Mark Textor is well known as Australasia’s leading political pollster and campaign advisor, for conservative parties in Australia, the UK, NZ and elsewhere.

Unlike Julia Gillard, who opposes same sex marriage, Tex is a prominent advocate of legalising same sex marriage in Australia.

On ABC last year he said:

MARK TEXTOR: I think Australians mightn’t actively support gay marriage, but I think they would accept gay marriage going through. Ronald Reagan’s pollster once said to me that there is no such thing as family values, there are only those things that are important to families – love, a sense of belonging, a sense of personal security. And if marriage consolidates the family unit, so be it. 

He also took part in a debate on the issue in June 2012. The participants were:

In this passionate and quite unpredictable debate, Professor Nick Tonti-Filippini lines up with gay academic, Professor Annamarie Jagose, in opposing the legalisation of same sex marriage while Sydney’s Lord Mayor and New South Wales Independent politician Clover Moore is aligned with conservative party pollster and political strategist Mark Textor, in arguing passionately that same sex marriage should be legalised.

One quote: You can not believe in one law for all for some issues and for some people, but not for same sex couples.

For Wellingtonians:

Wellington CBD public meeting
When: Wednesday, August 22 2012 from 12:00pm-1.00pm
Where: Wellington City Library, 65 Victoria Street, Wellington

 Khandallah public meeting
When: Wednesday, August 29 2012 from 6:30pm-8.30pm
Where: Khandallah Town Hall, 11 Ganges Road, Khandallah

 Newtown public meeting
When: Monday, September 3, 2012 from 5:30pm-7.30pm
Where: Newtown Community Hall, Corner Daniell &Constable Streets, Newtown, Wellington

 These meetings will be hosted by members of the independent Panel.

 The independent Panel is tasked with exploring the future of local government in the greater Wellington region by seeking public feedback on issues concerning the needs of ratepayers and residents in the region. The Panel consists of Sir Geoffrey Palmer (Chair), Sir Wira Gardiner, Sue Driver and Bryan Jackson.

 The Panel recently issued an issues paper focussing on the needs of residents and ratepayers to stimulate discussion on local government reform in the greater Wellington region.

 The public meetings are an opportunity for Wellington residents to tell the Panel what they think about how local and regional governance arrangements can best support their local and regional communities in the future.

 This might include issues such as:

How to get better community engagement in decision making

The role of local government in building and maintaining core infrastructure (e.g. flood protection, transport)

Ways that local government can manage costs and reduce rates increases

The independent Panel is keen to hear from as many people in the region as possible.

 More information is included in the attached media release, and can also be found at www.wellingtonreviewpanel.org.nz.

I think the current arrangement of ten Councils for such a small population is nuts.

Stuff reports:

Opposition parties are calling for New Zealand troops to come home from Afghanistan early, following the deaths of three Kiwi soldiers yesterday.

Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman and former defence minister Phil Goff said the deaths made it more important for New Zealand to withdraw.

“It’s not a case of cutting and running, it’s a case of managing an orderly transition out of Bamiyan which the Government should have been embarking on already.” …

Labour leader David Shearer added his weight to Goff’s comments, saying the troops must be brought home as soon as practicable.

This angers me, especially as it was a Labour Government that approved the PRT going to Afghanistan around nine years ago.

The mission is scheduled to end in 2013. There is no debate that the troops will come home. The debate is about how.

To renege on our international commitments, and pull the troops out a year early, would be a massive blow to New Zealand’s international credibility and reputation.

I hate the fact we have lost five soldiers in less than a month. But again it is not credible to change policy on the basis of the fact that soldiers die in war zones.

Now if our commitment to stay until 2013, isn’t to a specific month within 2013, obviously it would be preferable for it to earlier in 2013 than later. But one has to balance that against how ready local forces are to step up.

While grossly imperfect, Afgahnistan is a vastly better place for most than when the Taliban ruled and sheltered Bin Laden. Women especially now have basic rights such an education. I have no doubt that the US and allies had to take action in 2001 after the Taliban refused to stop sheltering Al Qaeda.  It was clearly self-defence.

NZ troops will return home. But let’s do it in a way that doesn’t see NZ renege on its word and commitments.

UPDATE:

What shameful grandstanding. In Leighton Smith this morning Shearer clarified that by “bring them home early” he means:

“I think we could have them out early/mid next year”

Now John Key had already earlier said on Breakfast:

“That will be in 2013, it’s possible it will be in earlier 2013 than later 2013.”

So in fact Shearer is agreeing with the Government’s timetable, but just trying to get headlines.

The Government is considering changing the requirement for WOF checks from six monthly to annually for some vehicles. Only vehicles less than six year olds do annual checks. Most countries only require a WOF every two years or so.

The WOF checks costs $250m a year, so obviously the garages represented by the Motor Trade Association (MTA) are not keen on reducing the frequency. They’d probably like monthly checks.

Now the MTA has announced:

 A recent telephone survey of 1,000 drivers, completed by the Motor Trade Association (MTA), showed that 63 percent were concerned to some degree about the possibility of fewer WoF inspections as a result of the current Vehicle Licensing Reform process.

This raises so many questions. It appears the poll was done by the MTA itself, rather than by a research agency that follows the international and national code of practice ofr market research and polling.

Also the statement “some degree” conceals more than it reveals. This may be 60% were “a tiny bit concerned” and 3% “very concerned”. The MTA has not made available the actual results – just some cherry picked numbers.

The survey showed 98 percent of drivers agreed that WoFs are a valuable safety check, and an important part of road safety. More than half (56 percent) agreed that they would not feel safe on the road if WoF inspections were to become less frequent, emphasising the role that the current system plays in reassuring motorists.

New Zealand’s current vehicle inspection regime means vehicles less than six years old are required to undergo a WoF inspection every 12 months, with vehicles older than this being inspected every six months. The survey also showed there was clear support (67 percent) for retaining the frequency of WoFs as is.

Again we are not shown the actual question asked, or what questions were asked before this question.

The MTA has sent this release to all MPs, as I understand it. I hope they will now release the full poll report showing who conducted it, how the sample was selected, what exact questions were asked, and the full results. Then MPs and the public can draw their own conclusions on it.

Callum Fredric of Critic has done a controversial and interesting profile of Louis Crimp, based on a two hour interview with him. I found the article fascinating – both for the archaic views on Maori – but also for what they call the sympathethic side of Crimp.

“The Maori culture before the white man came, they were Stone Age people. Each tribe used to be at war with the next tribe, and if they beat one tribe they’d kill all the males in it, and eat them. And I’ve got it somewhere that the females, they’d put them in a separate stockade, and they drove spikes through their feet so they couldn’t run away, and they kept them there to have sex with until they’re ready to be eaten. So they’re sort of like a deep freeze for food and sex.”

The tales of cannibalism are well documented, but the spiking women’s feet is news to me.

However 200 years ago, many bad things happened. The US had slaves. Women were almost chattels. That is not to say that all cultures were equally good or bad. But the key thing is most cultures have evolved.

Ah, those were the days. Mr Crimp followed up by saying that although Maori in Invercargill are “anglicised” and “part of our community”, Maori people in South Auckland are “still savages, on welfare or in jail”. A few years ago, he came up with a plan for making some cash off the people who shared these views, by setting up an all-white retirement village in Invercargill to lure people down from South Auckland. “I couldn’t proclaim it being white, but somehow or another I would say that it was a predominant Anglo-Saxon society, you know.” But he couldn’t secure the land, and the plan fell through.

Oh Good God. White enclaves. I suspect Crimp’s views could only be formed in an area like Invercargill (not meaning people in Invercargill are racists, but they have relatively few Maori there). If, like me, you went to a school with many Maori, went to a university with many Maori, have worked in jobs with Maori colleagues – you know not to apply stereotypes to individuals.

Te Reo is Mr Crimp’s kryptonite. His aversion to the language is strong enough for him to pay for his five-year-old granddaughter to attend a private school in a failed attempt to shield her from having to learn it. He also cancelled his long-running subscription to the Southland Times after they included a single Maori word in their crossword.

That is pretty nuts.

Mr Crimp has made millions through his various property ventures, and has gained many supporters in Invercargill for his charitable donations, including over $1 million each to the SPCA and the St John Ambulance Service. In an attempt to see the other side of Louis Crimp, I asked him about his reasons for these donations.

Mr Crimp’s philanthropy began when his lawyer told him he should “get out and spend” his millions before he died. But this was no easy task. Mr Crimp says that from an early age he has was forced to “watch [his] pennies” — “I was the oldest boy in Southland who had a paper run, at the age of 16, because we were poor, my family.” Having visited his house, I can confirm that Mr Crimp is not prone to extravagant spending – while he lives in a large house, his furniture is old-fashioned, and his TV is smaller than you’d find in most student flats.

After his lawyer’s comments, Mr Crimp “started dishing it out to people I think who needed it.” He was attracted to the SPCA, “because most of their work is done by volunteers. It’s the same with the St John ambulance…Yeah, there’s a lot of people who do some good in this world without pay.”

As I read the profile, I actually feel a bit sorry for Crimp. It must be pretty miserable to be so fearful of Maori.

Mr Crimp’s generous side is forced to sit next to his habit of saying incredibly offensive things. One of Mr Crimp’s stories demonstrates this duality. He lends “money out to poor suffering people sometimes” at a special low-interest rate. He loaned $7000 to a Maori woman who needed a lung cancer operation, but it turned out “it was all bullshit, she wasn’t sick at all”. Mr Crimp was understandably aggrieved, but does himself no favours whatsoever by describing the woman as “just a cheat, a big black Maori cheat”.

After that comment, he relented a little: “She’s had a pretty rough life… Yeah I’m feeling sorry for her already, she hasn’t got a job, she’s got a boyfriend who beats the hell out of her, she hasn’t got any money, oh God.”

Interviewing Mr Crimp made me think of Levi Hawkins, aka the “Nek Minnit” guy. He’s a real, multi-faceted human being, yet we all essentially know him as an amusing dancing bear, a sideshow. When he gets approached on the street, people ask him to say his catchphrase. By seeking out Louis Crimp solely for the purpose of getting outrageous quotes, I was guilty of the same dehumanisation. On the other hand, some of the quotes are pretty damn funny. It’s a difficult balancing act.

I think the article gets the balance about right.

I asked Mr Crimp about his views on gay marriage, secretly hoping for some more controversy-laden denouncements. But his prejudices against Maori don’t seem to extend to the rainbow community. “I couldn’t care less. If Sir Elton John can work it, and write beautiful songs and stuff…” 

What a good attitude! I think very few people are really worked up against gay marriage. Most people are fine with it.

He paused. “Are you a fruit?”

I mentally searched through my encyclopedia of 1950s slang, past “buffoon (medical diagnosis)” and “colour, person of”, and realise he’s asking whether I’m gay. “No.” “Neither am I.” As if to underscore his acceptance of all different lifestyles, Crimp continued: “I got a nephew that is, and he’s a nice guy, he’s tall dark and handsome, and clever. I remember I was with him one time over in a pub here, and I said to him: ‘That woman second from the end on the pokie machines, she’s a hooker.’ ‘Oh, go and get her out uncle, we’ll fuck her.’ I said, ‘Oh I thought you were a fruit?’ He says ‘Yeah but… both ways,’ he said.”

Heh, not sure his nephew will appreciate that story being told 🙂

Mr Crimp told me he has been divorced for 15 years, and noted that “now people don’t get married, they just have partners.” He then demonstrated his trademark tact and diplomacy with a series of questions. “Have you got a partner?” Yep. “How long have you had her?” Three years. “Oh. Does she want to get married?” Yeah, eventually. “Do you want to marry her?” Yeah, maybe in a few years. “But not at the moment.” No, not right now. I’m too young. “So you don’t love her. You just use her for shagging practice.”

Classic.

Crimp’s Maori counterpart, Hone Harawira, is known for making outrageous generalisations about a particular race, yet interacting normally with people of that race in person. I get the feeling Crimp is similar. It’s like the way Otago students can make harsh generalisations (“Anyone who votes for John Key is a moron”/“Socialists are the spawn of Satan”) and yet have close friends from across the political spectrum.

Crimp as the counterpart of Hone. A bit harsh on Hone.

Overall, the 79-year-old Crimp gives the impression that he has unfinished business, and that he just doesn’t care what people think about him any more. “I want to wind things up and piss off, retire, you know. And if I could do something for Invercargill, that’s get rid of the ILT (Invercargill Licensing Trust). 

Now that sounds worthwhile.

And if I could do something for NZ, [it would be to] have the Maoris be just like … all New Zealanders.”

Umm – Maori are New Zealanders.

Stuff reports:

The Taleban has claimed responsibility for the bomb attack that killed three New Zealand soldiers only two weeks after the deaths of Lance Corporals Rory Malone and Pralli Durrer in a firefight.

The Defence Force said that at approximately 9.20am (Afghanistan time) yesterday, the last vehicle in a convoy was hit by an improvised explosive device, North West of Do Abe, Bamiyan, on the road to Romero.

As always thoughts are with the families, comrades and friends of the dead soldiers.

My thoughts are also with the wider families of all those serving in Afghanistan. It is obvious that the situation for the PRT has become more dangerous. The other families will be hoping for no further incidents during this final 12 months in Afghanistan.

Mark Blackham notes:

Importantly for businesses, Parker said Labour was prepared to use “government procurement to assist the development of New Zealand’s economy.”  It is worth remembering that Labour signalled exactly the same thing before taking the reigns in 1999, but only told government agencies to be open to looking at New Zealand businesses.

I expect much the same, when Labour do get in. Every opposition talks up buying NZ made, and local procurement. They will all say if all other things are equal, buy locally (which is sensible). But no Government is ever going to ban Government agencies from purchasing from overseas, no matter what the price or service differentials. Plus, it would probably breach many international agreements we have entered into – and risk NZ firms being shut out of  foreign markets.

Had a wonderful evening last night at the grand finale of the Big Sing.

The Big Sing is the NZ Choral Federation Secondary Schools Choir Festival. 18 choirs put on a hugely enjoyable show. Their performances ranged from the pure classical to wonderfully entertaining acting and singing routines such as “Don’t Tell Mama”, from Cabaret.

The entire evening was not just great entertainment but also uplifting. You had 750 young Kiwis absolutely hyped up. Even before the formal show started, they were singing en masse random songs such as Slice of Heaven. You could tell there was no one there who wasn’t thrilled to be competing, and having a great time.

Superb sportsmanship also. Many teams gave standing ovations for other teams – especially from their neighbouring schools. And some touching scenes as the awards were presented with conductors and students hugging each other.

Not to be overlooked, is that the music and singing was also great. Not only did the students sing, but some also did the musical backing also.

Belcanto from Burnside High School won the overall trophy. They were by chance the first team to perform, and set the bar. Easily world class.

Cantala from Wellington East won the youth ambassadors award for their overall contribution, demeanor etc.  I thought they were superb also, and performed a fiendishly difficult number with Bitte Betti.

The finale concert was to a packed audience in the Wellington Town Hall. If you get the chance to get tickets to it in future, you should do it. Even if you can not make the finale, they have three days of competitions which you can attend for free. The NZSS Chior also does a free lunchtime concert. Plus it is all streamed over the Internet.

The only downside to the evening was it took an hour to get out of the James Smith carpark afterwards!

Clare Curran tweeted:

NZ Govt take note “@rnz_news: Stimulus package announced by Brazil http://bit.ly/PF0Pei ”

This got me interested in the details of what Brazil had done, and which a Labour MP was asking NZ to emulate.

Radio NZ reported:

Brazil has announced the first phase of an economic stimulus package designed to boost growth in the economy.

More than $US60 billion will be invested in roads and railways over the next 25 years, with more than half in the next five years. This includes 8000km of new roads and 8000kms of railways.

Now US$60b sounds like a lot of money. But Brazil had GDP of $2.5 trillion so we need to adjust for the size of the economy. NZ GDP is around US$135b so the equivalent in NZ would be US3.2b or NZ$4.0b. However this is over 25 years, so is annual expenditure of NZ$160m a year. Not exactly a huge stimulus. To be fair it says half over the next five years so it is $400m a year for five years.

But I suspect Clare did not look at the details of this spend on roading and rail. CNN reports:

Among the initiatives, the government will sell rights for private companies to operate 7,500km of roads and 10,000km of railways.

Superb. That is my sort of stimulus package. $60b of PPPs!

The measures would double the capacity of the country’s main highways, transport minister Paulo Passos said at the event.

However I suspect the Greens would not be so keen. And hasn’t David Shearer just been making speeches against increasing the capacity on the roads of national significance?

The centre-left coalition government led by Ms Rousseff’s Workers’ party has traditionally been opposed to privatizations.

But she has proven pragmatic in the face of infrastructure bottlenecks.

Good to see a NZ Labour MP tweeting in favour of a privatisation programme.

Earlier this year, her government awarded projects to redevelop and operate three major airports to private sector-led consortia

Great.

And Radio NZ concluded:

In addition to the announcements on Wednesday, President Dilma Rousseff is preparing to lower the price of energy for industry and abolish some federal taxes, which could cut the price by 10%.

So Brazil is also planning to increase greenhouse gas emissions by reducing energy prices, and also plans tax cuts.

I look forward to questions in the House from Labour demanding the NZ Govt implement a Brazil style stimulus package.

Neil Reid at SST reports:

A war of words has erupted over National MP Todd McClay’s proposed gang patch ban, with Mana Party leader Hone Harawira labelling him a “foolish dickhead” promoting a “deeply racist” bill.

Harawira has threatened to wear a gang patch into Parliament if the bill becomes law, a move McClay says casts doubts on Harawira’s suitability to be an MP.

“The guy is such an idiot,” Harawira said. “I’m not going to stand by and watch a blonde, blue-eyed redneck kick around poor people who, out of desperation, bond together because they see nothing in the blonde, blue-eyed society to give them a sense of hope for their own or their children’s futures.”

I don’t know what Todd McClay’s hair colour or eye colour has to do with anything. And I also don’t think wanting to ban gang patches inside government buildings is a redneck move. I think it is an anti-gang move.

Harawira said he understood why some people from lower socio-economic backgrounds joined gangs, adding that 90 per cent of those targeted by the bill would be Maori, making it a “deeply racist piece of legislation”.

Does that mean the DPB is racist?

Yay – got 10/10 in 44 seconds. Quiz is here.

Audrey Young reports:

As head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Maarten Wevers was the man tasked with solving problems. He did it so well he was knighted.

It was the most unlikely venue for a proposal. Prime Minister John Key offered Maarten Wevers a knighthood in the Botswana Butchery, a restaurant in Queenstown. 

Key was giving a speech and had asked Wevers along as one of his last duties as head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Wevers recalls it was probably between the oysters and the lamb that they began reflecting on Wevers’ career, its highlights and his imminent departure.Then the Prime Minister said: “I think you’ve done really well and so does the cabinet and I’ve been authorised to make you an offer which I hope you’ll accept.”

Wevers was like a “stunned mullet” with the offer, as Key described it at a subsequent farewell function. For once, the urbane and unflappable public servant was struck dumb.

I can imagine.

Some will say public servants should not get honours just for doing their job, but I think those who excel at their jobs and make a contribution which helps improve New Zealand significantly should be honoured.

Wevers headed the team of public servants who support and advise the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers – as opposed to the Prime Minister’s Office which supplies personal and political support. The department acts as the ears and eyes for the PM across the whole of Government.

“You are not there to serve their political interest,” says Wevers. “You are there to serve the public interest and to help them to be the most effective Prime Minister they can be.”

DPMC plays an incredibly important role in making Government work.

Wevers has worked for three Prime Ministers – Helen Clark, Key and David Lange.

He organised a highly successful Apec summit in Auckland in 1999 when Jenny Shipley was Prime Minister, and was Ambassador to Japan after learning fluent Japanese.

But it was his less visible leadership in the Christchurch earthquake recovery, the reform of the public service and his expertise in foreign affairs for which the Government was especially grateful, Acting Prime Minister Bill English confirmed.

“He has been a problem-solver for two Prime Ministers through an awful lot of problems, particularly in the intelligence and foreign affairs areas.”

English cited in particular Wevers’ role in “reframing” the relationship with the United States, and over the emerging threat of terrorism “where a lot of it is about judgment and not overreacting.”

Fairly important issues.

Wevers has never forgotten the advice of a former aide to Robert Muldoon and David Lange. “The job of the staff who are closest to the Prime Minister is to create ‘a pool of tranquillity’ around the Prime Minister because you can’t have fuss and flap and tension and yelling going on.”

It is something, according to those who worked with him, that he perfected. Nobody can recall him getting even remotely rattled in his time at the Beehive, and his skill in getting people and agencies to work together are now legendary, especially immediately after the earthquake last year. He could be running up to a dozen meetings a day with heads of various agencies summoned to the Beehive over different issues needing co-ordinating.

After the immediate disaster recovery, the wage subsidy policies which would normally take months to prepare was ready within three days. 

Nothing like a crisis to get things happening.

Mark Blackham blogs:

Labour’s “heartland” tour was an artless, and now dead, act of sloganeering.

One of the most profound mistakes in modern politics is what I call ‘sloganising the strategy’. This is when politicians openly describe their political strategy – believing that by announcing it, they make the strategy happen. Nope.  Strategies are internal. They guide what you say and do to bring them about. If you publicise the strategy, you’re revealing, and reveling in, the artifice.

Yes, you do a heartland tour without announcing that it is a heartland tour.

The artless next step was to turn that tactic into a branded campaign; the heartland tour. Energy has been put into branding and imagery. The campaign identifies regions, lists what is wrong with them, proposes broad happy talk solutions, and then has a little form for people to give their “ideas”. Underwhelming.

As bloggers have pointed out, it is reminiscent of many other tours by Labour MPs to see the ‘real people’.

Like they were animals in a zoo 🙂

In fact I was responsible for perhaps the first MP regional tour back in 1991. That tour was the model of substance. It was conducted without fanfare by Labour MPs who would later become main members of the Clark Cabinet  It was about shutting the hell up and listening. It gave us all an appreciation of the views of our prospective voters, and gave us real-life ammunition against the National government and for policy formation.

The crux of what was effectively a three month tour was meeting real people in real life situations. Meeting them where they lived, worked and played. I can’t recall any speeches. 

Look, listen and learn.

Modern politicians dislike the risk of random interactions with the public. They prefer arranged meetings where they can talk. But can you imagine how hard it is to set up presentations from MPs few people have heard of, from a Party currently irrelevant?

Thus, the Heartland tour does not have a lot of substance. They aren’t doing walk-abouts, and they’re giving speeches to small groups of people.

In fact, it’s probably now been all but abandoned, given the Party implosion and  fighting over, er, something.

Mark worked for the Labour Party leader from 1989 to 1993.

Stuff reports:

Unsuspecting Wellington motorists are being stung by council contractors issuing tickets in the dead of night.

New figures from Wellington City Council reveal that Wellingtonians are being ticketed at all times of the day and night. A breakdown of a year’s parking tickets shows 1403 fines were handed out between the hours of 11pm and 7am.

One person was ticketed at 3am for not having a current registration, and another for parking in a loading zone.

This makes me think it is revenue gathering. Who the hell is inconvenienced by someone being on a loading zone at 2 am?

Council spokesman Grahame Armstrong said the figures showed that people should not be complacent about parking enforcement, no matter what the time of night.

“Unfortunately, some drivers seem to think they can drive around the city after midnight and park wherever they like, without considering the impact on other people.”

Or they think there is no impact to, for example, park on a bus stop at 2 am if the last bus is at 11 pm.

Formal patrols officially finished at 11pm, so any tickets issued later than that were due to complaints.

I am slightly suspicious of that. That is around 30 complaints a week for parking after 11 pm.

I have no problem with responding to complaints from affected residents. But if they are just trawling town looking for minor infringements, I think that would be wrong.

Stuff reports:

When he appeared before Judge Adeane in Napier District Court on Tuesday the judge put him in custody until yesterday.

Looking a little sheepish after three nights in the cells, Mantell was not spared from the judge’s wrath yesterday.

When Mantell’s lawyer Leo Lafferty handed the judge some judgments for similar offending, Judge Adeane asked what use they would be “when I am known as an eccentric, idiosyncratic and some people say excessive sentencer of taggers?”

Not a great fan of precedent!

He had mixed fortunes with some of his harsher sentences of taggers, he said. Some had been upheld on appeal while others had been overturned.

He said he would like to sentence Mantell to three months’ prison for each of the 54 tags he made.

Even I think that is rather, umm, zealous. 18 years in prison for tagging.

In 2008 the judge became a local hero in Hawke’s Bay when he took a hard line on taggers, giving a series of offenders a taste of prison.

At the time he said taggers were making Hastings look like a North American slum, and he rejected suggestions graffiti was art or culture.

Graffiti crime in the district halved after he took his tough stance.

But effective.

A couple of weeks ago The Listener profile on me included the quote from John Pagani that I tend to have a more reasonable tone than The Standard which can be hard to read as it comes over embittered and angry.

And on Wednesday Josie Pagani facebooked in response to criticism (such as calling her a silly bitch) from some of The Standard people that they were like an anonymous lynch mob. Most of her post is actually attacking National on welfare.

So what do you do if you have been criticised for being a bit angry and embittered and a tendency to lynch people you disagree with?

You dedicate an angry and embittered post to lynching both Paganis, with the charming title “Two little Pagis squeal and squeak“. The post author is of course an anonymous coward who sees nothing wrong with slamming people who have the guts to stand behind what they say and link their reputations to it – but cowers behind a pseudonym.

The charming little thread, even had one regular make not very veiled death threats, using an analogy of an execution for treasons. And remember again this is how they respond to an accusation they are angry and get like a lynch mob. The irony is so overpowering it is staggering.

Now the commenters on a blog do not represent the views of the authors. But this was a post started by an author, purely to heap abuse on the two Paganis.

But do you know what is even more interesting. Do you know the crime that both Paganis are guilty of? They have dared to defend the Leader of the Labour Party David Shearer!

Put together by Patrick Gower. Fridays are great days for non critical projects 🙂

Where in the world is Shane Jones, and how long has he been there?

Whale thinks he is looking for jobs in the US. When was he last sighted in Parliament?

Nothing wrong with being overseas for a bit. All MPs do it. But, that depends on how long it is for and whether or not you have the permission of your party whips to be overseas.

[DPF: False alarm. He was in the House yesterday]

Whale has highlighted something interesting. This is what David Shearer said in 2012:

Last year before the election, I was chatting to a guy in my electorate who had just got home from work. In the middle of the conversation, he stopped and pointed across the road to his neighbour.

He said: “see that guy over there, he’s on a sickness benefit, yet he’s up there painting the roof of his house. That’s not bloody fair. Do you guys support him?”

Yet in 2011 he said:

[T]here’s a number of people I meet in the streets and they’ll say, and we’ll talk about inequality of the tax system, and they’ll say “Yeah mate, but I’ll tell you what, that guy down the road he’s a sickness beneficiary and I saw him up there cleaning his roof the other day and you’ve got to go nail him.

Now it is fine to use an anecdote, but it is not fine to portray an anecdote as an actual specific conversation, with a specific date it happened.

Now maybe it is true that David Shearer meets so many people complaining about sickness beneficiaries to him that he both used it as an anecdote and had a further specific conversation in 2011. Both by coincidence about a sickness beneficiary working on his roof. One of them cleaning it, and one of them painting it.

It is possible, but unlikely.

So which journalists will be first to get an answer to the question “Is the 2011 conversation fictitious or real. Does the neighbour exist?” and “Was he painting or cleaning the rood?”

Lawyer John Edwards blogs on the proposed draft bill by the Law Commission to deal with harmful online communications. I share some of his concerns. A key issue is the ten principles in the bill:

1. A communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual.
2. A communication should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing.
3. A communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the complainant’s position.
4. A communication should not be indecent or obscene.
5. A communication should not be part of a pattern of conduct that constitutes harassment.
6. A communication should not make a false allegation.
7. A communication should not contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.
8. A communication should not incite or encourage anyone to send a message to a person with the intention of causing that person harm.
9. A communication should not incite or encourage another person to commit suicide.
10. A communication should not denigrate a person by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, ethical belief, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

Principles 2, 5, 8 and 9 are fairly uncontroversial to me. The others can be challenging.

Edwards blogs on principle 1:

Thirdly, the Bill also later waters down the “publicly available publication” exemption from the prohibition on using or disclosing personal information.  Under current law, if I disclose personal information contained in a publicly available publication, it cannot be a breach of the Privacy Act.  Under the Bill, you could be liable for disclosing material from a publicly available publication …

And principle 3:

subjective “grossly offensive” test could force a rethink of Hell Pizza’s marketing strategy, but what else might it catch?

I don’t like this at all. If people are offended by what I say, then they should not read it. A blog is not like a billboard you are forced to walk pass, or a TV ad displayed during the news.

Principle 4:

prohibition on indecent or obscene communications simply aligns communications with a range of other publications, and does not really materially change the landscape.

I still think if an Internet publication breaches NZ law, then the correct response is to prosecute them for it, not have a Tribunal do a take down notice.

I can maybe accept takedown notices for content that targets an individual. But takedown notices for stuff which is merely arguably against community standards as expressed in the law I have an issue with.

Principle 6:

pretty much reprises defamation (without the troublesome need to prove the subject’s reputation or standing in the community has been harmed as a result).

Which is rather important.

Principle 7:

codifies the common law against breach of confidence, and might in fact afford a more accessible remedy than the court proceedings now required.

But what i someone sends me a massively abusive e-mail, yet says it is confidential. Does that mean I can’t expose their abuse?

Principle 10:

I prefer vilify to denigrate. If someone is a scientologist, should they be able to get a takedown notice against me if I say only morons are scientologists, so you must be a moron if you believe in Lord Xenu?

There are some real harms done, especially to youth, by cyber-bullying. But we have to be careful that any measures do not over-reach, and I remain concerned that these do. The challenge is not to just oppose – but to constructively propose improvements to make the proposal acceptable.

On the issue of the proposed bill though, I did like this piece from Trans-tasman:

At the same time came a crackdown on cyber bullying, launched by Justice Minister Judith Collins. This is a rare case of politicians reaching across the political divide to help opponents.

One of the first beneficiaries of the crackdown will be Labour’s David Cunliffe, who has been bombarded with texts saying “U R stink & evry1 h8s U” and the like from @WainuiBiker and @SonOfBobGrant.

Heh.

My Herald column:

If Labour vote for Catherine Delahunty’s bill, it will give National a very significant weapon to use at the 2014 election. They will portray it as making it more attractive for people to remain on welfare, rather than enter the workforce.

The alternative is for Labour to vote against the Delahunty bill. That may be better for them in the long-term, but will pose short-term challenges for them. Firstly they will be criticised for doing a u-turn, and having their third policy in two years on this issue. They will have been against the policy, before they were for the policy, before they were against the policy again.

And Steven Joyce will be delighted to read:

Labour will vote for the initial stage of a Green Party bill to extend Working for Families’ tax credits to beneficiaries, but will not commit to supporting it further or keeping the policy that was one of its main election pledges last year.

There is no way it will pass first reading, so Labour will go on record as having voted to give beneficiaries an extra $60 a week and working parents $0 a week.