The Press reports:

Hundreds of protesters could spend several days occupying Christchurch’s South Hagley Park.

The Occupy Christchurch event comes after thousands began camping out in New York’s financial district last month to protest against corporate greed, social inequality and climate change.

Christchurch Unite Union organiser Matt Jones said today’s event would focus on international concerns, national issues, including the 90-day employment law and the Rena oil spill, and local problems, such as insurance and land zoning after the earthquakes.

“When you boil it down, people just feel alienated and disenfranchised from the system. People don’t feel engaged with party politics.”

He expected at least 25 Unite Union delegates would be at the protest, as well as up to 50 union members.

They’re overlooked one of the issues they should protest about.

They should protest against scum employers who take PAYE from their employees, and steal it – spending it on political activism, rather than paying their tax to the Government like the other 99% of taxpayers.

UPDATE: Keeping Stock has a copy of a form being circulated amongst Auckland “occupiers” which strongly suggests they are planning violence.

The media have suddenly found a speech by Chief Justice Elias and are reporting:

The country’s top judge has taken a veiled swipe at the Government’s justice policies, warning that some Cabinet decisions threaten the “fragile” independence of the judiciary.

In a rare public critique, Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias warns that decisions “which seem quite innocent” are undermining the basic principles of the constitution.

In a speech at Waikato University last month, Dame Sian broke with convention, criticising moves by politicians to interfere with the courts in pursuit of cost savings.

The speech was made on 12 September, so has been available for five weeks. The first part of her speech is about constitutional reform, and I tend to agree with the sentiments of the CJ that the reliance on conventions has its risks. On one issue of electoral law the CJ said:

The Electoral Acts stand in a special category because they establish the conditions of democratic government and have long been subject to supermajority requirements for amendment as a result.

I wish that was the case. But in fact only a small number of provisions in the Electoral Act require a super-majority, and in recent times we have seen highly partisan and even retrospective changes to the Electoral Act done on narrow majorities. I would like to see more of the Electoral Act entrenched.

Of course the entrenchment clause itself is not entrenched so Parliament could change even entrenched clauses with a bare majority, but there would be a significant political price to pay for doing that.

The CJ then refers to three risks from the current “obscurity” of the constitution. They are:

1. the rule of law
2. human rights
3. the role of the Treaty

With regard to (1) she quotes Lord Cooke that there are some rights and duties that are “truly fundamental” and are ultimately an inescapable judicial responsibility. This is an ages old argument about what would the courts do if for example Parliament voted to execute all babies with blue eyes. It is an interesting academic argument but not one I deem necessary to stay awake at nights worrying about.

Personally my view is that the reserve powers of the head of state should be the protection we rely on from a non-benign Parliament, but the problem with our current arrangements is the PM can sack the effective head of state at will.

The part that has got people excited is this:

I think there are signs that the courts are isolated and aspects of their independence precarious. Court resources are within the responsibility of executive government. Regulations prescribe the terms on which citizens have access to the courts. Court fees are within executive control. These are matters which should be subject to more public discussion than has been the case, perhaps because they are not popularly seen as touching on the constitutional principle of access to the courts. One of my colleagues has asked in a previous Harkness Henry lecture, not entirely in jest, whether we would regard with similar equanimity the imposition of fees to have access to a member of Parliament or a responsible Minister. Judges and lawyers may get the point. But if the wider community does not, it is no jesting matter at all.

Judges complaining about court fees is nothing new. But unless the Judges wish to self-fund their salaries, then Parliament will set the fees (or delegate to Govt) as it is Parliament that raises the revenue to pay for their operations.

As for the comparison to access for MPs, I think it is apples and oranges. No developed country charges for access to MPs and no developed country I know of has no court fees.

Judicial support staff are Ministry employees. The Registrars of the courts are managers employed by the Ministry although nominally responsible to the judges for their registry functions. The judges have no effective say in the allocation of the budget for courts and have had little influence in the priorities set by the Ministry. It seems to be assumed that the administration of the courts (including the administration of judges) is an executive function and that judicial independence is sufficiently preserved if individual judges are not directed how to decide particular cases.

Here the Chief Justice is acting as head of the Judges’ Union. Most previous CJs have done the same. Wanting their own budget has been a long-standing issue, as is wanting to control their support staff directly. I have some sympathy for their desires but would be interested in how many countries have the judiciary actually managing their own department.

It can be expected, too, that the work of international agencies such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee will provide encouragement towards commonality. It would be bold to suppose that legal cultural differences will not shift under such external influences.

The UN Human Rights Committee/Council is probably the biggest threat to human rights we have. They seek to invent new rights such as for religions to be immune from criticism which would be fatal for free speech.

Perhaps it is time to think again about the recommendation of Lord Lester that we would benefit from a Human Rights Committee of Parliament to keep a close watch on legislation which impacts on fundamental rights and freedoms. Such a Committee might even with advantage take on a wider responsibility to scrutinise measures which impact upon constitutional values.

The CJ says several times that protecting human rights is not the duty of the courts alone. I agree, and think a Human Rights Committee of Parliament could be a good thing.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Green Party corrections spokesman David Clendon said the changes were unacceptable.

“A private manager can be fined if they allow escapes. In that context they are going to be very risk averse and use the high classification rather than the lower one.”

Oh dear because there will be incentives to have fewer escapes, then we may have fewer escapes because the prison managers will be more risk averse.

How awful!

On Q+A this week…

A disastrous week for New Zealand and possibly the government. As Rena continues to spew oil and cargo into the waters and beaches in the Bay of Plenty, Q+A has Greens co-Leader Russel Norman live in the studio. Norman has been highly critical of the government’s response – but what would he have done differently?

Then Steven Joyce joins us in the studio. As the Minister ultimately in charge of the Rena situation, Joyce will provide the latest update on the cleanup and recovery, and also answer questions about who will pay for the cleanup, and whether local residents will receive compensation.

Later, Damian Christie presents the first in a series of Q+A pre-election stories on various electorates around the country. This week it’s Epsom, where the latest polls have Act’s John Banks trailing National’s Paul Goldsmith. Is Act about to disappear from NZ politics? What would this mean for National?

Following the preview Q+A holds a live debate between Epsom’s three main candidates – Act’s John Banks, National’s Paul Goldsmith and Labour’s David Parker.

On the panel with Dr Jon Johansson are former Act MP Deborah Coddington and former All Blacks captain Anton Oliver.

Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE. Repeats at 9.10pm Sundays, 9:05am and 1:05pm Mondays on TVNZ 7

Our apologies over the non appearance of our show last Sunday. We are definitely back this weekend. BUT we are taking the following weekend (22/23 October) off because we figure no one will be interested in current affairs on Rugby World Cup finals weekend. Besides that it’s too expensive to fly everybody around.We will then return on October 29 with the first of our election programmes.
However for this weekend (which will be Sean on his own as Duncan is off)
1. We will have a full backgrounder on the grounding of the Rena with particular focus on failings in the Governments preparation for major oil spills.
2. Sean will be live with Environment Minister Nick Smith on the implications of the Rena grounding.
3. Our special “minor parties” Waitangi Debate featuring Metiria Turei, Hone Harawira and Rahui Katene but not Dr Don Brash who has pulled or Peter Dunne who was never interested in coming anyway.
4. Our Sunday Edition media panel will include Spiro Zavos rugby columnist from the Sydney Morning Herald and the Roar website.

UPCOMING SATURDAY 15/10/11 — SUNDAY EDITION 16/10/11 0830 — TV3

Key Points:

* Rena disaster may cost National 5 MPs and a reduced majority in Bay of Plenty
* Greens up for fifth week in a row with 14 MPs now expected
* Labour back above 30% and Damien O’Connor ahead in West Coast-Tasman
* Act weakens in Epsom while Sharples’ hold on Tamaki-Makaurau strengthens
* National could govern with Greens, Act or Maori Party
* Alan Bollard now expected to hold off OCR increase till April 2012
* Macroeconomic indicators remain steady
* Fonterra’s forecast 2011/12 payout falls slightly

Commentary:

The Rena grounding has hurt National and helped Labour and the Greens, iPredict’s first weekly snapshot since the disaster suggests. According to the online predictions market with its 5000 registered traders, National’s forecast party vote has plunged from 50% last week to just 46% this week, potentially costing it five MPs compared with last week, while its Bay of Plenty MP, Tony Ryall, is now expected to suffer a reduced majority. Labour is up from 28.5% to 31.0%, which would give them 39 MPs, while the Greens are also big winners from the disaster, increasing their forecast party vote for the fifth week in a row to 11.1% which would deliver them 14 MPs. In economics, Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard is now expected to hold off a rise in the OCR till April 2012, while most other economic indicators (GDP Growth, Unemployment, Inflation, and Current Account Deficit) have remained steady.

Continue reading »

In my Herald column I ask whether the HMNZS National will be able to get off the reef. The beginning:

I was asked at a speaking engagement a couple of weeks ago whether the election was a foregone conclusion, as there was such a lead in the polls for National. My response was to quote former United Kingdom Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and say “Events, dear boy, events”. This famous quote was Macmillan’s response to the question of what is most likely to blow a Government off course. And the blowing of the Rena off course onto a reef near Tauranga most definitely is an event.

Patrick Gower at 3 News reports:

The Rena’s oil is polluting plans for New Zealand’s deep sea oil drilling.

The Government wants it to go ahead, but Labour has now decided that what has happened here proves the risk is too big.

So Phil Goff has promised Labour will put a moratorium on any deep sea drilling.

An oil spill was always going to have political fallout. That means photo opportunities and politicians fighting each other on the beaches.

“I don’t think Phil Goff wandering around with a bucket and spade is actually going to fix the problem,” says Prime Minister John Key.

Mr Goff is already digging into other issues; like the Government’s desire for deep sea drilling.

Today he revealed that if Labour gets into power, there will be a moratorium on deep sea drilling until it can be deemed safe.

Jordan Carter has blogged on the now well publicised accusations over what was said and denied at the Rainbow Wellington election forum. A number of Labour Party candidates and supporters have all accused ACT candidate Stephen Whittington of getting it wrong.

Well to para-phrase Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they. But Green MP Kevin Hague has backed Whittington’s version of events. Now unless one subscribes to Labour’s mad theory of a vast right wing and non-labour left wing conspiracy, I think we can trust Kevin Hague as an honest witness.

With that in mind, Jordan may regret the title of his blog post – a clarification for some liars out there.

Does this mean he is calling Kevin Hague a liar?

I get a mention also, which I need to respond to.

This has been amplified today by that well known defender of the rights of queer people, David Farrar, on his blog KiwiBlog, and by Whittington himself in a media release.  The result is this Stuff story “Labour accused of homophobia cover-up” by Andrea Vance.

Now the reference to me as a “well known defender of the rights of queer people” is obviously meant to be sarcastic and imply I am insincere when it comes to this issue, and just using it to score political points.

I think my record stands for itself. I have blogged in supports of gay issues such as civil unions, gay marriage and gay adoption on scores and scores of occasions. I actively lobbied in favour of the Civil Union Bill, assisting Tim Barnett with it.  I blogged in 2004 how great the Civil Unions Bill party was to celebrate, and how great it was to be a very small part of helping something positive happen.

Unlike many in Labour I have been willing to criticise MPs from my own party on these issues. At the time of the Civil Unions Bill I blogged somewhat critically of some of the speeches from MPs against, including National MPs. The following week my public criticisms were raised in Caucus (so I am told, I don’t attend of course) by some of the MPs I had criticised, asking for something to be done to shut me up.

Also just last year I blogged quite harsh criticisms of a Cabinet Minister for comments which I thought were taunting a gay MP. It actually turned out (once I saw the video and wasn’t just going off the NZPA report) that I had misinterpreted the comments, and it was a fairly good natured exchange, so I actually was unfairly critical of the National Minister. But again, note I was publicly critical.

So even though Jordan was using the term sarcastically, I think I have been consistent in my advocacy on gay rights. Perhaps my crime is actually being heterosexual and a National supporter – after all how can a straight right winger be anything but insincere on gay issues?

Farrar’s allegations are nonsense.  He (and Whittington) are lying when they say that Grant and Charles denied Trevor’s ‘tinkerbell’ stuff.  They did no such thing.

Well let me quote Kevin Hague:

Green MP Kevin Hague, who was also at the meeting, backed Mr Whittington’s version of events. “My sense was that Charles and Grant were denying that Mallard and Cosgrove had abused Chris Finlayson in a homophobic way.

Also Jordan and Grant’s version of events are not even backed by Chauvel himself. In the Herald he said:

Mr Chauvel said he had never heard anybody refer to Mr Finlayson by that name “and if I did hear it, I would tell them that was unacceptable”.

So Charles was denying anyone had ever said it. So now the list of liars is Stephen Whittington, myself, Kevin Hague and Charles himself.

They would have been stupid to. The remarks were well covered at the time.  We told Trevor what we thought. Making slurs like that in Parliament is totally unacceptable.

They were well covered at the time. Do you know why? Because I blogged about them. Off memory there was no publicity around this until I highlighted this. No one in Labour did anything about Trevor and Clayton until there was adverse publicity.

And don’t think it was only the three times it has been recorded in Hansard. Hansard only records comments if made in a speech or if an interjection is responded to. I understand Trevor and Clayton has yelled out Tinkerbell to Finlayson on numerous occasions – but as Finlayson ignored them they do not get recorded.

So good on Jordan and others for telling Trevor (and hopefully Clayton) to stop. But did you say anything publicly like I have with National MPs?

What they denied is that Mallard is homophobic. They are right.  Trevor has been a staunch defender of social liberal causes and was a key player in the fight to decriminalise homosexuality in the 1980s. His voting record on queer rights issues is perfect.

I tend to agree that Trevor is not homophobic. He is just someone willing to use homophobic comments to attack other MPs. It’s much the same with Winston. I don’t think Winston really hate Asians. I think he just knows it is effective to bash Asian immigration, so does it to be popular.  I note Jordan has not said whether or not he thinks Clayton is homophobic.

In terms of the argument that someone can not be homophobic because they have a perfect voting record on queer right issues. By that logic, Senator Larry Craig can’t be homosexual because he has a perfect voting record against queer rights. I think behaviour counts as much as one’s voting record.

So my message to Whittington and to David Farrar is: stop lying on this point.

I trust Stephen’s integrity, just as I trust Kevin Hague – a gay Green MP who politically has nothing to gain by backing up the ACT candidate’s version of events. And then add onto that the fact that Chauvel has said he has never heard anyone refer to Finlayson by that name, and I am very comfortable with what I have blogged.

Jordan would do well to stop shooting the messengers. If only he spent as much time condemning the remarks publicly when they were made, than denying they were denied.

For someone who is a social liberal, David sure does spend a lot of time stirring up nasty stuff.

I love this Orewellain view of the world. If I was a Labour activist who criticised a National MP for denying homophobic comments from other National MPs, I would be trumpeted as the good guy, and the National MP would be the nasty guy.

But no God forbid that I criticise a Labour MP/s because in the heat of a debate they made the wrong call and embarrassed by the mention of these homophobic comments by colleagues they tried to bluff it and deny said comments had been made.

I can only conclude that criticising a Labour MP for anything at all, is automatically nasty stuff.

On that note I’ll talk about why I did the series of posts on Charles Chauvel. It is not because he is gay as Charles has suggested, or because some mythical polls show him leading in Ohariu and Peter Dunne has put me up to it.  It is because I received information (from a number of sources, including people in his own party) that revealed he was doing shameless self-promotion to a degree that was deceptive.

In the past I have been complimentary of Charles, such as when he was moved to the extended front bench, noting:

Chauvel was a no brainer.  … Chauvel to environment is logical and what I predicted. He is one of the few MPs who understand the complexities of the ETS etc.

And before the reshuffle I said:

But a couple of others would also be contenders on merit for the front bench, or at least the front row of the cross-benches. Charles Chauvel and Grant Robertson would be the two strongest contenders. …

I also blogged in favour of his private members bill on credit reform going to select committee.

Charles is not the only MP who is a self-promoter. All MPs are (by necessity) to some degree. But I think where most MPs are under-graduates, Charles seemed to be well on his way to a PhD in it, so I called him out on some of his practices. No conspiracy, no homophobia, nothing to do with Ohariu. At the end of the day if you don’t write letters praising yourself and send them out to people, then there is no way I can be sent a copy of them to blog about it.

UPDATE: Whale Oil has blogged that the video of the House shows Chauvel was present when Mallard used the term, and sitting just three seats along and one back from him.

UPDATE2: The Secretary of Rainbow Wellington has released his summary of the meeting based on his detailed notes. Tony Reed’s summary states:

The Banks issue was taken up further and the Labour MPs reminded us of his homophobic actions in the House when Chris Carter came out as the first openly gay MP. Stephen agreed this was wrong, but in turn accused Labour MPs of making homophobic remarks about Chris Finlayson, a charge which was hotly denied.”

I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology for being called a liar.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority has just released its decision on their complaints against the PM hosting a non-political hour of talkback on Radio Live.

They have rejected Labour’s complaint on every ground argued, and their conclusion was:

Our opinion therefore is that even if this programme were held to be an election programme, which we do not consider it was, it would not have breached any of the standards raised by the complainant.

So the BSA has said that in their view it was not an election programme, but even if it was it breached no standard. This suggests that the Electoral Commission are unlikely to find it was an election programme also, unless they radically depart from the BSA’s reasonings.

The real winner in all of this is Mediaworks. They have a tiny listenership, and if Labour had not whined about the one hour show, would have passed without much notice. But thanks to their complaints Mediaworks and Radio Live have had two weeks of publicity about it.

The decision is embedded below.

Radio Works 14 Oct

Claire Trevett in the NZ Herald reports:

More schools in poor areas will have social workers as part of the Government’s initiatives to protect at-risk children.

Social Development minister Paula Bennett and Prime Minister John Key announced the changes in Auckland today as part of attempts to address issues of child abuse and neglect.

As well as extra 149 social workers in schools, 96 more social workers will be taken on by Child, Youth and Family to respond to claims of child abuse. The measures are expected to cost $11.8 million extra for the schools and $10.3 million at CYF.

It would be funded from existing funding, rather than any new injection of money.

I believe this will mean every school that is decile 3 or below will now have a dedicated social worker. Hopefully this will lead to greater detection and eventually prevention of child abuse.

It is great that this is being done from existing funding also. It will be some years before we will be back in surplus, so the responsible way to improve front-line services is by reducing costs in other areas.

I blogged on 27 September on the review of Parliament’ standing orders. A fuller list is at that post, but some of the changes include:

• The Clerk to record and publish attendance of MPs
• A Bill of Rights analysis to be supplied not just at first reading but also for substantive SOPs amending bills. This is something I have advocated several times.
• Provision for extended sitting hours without going into urgency by sitting on either a Wednesday or Thursday morning, if necessary. Again something I have strongly advocated, as it should reduce the need for urgency so much.
• Also provision for extended sitting hours on a Thursday evening and Friday morning, but only if the Business Committee agrees, which means basically the Opposition consents to it.
• Ministers moving urgency in future will need to state the reason for the urgency. Good.
• Business Committee determinations to be published on the Parliament website. These proposals give a lot more power to the Business Committee, so this is good. The BC needs near-unanimous consent to make decisions, so it is about encouraging parties to work together more.

These changes were passed by the House last week, and will apply to the next Parliament. They were passed on a voice vote with no parties or MPs dissenting. Considerable credit goes to Speaker Lockwood Smith who chaired the Standing Orders Committee.

But I also want to acknowledge the role Labour, and its rep Trevor Mallard, played. Generally changes that make the House more efficient are not necessarily a good thing for the Opposition. Take as an example the new ability to have extended hours without going into urgency. This allows the Government to pass more laws without using urgency, which means the Opposition will lose the opportunity to complain as often about use of urgency.

Labour presumably agreed partly because they plan to be in Government again one day themselves (when they will benefit from it), but partly also I think because they do want the House to operate more effectively. So it is worth acknowledging their constructive role in these changes. I’d like to quote from Trevor Mallard’s speech on the new standing orders:

Although it might cause him some embarrassment, I also acknowledge Rodney Hide and the work he has done within this. I was surprised at the number of occasions when we agreed as we progressed through the Standing Orders, and I think that having someone who has had a period as a poacher, and who, to a certain extent, has turned gamekeeper, was useful. It was useful having his view on the importance of Parliament and where the balances lie. People who look carefully at this report will see that it is one that very slightly tips the running of Parliament in favour of the Government, but provides some safeguards to that. Those of us who have been involved on both sides of the House think that that is something that could be useful going forward.

It does tip the balance a bit but there are stronger incentives now to gain consensus through the Business Committee.

Although I am less comfortable with that change, I am probably more comfortable than many of my colleagues with the set of arrangements around the extra hours—the extended sittings—of the House. I have had a role in Government business before. I know that things do not work neatly, and that therefore it is too easy for Governments to move to urgency in order to get through business that, of itself, is not urgent. Urgency has too often been used as a House management tool rather than as a tool to progress urgent business. I think the extended sittings give the right compromise there: select committees cannot sit at the same time as the House, except with leave; notice is given; bills are not taken through more than one stage at any one time; and the extended sitting occurs only once a week, unless the Business Committee agrees. In my opinion, that will give the Government a bit more power, but will move it back from using urgency in a way that I consider to have been inappropriate of Governments for just about as long as I can remember.

What I am pleased about is that a few months ago I co-operated with Labour MP Grant Robertson to publish an analysis of the use of urgency over the last few terms of Parliament. It didn’t win me a lot of friends in certain quarters, but I felt it was important to highlight the trend. I was nervous that Labour would be all rhetoric on reducing urgency, but not actually agree to changes such as the above, which would allow more business to be conducted without urgency. There had in fact been a sessional order asking for this sitting on the order paper for a couple of years, but which had not progressed due to lack of support.

So I was pleased to see Labour actually agree to changes (and Trevor suggests not all his colleagues were that keen to do so), to make a substantive move to back up the rhetoric. And the changes should mean that any future uses of urgency for non-urgent business will attract sustained criticism (with some limited exceptions such as post-election policy implementation).

There is, I think, quite a lot of extra power going to the Business Committee. Again, I reiterate my surprise at how well that committee is working. Frankly, Mr Brownlee, and especially Mr Power, with whom I have worked more often on that committee recently, have been open with the committee as to their intentions. The meetings have been slightly better planned, maybe, than at some stages in the past. You, Mr Speaker, in the way that you have chaired the committee, have also tried to seek consensus, although there has been an occasion or two where you have been the only person who has had a particular point of view. It is probably fortunate for the other members of the committee that you do not represent a party on that committee.

That’s a nice recognition of Gerry, Simon and Lockwood.

There are times when the House looks very juvenile. General Debate is a typical example. But there are also times when they rise above squabbling, and the review of the standing orders debate was one of those.

Stuff reports:

A project to make firearms more readily available to frontline police is a step towards “general arming”, the Police Association says.

The project will see existing stocks of Glock pistols and Bushmaster rifles moved from storage in police stations to response vehicles.

Police Association representative Craig Prior, of Christchurch, said the project was a “step forward”.

“It’s a natural progression to what we would prefer – general arming at some stage in the future,” he said.

Prior said the move would make policing safer.

“It gives a tactical option which most officers don’t have access to. They’re entitled to use firearms and trained and qualified to do so, but now they will have access to them should the need arise, which is a good thing,” he said.

Superintendent John Rivers said the project was not a step towards arming all police.

“It doesn’t involve a substantial purchase of assets and it’s certainly not a step towards general arming,” he said.

While the move to have firearms available in cars is a logical one, I think it would be a very sad day if we ever had the Police generally armed. I also think it would be a sensible idea to increase the amount of firearms training non-AOS officers have, if the probability of them using firearms increases.

Well, last Friday was devoted to a police issue so wasn’t thinking of photos then.

But today is a new day.

And today’s shot is of a male chaffinch- enjoy:

Click for higher res image

Answers tomorrow at 7 am

Labour’s just released Rainbow policy states:

Many GLBTI New Zealanders continue to be subject to insult, verbal and physical abuse, and to be made to feel inferior, most damagingly in schools.

This comes from the party whose MPs (Mallard and Cosgrove) yell out “Tinkerbell” when a gay National Minister is speaking in the House.

ACT Wellington Central candidate Stephen Whittington referred to this in the Rainbow Candidates meeting last night. And do you know what Grant Robertson and Charles Chauvel said? Did they apologise for their colleagues? Did they say they had asked them to stop? No, they lied and denied that any Labour MP had ever said that. They actually accused Whittington of making a personal attack on them.

In case anyone actually thinks Robertson and Chauvel told the truth, look at this video here of Trevor Mallard (start at 2.30). Also note this interview with Green MP Kevin Hague who said:

Hague said he had never been the target of taunting over his sexual orientation since entering the halls of parliament in 2008.

The same, he said, couldn’t be said for other gay MPs, citing “prejudice” directed at Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson.

“Trevor Mallard, and also Clayton Cosgrove, refer to Chris Finlayson as `tinkerbell’. And I f—ing hate it,” Hague said. “That sort of overt taunting as a `fairy’, it is nothing other than prejudice. I don’t like that culture of abuse.”

Now in case you think the video is doctored and that Kevin Hague is the liar, instead of Robertson and Chauvel, you can also look at Hansard here and here.

Discrimination against GLBTI people worldwide continues. The worst manifestation of this is the criminalisation of consensual adult same-sex activity, and its punishment as a capital offence.

This comes from the party which has a List MP who said (from Wikipedia):

In July 2005 Choudhary came to the public’s attention again when he refused to condemn outright the practice of stoning people for homosexual and extramarital sexual behaviour. In TV3’s 60 Minutes show on July 4, 2005, Dr. Choudhary was asked: “Are you saying the Qur’an is wrong to recommend that gays in certain circumstances be stoned to death?” He replied: ” No, no. Certainly what the Qur’an says is correct.” He then qualified his statement, “In those societies, not here in New Zealand”.

When Whittington raised this at the Rainbow debate last night, again Labour again accused him of lying.

So how does Labour reconcile its rainbow policy with having an MP who said it is fine to stone homosexuals and adulters to death, so long as it is not here in New Zealand?

National is far from progressive on gay issues, but I can’t recall a National MP ever saying that it is fine to kill homosexuals, if it is done in other countries.

Then we look at their detailed policy.

Modernise the law relating to the care of children to ensure that the widest pool of suitable adults is lawfully available to provide care to children in need

My God, why can’t they just say they will allow gay couples to adopt? Are they so scared of having the words gay and adoption in the same sentence? There are thousands of children being raised by gay parents and gay couples already. The law should focus on what is best for the child, and if that is a gay couple, then they should be allowed to adopt. What is so hard about saying that explicitly?

The Herald reports:

A Labour government would be likely to ditch the three-strikes law for repeat offenders, a controversial policy the party vehemently opposes and says is not working.

The three-strikes regime was passed into law last year, making it mandatory for judges to impose harsher sentences on repeat criminals convicted of one of 40 violent or sexual offences.

An offender receives a normal sentence and a warning for strike one, a sentence without parole for strike two, and the maximum sentence for that offence, without parole, for strike three.

Well that should make it easier for people. Labour is campaigning to have repeat rapists and bashers spend less time in jail.

Since three strikes was passed, I’ve been noting the number of criminals appearing in court who have a long record of violent or sexual crimes, and reflecting how if three strikes had been in place previously then they would not have been able to commit their latest homicide, rape or bashing.

I suspect this is the last election at which Labour will pledge to abolish three strikes. They can do so, because the public has yet to see it fully implemented. But in a couple of years probably a Judge will send some thug with a massively long list of crimes away for the maximum sentence without parole, and it will be more popular than toast. Once that has happened no political party will dare pledge to abolish it.

So as long as Labour do not get to form Government in 2011, I think three strikes will be safe for good. This is their last chance to repeal it.

Stuff reports:

A driver caught doing 127kmh in a 50kmh zone at Wellington’s Moa Pt was having trouble working out the speed his newly bought Mercedes Benz was doing, a court has been told.

Mario Giannoutsos, 42, of Otaki was clocked by police doing 77kmh above the speed limit just after midnight on July 30 while driving along Moa Pt Rd. …

Wellington District Court duty solicitor Barbara Hunt said yesterday that Giannoutsos had only recently bought the car and was having trouble with it, including being unable to work out the speed he was going because the lights on the dashboard were not working. He had been driving to check out what was wrong with the car.

Judge Davidson fined him $600. The maximum he could have been fined was $1000.

Somehow I think he knew the speed, with or without lights. That road is notorious for people trying to set speed records on it.