array like this crazy gamer guy has rigged up….

Download the big version from this link:  [free iPad wallpaper] Password = freewallpaper

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd

p.s. more than happy to discuss how our images are made in the comments stream.

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

I’m running two guest posts by Young Nats this week. Tomorrow a guest post on the alcohol purchase age by Shaun Wallis, and today a guest post on marriage equality by Megan Hands.

Megan is the NZ Policy Chair for the Young Nationals. She studies at Lincoln University, is from a dairy farming background and “in her spare time you are likely to find Megan on the sideline of a rugby field, milking cows, or having a few quiet drinks at the local”.

Megan writes:

I was born and raised in rural New Zealand, in what some might describe as a typical or traditional nuclear family, with a mother, father and three younger siblings.

I was raised a Catholic, was educated at a catholic college, and I go to church.

I haven’t got any gay family members.

I like men.

I vote National.

If you believe in stereotypes, you may think I’d oppose marriage equality.

Fortunately stereotypes are just made up expectations of who people are, or what they think.

Let me make this clear: I totally, completely and unreservedly support marriage equality.

I support marriage equality as a proud rural New Zealander

I am extremely proud of my warm upbringing as a rural New Zealander. I now work in a job that services the rural sector; and one day, I’d like to raise my children in rural New Zealand.  I try not to make generalisations, but generally speaking rural people have tended to be quite conservative (on the outside at least).

Before I went to high school in the city, I don’t think I’d ever even come across the concept of people being in same sex relationships and I had certainly never met anyone who was openly gay.  Probably the only thing that I am not so proud of rural New Zealand for is that there is certainly still an heir of traditionalism in some areas. Sometimes traditionalism is great, but when it preserves negative or harmful attitudes I tend to give it the two-finger salute.

I often put lack of tolerance down to a lack of understanding and exposure to diversity. Having lived in several different provinces I have observed that those closer to larger cities tend to be more tolerant and accepting. I also believe that the values of rural communities across New Zealand are consistent with values held by those of us who support marriage equality. Values of community togetherness, strong caring families, love, commitment and equality.

Last week my parents celebrated their 27^th wedding anniversary. Their wedding anniversary is five days after my birthday, so every year I am reminded of what a great family I have and the fantastic example my parents have set. The success of my parents marriage strongly influences my perspective on what makes a good marriage. I want this opportunity for absolute commitment and mutual affection for both same and opposite sex Kiwi couples.

Marriage is about life-long love and commitment. It is the foundation of a family and about bringing two families together. It is not something that should be entered into lightly. It is the pinnacle of recognising your relationship in a way that is intimate yet deliberately public.

Nothing about life-long commitment, love, the joining or two families is exclusively heterosexual. Under the current law, because I am heterosexual I can choose to either recognise my relationship in law under the civil union legislation, or I can choose to get married. Friends in same sex relationships cannot choose to enter into a marriage in the same way that I can simply because they are gay.

This is wrong. Why would anyone wish to deny couples the joy of standing in front of their friends and family and professing their love for one another; undertaking to an union of shared aspirations and shared promise to experience the joys and burdens of life.

I support marriage equality as a National Party member

A lot of people have asked me why I am so passionately in support of marriage equality if I am straight. My answer is simple. I walked into the local National Party office in 2007 to join up because I believe in the principles of equal citizenship and equal opportunity. Sometimes these principles are merged in the phrase ‘one law for all’. ‘One law for all’ does not have exceptions – it’s not ‘one law for all’ except for this minority, or this other minority; it’s ‘one law for all’ – no ifs, no buts, no apologies. I don’t, or never will, reside from standing up for every Kiwi to be given the equal opportunity to succeed, commit and enjoy life in our great country.

 

But you’re Catholic you say?

The Catholic faith teaches us to love thy neighbour as yourself or do unto others as you would have them do unto you; to be tolerant and accepting; and that God will be the judge of our actions rather than our fellow men on earth.

The second argument is that I believe that we should always legislate for a secular society. The moment we legislate to be consistent with the teachings of a particular faith we erode freedom of religion. To be very clear, the Marriage Equality (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill does not compel churches to permit same sex marriages if they choose not to. In the same way, if churches wish to marry same sex couples they will be free to do so. This Bill gives all churches freedom of choice to determine whether they choose to permit same-sex marriages in accordance with the views of their congregation. I stand up for equal opportunity for all religious institutions.

Conclusion:

Every Kiwi deserves the right to marry the person they love. Marriage is a union between two individuals seeking to build a loving household and economic partnership. It is a union of shared aspirations and shared promise to experience the joys and burdens of life. Society is stronger when two individuals make vows to commit and support each other. By allowing more New Zealand couples to have access to the institution of marriage, we can strengthen marriage as an institution. More committed couples seeking to undertake vows of obligation to one another will only enhance the standing of marriage in the community. I support marriage equality because I am Catholic. I support marriage equality because I’m a rural girl. I support marriage equality because I am a Kiwi.

Thanks to Megan for the post. Comments are welcome of course, but please focus on the issue and arguments, not on anything else.

Incidentally I’m generally happy to run guest posts from people – even on issues where I disagree with them. This particular issue will be on the backburner for a few months, but happy to have posts from both sides once the bill is reported back from select committee (assuming it passes first reading tonight).

Stuff reports:

The OECD ranks New Zealand as among the most restrictive foreign investment regimes in the developed world – which dispels the popular view we are easy pickings for investors, says think-tank the New Zealand Initiative.

An NZI report analyses the Organisation for Economic Development’s Foreign Direct Investment regulatory restrictiveness index published in April. This shows New Zealand has the sixth most restrictive foreign investment regime of 55 developed economies.

NZI research fellow Luke Malpass said the view that New Zealand was really open for anyone to come and invest was not true.

The index measures statutory restrictions on a country’s FDI, including screening and prior approvals, key personnel and equity and operational restrictions. Most of New Zealand’s negative rating comes from its screening of investment applications, he said.

“New Zealand relies more than any other OECD country on ministries and ministers second-guessing investment intentions and possible outcomes on the most contrived criteria.”

Of the 55 countries measured, 35 didn’t have screening restrictions.

Investment in New Zealand is a good thing. It often creates jobs, and also frees up NZ capital for investment overseas. We don’t and can’t live in a silo.

Malpass said though New Zealand’s foreign investment regime restricted investment only in “sensitive land”, this category is absurdly broad. It includes any rural land of more than 5 hectares and anything larger than 0.4ha near inland water.

5 hectares is just 0.05 of a square kilometre. 0.4 hectares is a tony 0.004 of a square kilometre. Far too small.

Audrey Young at NZ Herald reports:

 Former National Party leader and New Zealand’s ambassador to the United Nations Jim McLay today revealed more details around Plan B to deal with the economic caused by Sir Robert Muldoon in 1984.

It involved the cabinet deposing him.

It also involved the getting Governor General Sir David Beattie to appoint himself, Mr McLay, as a temporary Prime Minister in order to carry out the requests of the incoming Labour Government.

Straight after the snap election in 1984, but before the Labour Government could be sworn in, Reserve Bank and Treasury officials advised Sir Robert to immediately devalue the New Zealand dollar to address the pressure on the currency that had been building.

Their advice had the support of Labour leader and incoming Prime Minister David Lange.

Sir Robert refused, much to the astonishment of Mr McLay, who was his Deputy and outgoing Attorney General.

It was an astonishing stand off, and the closest we have come to a constitutional crisis. It was also a very undignified end to Muldoon’s tenure. It was as if he could not accept he had lost.

I only found this video because Piers Morgan from CNN tweeted it. Very moving. The Defence Force explain at You Tube:

Haka is used throughout New Zealand by many, not only Māori, to demonstrate their collective thoughts. There is a haka for each of the Services, as well as the Defence Force. Units with the NZ Army have their own haka. This video shows the soldiers of 2/1 RNZIR Battalion performing their Unit haka, powerfully acknowledging the lives and feats of their fallen comrades as they come onto the Unit’s parade ground. It is also an emotive farewell for they will leave via the waharoa (the carved entrance way) for the very last time.

Haka –sometimes termed a posture dance could also be described as a chant with actions. There are various forms of haka; some with weapons some without, some have set actions others may be ‘free style.’ Haka is used by Māori (indigenous people of New Zealand) for a myriad of reasons; to challenge or express defiance or contempt, to demonstrate approval or appreciation, to encourage or to discourage, to acknowledge feats and achievements, to welcome, to farewell, as an expression of pride, happiness or sorrow. There is almost no inappropriate occasion for haka; it is an outward display of inner thoughts and emotions. Within the context of an occasion it is abundantly clear which emotion is being expressed.

They will not be forgotten.

Paula Bennett has announced:

Beneficiaries with work expectations will face sanctions if they refuse to apply for drug-tested jobs, says Social Development Minister Paula Bennett. 

“Welfare reforms are resetting expectations and obligations and recreational drug use is simply not an acceptable excuse for avoiding available work.”

Under the current welfare system an unemployment beneficiary can decline to apply for an available drug-tested job, because they won’t pass the test, without consequence.

This seem reasonable and over-due. It is not random drug testing of all beneficiaries. It is merely saying you can’t refuse to apply for a job which requires drug testing.

“People will be given a warning and reasonable period of time to stop using drugs before having to take another drug test. But further failures will result in benefit reduction and possible cancellation,” says Mrs Bennett.

Where people fail a drug test or refuse to apply for a drug tested job, they must agree to stop using drugs or their benefit will be cut by 50 percent. They will be given 30 days to allow any drugs they have taken to leave their system.

Where they fail a test or refuse a second time, they will have their benefit suspended until they agree that they will provide a ‘clean’ drug test within 30 days. If they do not do this their benefit will be cancelled.

People with addiction will be supported to get help with their dependency while those on some prescribed medications will be exempt.

Some will argue against this, but I ask what their alternate policy is? That someone can remain indefinitely on the benefit refusing to apply for jobs that they could do if they were drug free?

NZ Herald reports:

An expert advisory group created by the Children’s Commissioner recommends that all low-decile schools offer pupils free food in an immediate effort to tackle child poverty.

Call me old fashioned, but I always thought it was the responsibility of parents to supply breakfast, not schools.

The programme would be like the Food for Kids scheme run in 223 low-decile schools in a partnership between children’s charity KidsCan and the Government.

Under that programme children get three free food items a day from a list including toast, baked beans and fruit. The Ministry of Social Development pays for 11 per cent and the rest comes from public donations.

Having said the above, if the taxpayer is only paying 11% that existing programme seems pretty good.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner confirmed providing free food in all low-decile schools was among the group’s recommendations, but would not say if it would be an extension of the KidsCan partnership.

If extended to New Zealand’s 861 decile 1 to 4 primary and intermediate schools, the KidsCan scheme would cost $3.3 million a year, based on existing costs outlined in its submission on the Government’s Green Paper on Vulnerable Children.

But can it be extended for the same cost? I have doubts. Then down the track you have half the kids in NZ receiving food from the Government, instead of their families.

Bryan Bruce, whose documentary Inside Child Poverty looked at the extent of the problem in New Zealand in the run-up to last year’s general election, said every child should receive one healthy meal a day.

I agree. And that is why we have welfare benefits, child tax credits, working for families, in-work tax credits and the like. So families can afford to pay for food for their kids. To then have the Government cut the families out of the equation, and start feeding their kids directly is a fairly dramatic step.

In previous posts I’ve touched on what I regard as the principled case for allowing same sex couples to marry. In this final post from me before the first reading, I want to touch on the political side of the issue – and how it might impact MPs, especially National MPs whom have the most undecided MP.

1 – Most New Zealanders support marriage equality

Several polls have found New Zealanders support allowing same sex couples to marry by around a 2:1 majority. Amongst those under 35 it is over 4:1 in favour and 3:1 in favour amongst under 55s.

The following demographics all show majority support for same sex marriage – under 55s, men, women, all household income levels, Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Provincial cities, Rural areas.

2 – Most National supporters support marriage equality

The polls show the higher the household income, the more likely it is the voter supports same sex marriage. It is well known that National receives more support from higher income households.

Also the National Party Annual Conference in 2012 (not exactly a bastion of socialism) voted by 2:1 on the main floor to support allowing same sex couples to adopt, a related issue.

3 – Swinging voters most strongly support marriage equality

Historically female voters make up a higher proportion of undecided or swinging voters, as do younger voters who are yet to develop a voting preference. The poll data suggests that around 80% of women aged under 55 support allowing same sex marriage.

4 – A law change is inevitable

With 70% support from those aged under 55, a law change is absolutely inevitable – even if it doesn’t happen in 2012. Around the world, 11 countries have already voted to allow same sex marriage, as have six states in the US.

Unless you can think of some reason that younger voters will change their mind in the next few years the trend is clear.

This graph from 538, is from the US, and shows the huge change in public opinion over 20 years. That trend is not going to reverse.

5 – Do you want to be on the wrong side of history?

Personally I fully understand why some MPs struggle with what they see as redefining marriage. I’ll never judge an MP for voting in line with their honest beliefs – even if I disagree with them on an issue.

But future voters may not be so generous. In 15 years time, new voters especially will struggle to understand how their local MP voted against allowing their friends who are happily married, to get married. It may be a bit like an MP in 1908 explaining to female voters why they were against them having a vote in 1893!

6 – People vote on what actually affects them

Yes there are some people who write angry e-mails to you swearing they will not vote for you if you vote for same sex marriage. However we know that actually people tend to vote on what impacts them. Once this debate is over, no voter will actually be impacted by the fact there will be a few more couples married than was previously the case, They get impacted by jobs, wages, health care, education etc etc.

On the other side of the coin though, those who are not currently able to marry their loved ones do get impacted by a vote denying them that choice. It is personal to them, and it does affect them. It may not impact their party vote, but will impact their electorate vote. And they have friends, and colleagues.

Also the reality is that your primary opponent for the seat is highly likely to also support same sex marriage. They won’t be winning votes off you on this issue.

Now I don’t think MPs should vote for same sex marriage just because it is popular. Some MPs will vote for it because they deeply think it is the right thing to do, and some will vote against as they deeply think it is the wrong thing to do – and I respect that.

But some MPs are undecided – they see both pros and cons, and they do not feel as strongly on this issue as they do say on improving education. And for them, they do look at the political impact of an issue also.

I actually think the bill will pass. The media have reported they think it has the numbers for first reading. So my concern is not getting the bill over the line – it is that an MP doesn’t vote against the bill today, and regret that vote in years to come. I know a number of former MPs who deeply regret their votes against civil unions and before that against homosexual law reform.

As I said this is the last post from me on this issue before the (hopefully) first reading tomorrow night. However there will be a guest post tomorrow morning on it. Also for those who support a law change, there is a rally at Parliament at 1 pm tomorrow.

NZ Herald reports:

The persistent use of cannabis before age 18 has been linked to lasting harm to intelligence, according to a large study.

Analysis of more than 1000 New Zealanders found those who took up cannabis in adolescence and used it for years afterwards experienced an average decline in IQ of eight points when measured at age 13 and 38.

This backs up my observations over the years about “stoners”. I recall the local president of NORML at Otago Uni would regularly get up at SRCs and say something along the lines of “I’ve been smoking cannabis for years and years and it has never done me any harm”.

However it would take him around 30 seconds to get those 16 words out in his slow slurred speech, and it was unintentionally hilarious. I suggested he should be sent on an educational tour of schools – he’d probably scare most kids off ever trying it!

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

 Prime Minister John Key is not ruling out stripping Chinese fugitive Yong Ming Yan of New Zealand citizenship.

The Office of the Auditor-General is investigating why former Labour minister Shane Jones gave Mr Yan a New Zealand passport in 2008.

Mr Yan, a wealthy political donor – also known as Bill Liu – was red-flagged by Interpol as a fugitive.

He was wanted for fraud and identity theft in China and Internal Affairs officials advised Mr Jones that his application should be declined.

Mr Jones, who was stood down from his shadow portfolios in May, says he gave Mr Yan a passport on humanitarian grounds, and that he had been told Mr Yan would be arrested, executed and his organs harvested if he were sent back to China.

Yesterday, Mr Key said Mr Jones has some “big questions to answer”. It was difficult to comment until Auditor-General Lyn Provost had finished her investigation, he said.

However, citizenship could be revoked if “[a minister is] satisfied that they obtained the citizenship by fraud, false representation or wilful concealment of relevant information or by mistake”.

I don’t think the Minister should strip Yan or Liu of his citizenship.

It would be much more fun to make it a vote in Parliament, and watch the horror on Labour MPs faces as they realise they have to vote on whether or not Liu should be a citizen 🙂

1 – A split age will encourage more supply to minors

One of the most important changes proposed in the Alcohol Reform Act is to make it an offence to supply alcohol to minors without parental permission. I support this new law, as a major flaw in the current law is that (for example) it is currently legal for any adult to supply beer, wine or even spirits to a 14 year old.

I believe we need both a law change and a culture change where it is illegal and “uncool” to supply alcohol without parental permission to those not able to legally purchase it for themselves – just as over the past few decades it has become “uncool” to drink and drive.

But increasing the purchase age to 20 for off licenses, will work against achieving a culture of not supplying alcohol to those who can not purchase alcohol for themselves. 18 and 19 year olds are legally not minors and hence the new law making it an offence to supply alcohol to minors without parental consent will not apply to them. What this means is that it will be legal for a 20 year old to supply alcohol to a 19 year old (who can not legally purchase it), but illegal to supply it to an 17 year old. This will be confusing and work against achieving a culture where no one supplies alcohol to those unable to purchase it for themselves, without parental consent.

The only way to achieve a culture of non-supply is to have the purchase age the same as the age at which a minor becomes an adult – which is 18. That will be consistent and maximise the chance of the new non-supply law being respected. A purchase age of 20 will encourage a culture of supplying to those under the purchase age. This works directly against the other reforms in the Alcohol Reform Bill to prevent supply to minors.

2 – Fewer youth are drinking now than when the purchase age was 20

ALAC’s annual alcohol monitor survey shows that in 1997 80% of 14 to 18 year olds were drinkers. The latest 2010 survey shows only 32% of 12 to 17 year olds are drinkers. This is a massive drop.

The age ranges have not been entirely consistent over the years, but a breakdown of the 2010 research shows that only 53% of 15 to 17 year olds are drinkers – still a massive reduction from 80% in 1997.

The prevalence of youth drinking is dropping, not increasing. In 2006 ALAC research found 53% of 12 to 17 year olds were drinkers, and amongst the same age group it is 32% in 2010. That is a relative 40% drop in the youth drinking prevalence rate since 2006.

Many people have said that the drop in the purchase age in 1999 has led to more under 18 year olds drinking. This is clearly false on the ALAC research, and in fact the opposite has happened.

Also the age at which young people start drinking has been increasing. In 2006, 35% of young drinkers started before they turned 14. In 2010, it was just 21%.

The ALAC research is not the only survey. Auckland University’s Adolescent Health Research Group did a survey of around 10,000 secondary school students in 2000 and again in 2007.  Their reports are here. The prevalance of secondary school students who have drunk alcohol in 2000 and 2007 they found to drop from 70% to 61%.  Two highly reputable independent pieces of research have both found that fewer young New Zealanders are drinking than in the past.

3 – Most alcohol is supplied by parents or family members

60% of youth moderate and binge drinkers say their last drink was at home, or a relative’s home. Only 27% say they were at a friend’s house. Scapegoating 18 and 19 year olds for allegedly being the source of alcohol to under age drinkers, is not bourne out by the facts.

The Auckland University survey found only 20% of secondary school students had alcohol supplied by an adult  who is not their parents – a drop from 25% in 2000. Blaming adult 18 and 19 year olds on school age students drinking is unfair and untrue.

4 – A split 18/20 age will increase risks for young women

The proposed split age of 18 for off-licenses and 20 for on-licenses (while preferred to a 20/20 age) will push 18 and 19 year olds who wish to have a drink to go into town, rather than have a drink at home. Far more violence and crime occurs in town, than at people’s homes. 18 and 19 year old women especially will be at risk of greater sexual assaults, if they are prevented from being able to legally purchase alcohol to drink in the safety of their own home.

5 – 18 is the age of majority

18 and 19 year old men and women are required to register on the electoral roll, and can stand for election to Parliament or local authorities.

The MP for Botany, Jami-Lee Ross, was elected to the Manukau City Council at the age of 18. He did a sufficiently good job to be re-elected in 2007, and then elected to the new Auckland Council in 2010, and to the House of Representatives in 2011.

It seems absurd that a young adult such as Jami-Lee could serve on the Manukau City Council, actually help determine and vote on local alcohol policies for the city, yet be legislatively banned from being able to buy a bottle of wine at a supermarket on the way home from a Council meeting.

Can an MP justify voting in favour on Wednesday in favour of 16 year old gay and lesbian couples being able to get married at 16, yet vote on Thursday against them being able to purchase alcohol until they are 20?

6 – Increasing the purchase age will encourage disrespect for the law

It is naïve to think that 18 and 19 year olds who are working or studying will not purchase or acquire alcohol. Of course they will. In fact it will be legal for others to acquire it for them, which will make the law somewhat farcical. Under the split age proposal, it will be illegal to sell alcohol to an 18 or 19 year old, but legal to supply it to them for free!

Laws which are widely broken or worked around, lower overall respect for the law. The United States has a higher purchase age than New Zealand, and this law is so widely broken that even Jenna and Barbara Bush broke the law – despite their father being President of the United States.

7 – There is no evidence that a split age will work

Even the groups that support increasing the purchase age to 20 say that there is no evidence that a split age will work in reducing alcohol related harm. It will simply send a confusing mixed message about whether or not 18 and 19 year olds can purchase alcohol.

No other country in the world has a split purchase age, It is an untested experiment, with no scientific basis to it. It sends out a contradictory message on the appropriate age to purchase alcohol.

8 – A split age will discriminate against rural areas

Banning 18 and 19 year olds from being able to purchase alcohol in off-licenses will have a greater impact on those in rural areas. On-licenses are common in urban areas, but many of those who live in rural areas do not have a nearby on-license. Hence this means that an effective different purchase age will apply in urban and rural New Zealand.

9 – It’s about the culture

An increase in the purchase age does nothing to address the real issue of the New Zealand drinking culture. You can’t get a change in the culture by making it illegal for a 19 year old to buy a bottle of wine. The culture change comes about by engaging with drinkers, and making unsafe drinking behaviour unattractive.

Professor Doug Sellman was quoted in this week’s Sunday Star-Times as saying “The fact is that less than 10 per cent of the 700,000 heavy drinkers in New Zealand are under 20”.  Alcohol issues in New Zealand need a culture change across the board. Scapegoating 18 and 19 year olds for the problems caused by heavy drinkers is unfair – especially as fewer than 10% of the heavy drinkers are youth.

10 – Drink Driving

Youth drink driving has been dropping massively in the last few years. It dropped by just over 50% from 2007 to 2011 amongst under 17 year olds, and in the last year dropped 52% amongst all teenagers.

The split age proposal may encourage more drink driving amongst teenagers. 18 and 19 year olds will not be able to purchase alcohol to drink at home. They will only be able to purchase alcohol by going into an on-license. This is highly likely to lead to more teenagers then driving home after they have been drinking – especially in more rural areas.

Please do the right thing and vote to keep the purchase age at 18.

Rodney is on fire at the moment. His NBR column on the Meatworker Union accounts is excellent:

 I was recently told about some serious spending by the New Zealand Meat Workers Union that surprised me. It was so surprising that I thought I should check it out. No problem. I would just look up their audited accounts that the Registrar of Incorporated Societies would hold. That way I could determine if the story I was told was true. I was shocked to learn the accounts aren’t there. The meatworkers have four branches and for the past seven years have only been disclosing the capitation fees paid by the four branches to the national body. For the year ended September 2010 the disclosed income was $712,370. The total income to the union is several million dollars a year. That’s a failure over the years to disclose tens of millions of dollars

Whale has blogged extensively on this in the past. The union thinks it can hide the income and expenditure of its branches by pretending they are not part of the incorporated society. But this is clearly wrong. The law states a union must be an incorporated society.

The law is clear. To be a union, an organisation must be incorporated. And incorporated societies must file annual financial statements that members of the public can inspect. The advantage of incorporation is that it gives a legal personality separate from the society’s members. In return, members of the public can inspect the society’s accounts. But I can’t for the Meat Workers Union. Neither can you. And that’s been the case for seven years.

Sadly, the authorities are not exactly holding the union to account

Parliament has provided the registrar with the power to require records. So I wrote to the registrar pointing out the meatworkers’ failure. I suggested he use his power to get the branch records for the last seven years and make them publicly available. That was back in May. The registrar is Neville Harris, deputy secretary of the Ministry of Economic Development, which is part of a new super ministry. He advised me that he had been aware of the meatworkers’ failure to disclose their accounts since November 2011.  My information was not news to him. He explained he had been in contact with the union and was following up with the objective of having it file a “revised financial statement” that includes information relating to the activities of its branches. I have had no explanation why he doesn’t just demand the branch records and why he is speaking of just one financial statement singular when there are several years missing. It’s a complete mystery to me why the registrar just doesn’t demand the branch records and made them publicly available. After all, that’s the law’s requirement of unions and incorporated societies. Mr Harris and I now have had quite a correspondence. I can report that I am no further ahead than when I started. This month he advised me that he has decided the way forward is to obtain an opinion from an external accounting expert and to endeavour to resolve this matter on the basis of that advice. I have no idea why the registrar is seeking that advice. The problem is not an accounting one. It’s a legal one. The simple requirement is that the Meat Workers Union and its branches are required to disclose to the public their income and their expenditure and they aren’t. The person in charge of making sure they do is Mr Harris. Parliament has granted him the power to ensure they do. He is refusing to use that power. Instead, he’s working with the union to get them to file and is seeking accounting advice. Heaven only knows why.

I agree it is simple. The Registrar states you have until x date to file corrected accounts and a failure to do so will result in deregistration. Companies get automatically degregistered for late annual returns, so why does a union get away with seven years of inadequate returns?

Rodney Hide has written in the Herald on Sunday on why he supports euthanasia, and the so sad case of Martin Hames who had to kill himself because we did not allow euthanasia. Rodney has told the story before, but not to quite the same detail. I can’t abridge it, so quote it in full:

I doubt my friend Martin Hames ever needed a decent pair of pyjamas. But 10 years ago, he went and bought himself a brand new pair.

Martin lived alone. He didn’t own a TV. He didn’t have a car. He was the shyest man I have ever met. I never knew him to have a girlfriend.

Martin worked with me in Parliament. He used to call me Boss even though I wasn’t. It was his way of getting me to do things. He would say, “Focus on the big picture, Boss. Get stuck into government expenditure/apartheid/the-failing-school system.” I almost always followed Martin’s advice.

He had worked for the Reserve Bank then with Ruth Richardson when she was Minister of Finance. He wrote the brilliant book Winston First. That was about you-know-who. He wrote numerous policy papers and penned many speeches. He wrote a marvellous book titled The Crisis In New Zealand Schools.

Martin was wickedly funny and socially awkward. He didn’t so much walk as jerk along. His arms often waved about uncontrollably.

I still laugh when I remember him throwing a cup of coffee over his shoulder.

That was when our gorgeous press secretary told him he could slip sugar into her hot drink anytime he liked.

Martin’s mother had died of Huntington’s disease. Her truly dreadful death took years. In the final stages of Huntington’s the mind loses its ability to control even the simplest movements – even swallowing is difficult and many sufferers die choking.

So, at 19 years old, Martin learned he had a 50 per cent chance of suffering the disease. He decided not to marry. Or have children. The risk was too great. And in his 40th year he got the fateful diagnosis.

We knew what he was planning. But the law forbade us helping or even knowing.

He put his affairs in order. On his own, one night at home, alone, he pinned a note to his new pyjama top: “Huntington’s disease: Please Do Not Resuscitate”. He attempted a massive overdose. But poor Martin. He didn’t get all the pills down.

His neighbour found him. Martin regained consciousness in Wellington Hospital. The circulation had stopped to his legs and the doctors wanted to amputate.

Martin asked what would happen if they didn’t cut his legs off. “You will die”.

“Good,” replied Martin, “I have Huntington’s disease.”

The doctors and nurses understood, wheeled him into intensive care. They gave him pain relief, looked after him. They were truly marvellous.

I dreaded going to see him. I needn’t have. “I am having a great death, Boss. I am getting to say goodbye to my friends.”

His characteristic shyness was gone. Why bother? It was his last day on this Earth.

Ruth Richardson shed a tear. “See,” said Martin, “I always knew you were a big softie.”

The young press sec kissed Martin and said, “See you round.” Martin replied: “Maybe – it’s taking me longer to die than they thought.”

Martin Hames died peacefully in his sleep in the early hours of the next morning. His dad was there. He died happy and he died content.

Martin had every right to take his own life. He also had every right to ask for help. But to give that help is against the law.

Martin feared he would slip into madness or lose control before he killed himself and be sentenced to years of suffering that would be hateful to him.

Maryan Street’s End of Life Choice Bill, now before Parliament, would have enabled Martin to plan his death better. He would not have needed to rush to it.

He and I joked one last time. Then he was serious. He said if I wanted to do something in his memory it would be to change our law so no one else had to go through what he had had to go through. He said, “Boss, change it, change it for all the others.”

I told him I would do my very best.

This column’s not as good as you could write, Martin. But it’s my best. And it’s for you.

Up until reading this account some years ago, I had been slightly anti-euthanasia. Coming from a medical family I did not like the idea of doctors ever having a role in ending life rather than preserving it. But I realised how selfish that preference was, when I read the awful choice the current law forced on people like Martin. No one should ever have been forced into having to make the choice he did.

Simon Collins at NZ Herald reports:

A world-first “e-learning” project which is transforming children’s lives in some of Auckland’s poorest suburbs is looking for partners to expand throughout the country next year.

Children as young as 5 in nine schools in the Tamaki-Glen Innes area are publishing their work on the internet and attracting feedback from around the world – with extraordinary effects on their motivation.

“It’s so affirming,” says project manager Dorothy Burt.

Two-thirds of the students are from Pasifika families where often the main language at home is not English. Another quarter are Maori.

They start school two years behind the national average but at Pt England School, the first to use the new technology, they now catch up with the average in reading and maths by Year 5.

That’s excellent.

The trust has been given $1.2 million from the ASB Community Trust to develop the infrastructure to replicate the project, and aims to have “kit” ready for other areas by the end of this year.

The package is not just about hardware. Mrs Burt and her husband, Pt England principal Russell Burt, stress that the starting point is a completely different style of learning.

Instead of learning passively by listening to a teacher speaking to the whole class, children in the nine Tamaki schools are active participants in a process called “learn, create, share”.

“We learn from the internet using online programs such as Maths-Whizz,” said Kaycee Hotu, a 10-year-old at Pt England School.

“We each have a Google account to create documents. We share these with our teacher via the teacher dashboard.”

This is so important – it is not the technology – it is how it is used.

The teacher “dashboard”, developed by local software start-up firm Hapara, allows the teachers to monitor all work from their own computers. All students in the cluster from Year 5 upwards have their own personal “netbook” computers – the cheapest possible device that is capable of online access at a cost parents can afford.

Trialling various payment systems has found that in Tamaki, where the average income is just $19,000 a year, the affordable cost is $3.50 a week for four years. At that price, every family has taken up the offer and about 85 per cent pay on time every week.

A wireless network is being built by Fusion Networks to give home internet access to all 2500 pupils living between West Tamaki Rd and the Panmure bridge by the end of this year, provided that a sponsor can be finalised.

Wow that is impressive.

SELF-MOTIVATION

Learn
A teacher assigned Year 8 students to watch Mt Roskill Grammar student Joshua Iosefo’s inspirational speech “Brown Brother” on YouTube.

Create
Students wrote reviews of the speech, which were checked by their teacher.

Share
They published their reviews on their online blogs. Joshua’s mother, Fetaui Iosefo, came across them and posted a comment saying “how very proud I am of you all for showing great understanding of Joshua Iosefo’s ‘spoken word’.”

The video referenced above is also pretty inspiring. I’ve embedded it below.

The Herald reports:

More than half the drivers taken to hospital after causing a crash were found to have drugs in their system, a study has found.

The Ministry of Transport study used blood samples taken from 453 drivers who caused crashes.

Drugs were detected in the systems of 258 drivers, analysis by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) found.

Of that group, 156 were found to be on drugs not administered by a medical professional

Ninety people sent to hospital had both cannabis and alcohol in their system.

Yesterday, the Automobile Association renewed its calls for random roadside saliva tests to be used to target drug drivers.

I support this.

The data above indicates a much much higher presence of drugs in drivers who have crashed than in the normal population. Now there are issues around drug testing, as the presence doesn’t mean a current impairment (unlike alcohol). But I have long thought that drugged driving is as big an issue as drunk driving – and we need to reduce the prevalence of both to make our roads safer.

The Dom Post reports:

A fundraising comedy event featuring a new Flight of the Conchords single has raised more than $1.3 million for medical research for children.

The Red Nose Day: Comedy for Cure Kids on Friday raised $1.3 million and exceeding Cure Kids’  expectations.

The Conchords wrote the song Feel Inside (and Stuff Like That)  especially for the event and it was sung by a cast of singing stars.

The song and album went to No.1 on iTunes within 90 minutes. …

The event at Auckland’s Q Theatre was hosted by 7 Days’ stars  Jeremy Corbett and Paul Ego and featured celebrities, politicians and sports stars including the All Blacks.

The Conchords’ single is available on iTunes, with proceeds going to Cure Kids.

The video below is very cool. It shows the conchords talking to kids at Clyde Quay School (where me niece Sabine goes) and then using their words in the songs. One of the classic responses is when a five year old is asked where money comes from and he says banks get it from the Prime Minister. Then asked where the PM gets it from, he says he gets it from the Queen. Then asked where she gets it from, he said “the banks”. Heh the five year old just summed up our financial system 🙂

The video above shows the background to the song in traditional conchords fashion, and then teh song itself. A great song for a great cause.

This may surprise some, but I actually have a great degree of respect for people of faith and religions.

I believe that Christianity has overall been a force for good in society. I also believe the same of many (not all) other religions such as Buddhism.

While my personal level of faith is not strong, my preference if I get married would be to do it in the Anglician Church I was baptised into. Also if I had children, my preference would be to baptise them, and have them attend church until they are at an age where they can decide for themselves if they wish to continue. Those preferences are not strong ones, and any future Mrs Farrar would decide if they felt strongly for or against.

I respect that marriage has been a religious ceremony for over 2,000 years, albeit not exclusively. In ancient Rome it was very much a legal and religious obligation. In recent times many people marrying have not been religious at all.

Out of respect for various religions, my ideal situation would be to have the state not involved in defining who can or can not marry. I would have the state register partnerships between people for legal recognition, and reserve the term marriage for religions. This means someone could register a partnership with the state, and then if they wanted to they could also have it recognized as a marriage by (for example) the Catholic Church.

Churches could decide amongst themselves whether or not they recognise each other’s marriages. Hopefully none of them would recognise a Scientology marriage 🙂

This viewpoint is quite common with classical liberals, and I know a few MPs who have a pretty similar view.

However as John Key said recently, when you come into politics you don’t start with a blank slate of paper. You start with New Zealand the way it is today.

The reality is that marriage has also been a state institution for hundreds of years. Marriage is recognised by international agreements in pretty much every country on earth. If an MP wants to put up a “Repeal of Marriage Act”, vesting the title in religions – I’d support that. I don’t think it would get many votes though, and would clash with international agreements.

Hence we are left with the fact that for the foreseeable future, marriage is going to remain a state institution, and the question is should the state deny that institution to same sex couples. Saying you won’t vote for same sex marriage, because you think the state shouldn’t decide who can get married is, with respect, a bit of a cop out. The state does decide, and that is never likely to change.

The Marriage Act already explicitly states (s29) that “a marriage licence shall authorise but not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnise the marriage to which it relates“. No church or celebrant can be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that they don’t want to, such as a same sex marriage – a view confirmed by the Human Rights Commission. This means that religions keep their autonomy over recognizing marriage, but that the state (if the bill passes) does not itself block same sex couples from marrying. It is the best and fairest position for those who think the state should not be involved in marriage.

Guyon Espiner and 60 minutes did a 20 minute programme last night on the Bill Liu case. Espiner blogs on it today:

It’s not often that you put an item of nearly 20 minutes to air and still feel that there was plenty more of the story still to tell. 

60 Minutes Producer Chris Wilks and I spent a month digging deep into the story of Citizen Yan and had access to documents giving us an enormous amount of detail. 

But we still feel there is plenty we don’t know. 

In fact all the things which, for most people are very simple, in Yan’s case, are opaque. 

Like what’s his name? Yong Ming Yan, Yang Liu, Bill Liu, Wiremu Liu and William Yan are among his monikers. The search warrant for his Metropolis apartment also seeks documents in the name of Yong Ming Run. 

What about another simple question. Where does he live? That’s easy. He lives on the 35th floor of the MetropolisTower, known as Room 3505. He bought units 35H-L inclusive – property titles 138A/534, 138A/319, 138A/320, 138A/321 and 138A/322 – and combined them into one residence. 

He still lives there but he sold them in 2010 to Khai Wain Ng. The curious thing about that is that Khai Wain Ng had listed Room 3505 of the Metropolis as the address for his company, Global Market International Limited, as early as 2007. 

So is Liu also Ng? And still to this day we have no idea who Liu really is.

Curiously Liu’s early submissions claim that he was the Vice President of the Chinese Democracy Party. His lawyers argued that the Chinese government may want to persecute him for that and for information about the party’s 30,000 secret members. 

We tried to check with the CDP in New York but they would not confirm, or deny, whether he had held that position. Certainly their website names other Vice Presidents but no one going by the names Yan has used. 

In the paperwork, officials point out that if Yan felt he was the subject of political persecution there were appropriate avenues for him to take. 

“These claims, which effectively amount to an allegation of political persecution, could be advanced by Mr Liu before specialist forums namely the Refugee Status Branch and the Refugee Status Appeals Authority,” officials wrote. 

He did not do that. He appealed to the politicians and the politicians helped him. 

And did they ever help him.

Here are the questions that still need to be answered. 

How did Dover Samuels get to know William Yan and why did he go into bat so strongly for him? 

Why, after Rick Barker was introduced to Yan in 2005, did he take until mid-2008 to hand the case over to Shane Jones? 

What checks did Shane Jones make to see whether he had a conflict of interests in this case? We point out in the story that there is a shared business history between Jones and Liu. Liu was a director, and through his company Live Fish, a shareholder in the joint venture Crabco. One of the other shareholders was Te Ohu Kaimoana of which Jones was chair between 2000 and 2007. 

Now I am prepared to accept that this was a fact that Jones may not have had great interest or even awareness of. But did he check? Was it considered? We know that he knew of Liu’s role with Crabco and Live Fish because it was in the submission that QC John Billington made to Jones pleading the case for Liu’s citizenship. 

Pansy Wong also mentions the company, which she describes as a “joint venture with Talleys, Sealord and Sanford” in a letter received by Rick Barker’s office on February 4, 2008. 

David Shearer has said on Jones’ behalf that Jones had met Liu on one or two occasions. In what capacity? And why did the Internal Affairs official Johannes Gambo claim that Liu had rung him more than once during the process to claim that he had “big support” from Jones and from Samuels. 

It all looks very suspicious. Did Liu have a commitment from Jones he would approve it? Is that why Barker delegated it to Jones? And recall that Liu had paid $10,000 to a Labour Party fundraiser to help him with his application – and whose brother was the senior staffer for Jones.

The greatest mystery to me is why Jones approved the citizenship application and did so without documenting his reasons. 

He says he made a file note of an official telling him that Yan would be sent to his death and his organs harvested if he returned to China. 

Jones hasn’t produced the note and says he didn’t put it on the file. Why not? There are hand written notes from Jones on Parliamentary notepad paper in the file we saw. But not that one. 

He says he’s glad he didn’t put it on the file because the file “leaked”. But if you were a Minister making a controversial decision against the advice of officials wouldn’t you want your reasons to be there in black and white when the scrutiny came on? 

I don’t think it is unreasonable to suspect there was no file note ever made, and the reason is bogus. Jones can not produce the note, and it was not put on the file. He can not name the official, and no official can be found who said they gave such advise.

The worst case scenario is this is a case of citizenship sold for favours (not to Jones directly but to others in Labour). The best case for Jones is it is gross incompetence. To not do a comprehensive file note stating your reasons when you overturn the advice of officials and grant citizenship to such a dubious character is incompetent.

I personally like Shane Jones, and regard him as one of the best communicators in Parliament. He had great potential. But this Liu case has always hung over him. Unless he can produce some proof to back up his claims about why he granted citizenship against official advice – then he can not be allowed to become a Minister again – and hence a shadow Minister.

The .nz Domain Name Commission Ltd is consulting on whether registrations should be allowed at the 2nd level. This means that people would be able to register (for example) farrar.nz rather than have to choose a third level name such as farrar.co.nz or farrar.net.nz etc. This would be the most significant policy change to .nz since it was created in 19870.

People can make formal submissions at the above link until 27 September. But there will also be five public meetings, at which you can come along to learn more about the proposal, and provide feedback. The South Island meetings were last week but the details for the other three are:

• Wednesday 29 August, 5.00 – 6.30pm, Rydges Hotel, Auckland
• Tuesday 4 September 5.00-6.30pm, James Cook Hotel, Wellington
• Wednesday 5 September 5.00-6.30pm, at  www.R2.co.nz/20120905

Incidentally I’m a Director of the DNCL, and will be chairing those three meetings. The purpose of the meetings is not just to get feedback on whether people support or oppose the opening up of second level registrations, but also feedback on the specifics of the proposal such as the sunrise period, the conflicts policy etc.

If you would like to attend please RSVP to the DNC team at [email protected] or phone            04 495 2110.