Four amusing incidents this week, I thought I would share.
The first (and second) were at the Electoral Legislation Select Committee. There was a discussion over whether MPs who pass rumours onto bloggers could be considered the “publisher” and a Labour MP referred to a particular rumour about her, which she alleged came from a National MP. She said that it didn’t appear on my blog, but on “that other blog”.
I was very amused by the reluctance to name “that other blog”, so suggested that she was referring to “The blog that shall not be named”, in the fashion of not naming Lord Voldermort. This caused a fair bit of merriment, and the Dom Post even covered that little snippet.
At the same hearing, there was also a discussion on the appropriateness of parliamentary surveys (the ones posted out) asking questions on how people vote. I responded with an absolutely correct answer that one legitimate use of asking such a question is that allows you to do a cross-tabular analysis of responses to the issues and policy questions, which can help MPs better understand how different communities regard different issues, and that understanding the diversity of viewpoints is a legitimate parliamentary activity.
Without co-ordination, both Lianne Dalziel and Darren Hughes burst into howls of laughter, with Darren expressing admiration for how I managed to give that entire answer with a straight face. At that point my straight face somewhat ceased, and I did concede there may be a variety of motivations for the asking of such a question (which incidentally all parties do). It was very amusing.
Later that day I had a meeting with two Labour MPs over copyright issues, held over in one of their offices. The meeting went on later than expected and at 5.40 pm I was due to go on air with Larry Williams and Deborah Coddington to talk about issues of the day. So I excused myself from the meeting and stepped out into the corridor to do the radio interview, sitting down on the couches there.
Around halfway through a Labour Executive Secretary came out of her office into the corridor, and the look on her face seeing me by myself in the secure Labour corridor, sitting on the couch conducting a radio interview was priceless.I was lucky not to have security guards descend on me!
The fourth amusing incident was at a dinner last night, to mark my retirement from the board of .nz Registry Services. I’m the last of the inaugural directors to retire, after eight years there. Anyway the Board Chair started the dinner by saying it was to acknowledge everything I had done to NZRS. As it was hastily corrected to be everything I had done for NZRS, it was very amusing to everyone there. Set the scene nicely for a very enjoyable night.
Sorry for the delay this morning. I’m heading back to China shortly for some more tiger work. This will also mean I won’t be able to do a photo for next Friday.
Anyway, I liked this shot of a kararea, for the eye details and the smoothness of the defocused background.
As always, the larger version can be viewed with the old ‘right-click’. Now, today, I am drinking a *lot* of coffee 🙂
For those who have not seen it.
I have previously blogged my hope that Allan Hubbard will be found to have done nothing wrong. From all accounts he is a wonderful New Zealander, who has done much good and has the best of intentions.
However that does not mean that he, or his companies, are exempt from the law. And indeed there are some problems to be accounted for, as reported by the Herald:
About 300 investors in Hubbard Management Funds (HMF) have been told by statutory managers that the reported value of their investments at March 31 was overstated by at least 25 percent.
In their second report, statutory managers Richard Simpson and Trevor Thornton of Grant Thornton New Zealand also warned today that investors in another company operated by Timaru businessman Allan Hubbard, Aorangi Securities Ltd, may suffer a loss in their investments.
This indicates to me the legal process should continue until there is a clear resolution. But one group of his supporters has been getting very excited. There is a bit of a split in his supporters. Some want to engage a professional public law firm to engage on their behalf (which seems sensible), while another group wants to run full-page newspaper adverts. And what do they want the ads to say:
The idea that has been put forth is to run half or full page newspaper advertisement’s in the NZ Herald, the Dominon Post, The Christchurch Press, and the Otago Daily Times, in the form of an open letter to the Prime Minister, demanding the cessation of statutory management and the removal of the SFO from this situation.
This is probably the most appalling idea I have ever seen. A group of citizens saying we want the Prime Minister to interfere in a criminal investigation and to try and call the SFO off. This is in fact a call for corruption – what else can you call it – to have political pressure decide who does or does not get investigated by the SFO,.
The group seems to have had some negative feedback to their plans, and are now talking slightly different ads. But it is clear to me their blind loyalty to Allan Hubbard has suspended their facility for clear thought and reason.
As I said, I hope Allan Hubbard is found to have done nothing wrong, but they are decisions for independent authorities, and not something that should be decided by newspaper advertisements.
Act on Campus blog:
Don’t you love when two people contradict each other in the same news article?
Even more so when the journalist writing the story doesn’t seem to notice!
“Parents were meant to have been told about the illusion before the exercise.” – Justin Reid, Otatara Primary School Board Of Trustees Chairman
“Yesterday, school principal Sharon Livingstone said the letter was a “mistake” and was not meant to go home to parents.”
Good spotting. It does make it look more likely that they are inventing excuses, after the event, and that it was in fact politically motivated.
Bill English’s office has put out a comparison of real (CPI adjusted) net (after tax) wage growth for a full-time worker on the average (mean) wage.
The Australian data only goes back to 1994, so the first time period compared is Sep 1994 to Sep 1999 – the final quarter before Labour took office.
During those five years the real net income for a FT worker on the average wage rose 13.2% in New Zealand and 6.2% in Australia.
Then over the next nine years from September 1999 to September 2008, the increase in New Zealand was 3.0% and in Australia it was 19.3%. Yep six times greater in Australia. They had high wages, low inflation and tax cuts. We had no tax cuts, higher inflation and lower wage increases.
From Since September 2008, to June 2010, the increase in New Zealand has been 8.7% vs 4.8% in Australia.
If one translates this to average annual increases, then the comparison would be:
Now the time periods used are slightly cheery picked, in that the latest period includes both the April 2009 tax cuts and the October 2008 tax cuts – so they do not correspond exactly to Government terms. But on the other hand Labour did the Oct 2008 tax cuts most grudgingly, because of the election, and probably would ave cancelled them if they had retained office.
The stat that stands out to me is that during those nine years from Sep 99 to Sep 08, the average after tax income only grew 0.3% a year. Fiscal drag mean someone on the average wage paid more and more tax as their salary increased.
Great humour, as usual, from The Chaser.
City Paper reports:
For the past three years, Marilyn Bess has operated MS Philly Organic, a small, low-traffic blog that features occasional posts about green living, out of her Manayunk home. Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she’s made about $50. To Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it’s a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut.
In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license. …
She’s not alone. After dutifully reporting even the smallest profits on their tax filings this year, a number — though no one knows exactly what that number is — of Philadelphia bloggers were dispatched letters informing them that they owe $300 for a privilege license, plus taxes on any profits they made.
Even if, as with Sean Barry, that profit is $11 over two years. …
A privilege license? Is there no end to the ways some governments will try and extort money from its citizens and residents?
Find out if you are a problem drinker or have hazardous levels of consumption. Complete the survey, and post your score in comment. Later on, I will post what different scores mean according to the World Health Organisation.
1. How often do you have a drink containing alcohol?
(0) Never [Skip to Qs 9-10]
(1) Monthly or less
(2) 2 to 4 times a month
(3) 2 to 3 times a week
(4) 4 or more times a week
2. How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day when you are drinking?
(0) 1 or 2
(1) 3 or 4
(2) 5 or 6
(3) 7, 8, or 9
(4) 10 or more
3. How often do you have six or more drinks on one occasion?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily
4. How often during the last year have you found that you were not able to stop drinking once you had started?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily
5. How often during the last year have you failed to do what was normally expected from you because of drinking?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily
6. How often during the last year have you needed a first drink in the morning to get yourself going after a heavy drinking session?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily
7. How often during the last year have you had a feeling of guilt or remorse after drinking?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily
8. How often during the last year have you been unable to remember what happened the night before because you had been drinking?
(0) Never
(1) Less than monthly
(2) Monthly
(3) Weekly
(4) Daily or almost daily
9. Have you or someone else been injured as a result of your drinking?
(0) No
(2) Yes, but not in the last year
(4) Yes, during the last year
10. Has a relative or friend or a doctor or another health worker been concerned about your drinking or suggested you cut down?
(0) No
(2) Yes, but not in the last year
(4) Yes, during the last year
[DPF: Update: WHO states:
Total scores of 8 or more are recommended as indicators of hazardous and
harmful alcohol use, as well as possible alcohol dependence.
This is how Alcohol Action come up with their stat that 700,000 NZers are problem drinkers. But it is even worse than that:
In general, a score of 1 or more on Question 2 or Question 3 indicates consumption at a hazardous level.
So if you have ever had more than two standard drinks in a session, this indicates hazardous consumption!]
The Herald reports:
Education Minister Anne Tolley is furious a Southland school put her signature on a fake letter, and officials are investigating the forgery.
Otatara Primary School pupils were given the fake letter yesterday, saying their school day was to be extended by one hour.
Written on Education Ministry letterhead, it was “signed” by Mrs Tolley, who was angry when she learned of it.
“It’s unbelievable that teachers would do this to children and I’m angry that the school has used my name,” she said. …
Otatara principal Sharon Livingstone told the Southland Times the school was uncomfortable with the news media attention, and the letter was a “mistake” that was not meant to go home to parents.
So will someone be held accountable?
The Keep it 18 page on Facebook has been gaining members at a massive rate. It hit 10,000 overnight and is now at 10,550. Join up, if you support the cause.
You can also follow the campaign on Twitter.
Quiz is here. 38 seconds. Well done to John Ansell for making the quiz 🙂
The Dom Post reports:
The lawyer of convicted killer John Barlow hopes renewed publicity about the case will uncover new evidence that could clear his client’s name. …
Barlow’s lawyer, Greg King, said if new evidence was uncovered he could go to the governor-general for a royal pardon or to have the case referred back to the Court of Appeal.
“I think what is absolutely clear from John is that this isn’t the end of it. He will continue his fight to clear his name.
John Barlow, just like OJ Simpson, will not rest until the real killer is found.
Brian Rudman writes:
The Local Government Commission agrees there is a problem. In its July 2008 review of the Local Electoral Act, the commission acknowledged that its analysis of the 2007 elections “did show that the order of candidates on the voting document had an impact on election outcomes.
“Candidates whose names were early in the alphabet (and therefore early in the candidates’ profiles booklet) and early on alphabetically ordered voting documents were up to 4 per cent more likely to be elected than those whose names were later in the alphabet.”
It also found “there was a significant bias in favour of candidates in the left column of voting documents when there was more than one column of candidates”.
But the commissioners called for more research, concluding “a definitive solution to this issue is unlikely”. When I checked this week, no more research had been done.
With modern systems of printing, randomising ballot papers is not a difficult task. If it helps eliminate bias in the election process then surely it should be adopted.
Random ordered ballots would be a problem in the general election, as votes are counted manually. But for local body elections which use barcode scanners, they would be fairly simple to do, and it will help reduce bias based on surname.
Either that or scrap the lengthy lists that cause the problem and create more single-member, locally based, wards.
I tend to favour single-member wards also. I think most people can choose one name from say half a dozen or so. But they struggle with choosing 3 out of 15, let alone 7 out of 30. It becomes almost a random selection at that stage.
NBR have announced:
The National Business Review unreservedly apologises for the confusion surrounding our 40th birthday competition. It was never our intention to cause confusion about the voting for the Win Your Weight in Veuve promotion but people have expressed frustration and we have listened to their concerns.
The official winner (as chosen by the judges from the top 10 voted entries) will be announced, on schedule, in NBR print tomorrow.
In addition, the publisher will personally provide Busted Blonde’s weight in Veuve Clicquot to her to demonstrate that NBR will not allow its integrity, transparency or honesty in its dealings with its readers to be compromised in any way. She received the most online votes in the competition and NBR happily salutes that success.
As a responsible host, the publisher would, however, appeal to Busted Blonde to urge her guests to wear life jackets if celebrating their win on Wellington Harbour.
Let the festivities begin.
I’m so pleased that NBR have done this. As I blogged – it was not about the prize, but about integrity and transparency. This is important for any media outlet, but especially NBR which provides a unique role with its pro-business focus. Their decision reinforces that this is important to them – which I salute.
I understand that Busted Blonde will use the winnings for an event which will raise money for a worthy charity, so the outcome is a real win-win.
The TV3 blog has the most details of the day’s proceedings. The Herald also carries an NZPA story.
But neither detail in full, what was probably the funniest exchange. The Police played their DVD of the interview with Whale, and it contained discussion of Whale’s depression, and medications.
Judge Harvey asked the defence lawyer whether he would like those parts of the DVD evidence suppressed. Mr Thwaite replied instantly that normally he would check with his client as to their wishes, but in this case he feels confident that he can answer forcefully that his client will not be seeking a suppression order 🙂
For those who are wondering, what happens next:
Judge Harvey says he does not intend to present a decision now. He proposes to remand Slater at large until 10am on September 14 when he will have his decision. Judge says he can make a finding on the no case issue and he can find there is no case to answer and the whole thing evaporates. Or he finds there is a case to answer, he can articulate that and he can give Mr Thwaite an opportunity to address the judge on liability. Or he can proceed to determine the no case argument, if there is a case to answer he can consider the elements have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
So tune back on the 14th.
The Herald seems appalled that Ministers addressed an SST conference:
It is a feather in any group’s cap when not only the Prime Minister but the Justice Minister and the Police Minister queue up to address it.
A stamp of importance is conferred and the credibility of its viewpoint is enhanced.
So it was yesterday when John Key, Simon Power and Judith Collins spoke to a Sensible Sentencing Trust conference on victims’ rights in Parliament’s Banquet Hall.
All emphasised, quite reasonably, that the trust represents an important voice. But they also gave every impression of wishing to heed its policies.
Never mind that many of these are too extreme and too outmoded to find their way into any coherent justice reform package.
So what is this important voice the SST represents? Are they a group of lobbyists? Are they a group of academics? Are they a group of public sector funded staffers? Are they a group of politicians?
They are none of those. The vast majority are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children of murder victims.
What many people, including editorial writers, don’t get is there are two sides to the Trust.
Most people see the trust as purely Garth McVicar and his hard-line advocacy on law and order issues. I don’t agree with everything Garth advocates, but I do think NZ is better off for his advocacy – he has provided a voice for victims of crime, who are largely treated as as distractions by the justice system.
But why do so many families of serious crime support the Trust and participate, including new victims such as the Elliotts? Is it simply because they get so angry about what has happened, that they look them up on the web, and send off an application?
What many do not realise is that Garth, and others from the SST, are often there supporting the families of murder victims within days. And if you speak to some of those families, and ask them who was the biggest comfort to them in their darkest hours, their answer will often be the SST. It will not be the legion of taxpayer funded agencies, but the voluntary self funded SST.
The taxpayer funded agencies send in professional counsellors etc. The SST sends in the only people who can truly understand what the family of a murder victim is going through – other families of murder victims. And that support is so invaluable, that is why they in turn get involved with the SST, and make themselves available to future families of victims.
So I am glad that the Prime Minister, Justice Minister and Police Minister all addressed the SST Conference. regardless of what you think of their political advocacy, they deserve those attendances on the basis of the incredible support work they do with victims alone.
And with the other MP on leave, the Herald reports:
Te Atatu MP Chris Carter yesterday confirmed he intended seeing out his current term of office and was not looking elsewhere for work.
Labour Party sources have been reported as saying Mr Carter, who is on two months’ sick leave from Parliament after being outed as the writer of an anonymous letter undermining his leader Phil Goff last month, had indicated he planned to resign, triggering a byelection.
The sources also claimed Mr Carter had approached the Labour Party for help in finding another job.
It is such a lovely all encompassing term – “Labour Party sources”.
Yesterday, Mr Carter denied both claims.
“At this point in time I’m happy to continue being the MP for Te Atatu and I will be working hard for my constituents” he told TVNZ News as he left an Auckland gym.
I am glad Chris has managed to drag himself off his sickbed.
Mr Carter also said he had not approached Labour or anybody else about a job.
One of Mr Carter’s supporters yesterday told the Herald regular exercise was part of his efforts to regain his health.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I hope they managed to say that with a straight face.
I actually think Heather did the right thing, in returning early to Parliament. Staying away for a full fortnight would have just meant the publicity around her return would have been delayed.
And on Campbell Live, she basically said the right things about putting the past behind, wanting to work with Rodney, and move on together as part of a team.
ACT should accept these intentions in good faith, in my opinion.
If Heather wishes to remain an ACT MP, which she clearly does, then she has the right to do so. Any attempt to push her out (and I am not suggesting such a thing is planned) would just keep the bad publicity going.
Having said that, Heather may find the next 14 months pretty hard. Going from a Minister with 10 staff to a backbencher with one secretary is a hard adjustment, combined with the fact that previously you actually determined policy, signed off spending etc, and then as a backbencher your main parliamentary job is select committees.
Most MPs tolerate being a backbencher, because of the potential to be a Minister one day. I can’t see any way Heather is going to end up being a Minister again. In fact I can’t see anyway that Heather will be an MP after the next election, because the remaining party members (and ultimately the Board) are highly unlikely to give her a winnable list place.
So while I think it is a good thing Heather has returned from leave, and is wanting to get on with the job – she may find it is a pretty unappealing time.
Tv3 have a live blog of proceedings at Whale Oil’s trial. Well not quite live, as Judge Harvey has placed a ten minute delay on tweeting and reporting, in case evidence has to be suppressed.
Judge Harvey is probably the Judge who is the most knowledgeable on Internet issues. I’m not sure if he volunteered for the trial, or was given it as punishment 🙂
Some extracts:
Judge Harvey describes Whale Oil’s blogs as like a shotgun blast, it hits the person and then other people he doesn’t want to hit.
Heh, not a bad analogy.
Mr Slater is sitting at the back of the courtroom; wearing his usual white long-sleeve shirt with dark blue sleeves. He is bearded, arms folded and watching the trial unfold with apparent nonchalance. He writes the occasional note on his hands but remains impassive.
Heh. I look forward to seeing the TV.
Ms Murray asks him about articles he posted about the Olympian. He says he wrote an article about celebrity name suppression and said he published some pictures to go with the article for ‘interests sake’. He says they were ‘interesting pictures’ and says people have had guesses at what they meant. He says ‘they could mean anything’. It was one image that contained four images. He says he doesn’t believe the Olympian should have name suppression because he is a ‘violent criminal’. He says he understood that no one was able to publish his name, age or occupation. He says he did not mention his occupation nor his age nor his name. He says he quoted from the NZ Herald and put up a random image – ‘you can take it anyway you want’.
The court judgement will be very interesting.
Just returned from the Wellington Club where myself and around eight journalists had lunch with Daniel Pipes, who has authored more than a dozen books on the Middle East or Islam. The Israeli Ambassador kindly hosted the lunch.
Daniel spoke on five broad topics, and we had a lively Q+A. I’ll go through them, off memory.
Iraq & Afghanistan
Pipes was very pessimistic for both countries, and said that the aim of transforming the countries into modern democratic states has and will fail. Worse, he believes they won’t even achieve the status of “a decent place to live”.
What makes his view of significance, if he was a supporter of the invasions of both countries. So he is saying, that the US has failed and will fail.
I asked whether the US were too ambitious trying to turn Iraq into a post-war Germany or Japan, and whether they would have been better to basically shoot Saddam, and the next ten in the line of succession, tell No 11 that he is now in charge, that he should leave the Kurds alone, and bring in some elections and basically pull out, leaving the infrastructure, the Baath party, the army etc intact.
Pipes basically agreed, and said that has been his long held position – that the US should have found a strongman, who was more palatable than Saddam, and left him in charge. It would not have achieved a secular liberal democracy, but it might achieve the country becoming a semi-decent place to live.
US Policy
Pipes made a strong case that in terms of foreign policy, there is very little difference between Bush and Obama. Obama at one stage had more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than under Bush. Also Obama has approved 50 attacks from unmanned drones, compared to 38 under the entire Bush presidency.
Obama’s outreach to Islamic states, with his Cairo speech did result in a more favourable impression of the US at the time. But a year later, the views of the US in the Islamic world have shrunk back to what they were under Bush.
Iran
Pipes thinks there is no doubt Iran is developing nuclear weapon – and that in fact it is a logical thing for Iran to do, as it makes you a military power, but in a far cheaper fashion than an increase in conventional forces.
He decried both the Bush and Obama strategy on Iran on the basis he has yet to work out what either of them is.
Pipes believes the threat of a nuclear armed Iran, under its current leadership, is so dangerous, that a military strike will be necessary.
I actually pushed back against this, on the basis that most Iranians want to get rid of their President, and an attack on their nuclear facilities is the one thing which will make his popularity soar, and guarantee the hardliners keep control for at least a generation.
Pipes said that he does think that Iran is the one country where the Islamic leadership is under real threat, and if left alone they are likely to be removed from power in the future. However he still regards the danger in the interim of an Islamic Iran with nuclear weapons to be so great, that he still thinks a strike is needed – but accepts the consequences will be a massive increase in terrorism etc.
Israel & Palestine
Pipes is a pessimist on a diplomatic solution. He asserts that you only have diplomatic solutions after the war is over, not as a way to stop a war. Until one side “wins” diplomacy will not work.
His preferred course of action is to try and increase the proportion of Palestinians who accept Israel has a right to exist from 20% to over 50%. He says only when a majority of Palestinians accept they will not succeed with their desire to destroy Israel, will a diplomatic solution have any chance of working.
Islam and Europe
Pipes says the growing Islamic population in Europe is partly due to the indigenous populations not producing enough children to maintain population, and partly the desire of people in Islamic countries to move to places with a better standard of living.
He says that there are three possible paths ahead:
A vigorous discussion on this topic. Canada was held up as one of the few Western countries which has managed Muslim immigration, which has not been radical Islamists. I suggested that NZ has also been successful at having Muslim immigrants, with almost no radicalisation here.
Pipes suggestion for keeping it that way, is that one should not discriminate against Muslims who wish to migrate here, but that one should absolutely discriminate against Islamists.
He said many people do not get the difference between Islam/Muslims and Islamism/Islamists. He says Islam is a religion like Judaism, Christianity etc. Islamism is a political belief like communism, zionism, fascism.
Was a very interesting 90 minute lunch and discussion, even if somewhat depressing in terms of the outlook for key conflicts, and for Europe. Barry Soper commented that it made him glad to live in New Zealand – for which I have to agree.
NZPA report:
Labour chief press secretary and former ONE News reporter Kris Faafoi has confirmed he will stand for selection for the Mana seat north of Wellington.
Faafoi said he would immediately quit his role if selected – nominations close on September 9 with selection on the 18th.
Kris is the favourite to win the nomination, and become the MP for Mana. He’s a nice guy, who will not alienate anyone.
Danyl M make the point:
On the other hand, it seems like an awful lot of Labour’s new intake are professional political operatives who became MPs after working as staffers in the leaders office. When you’re trying to be a broad, community based social democratic party representing a wide variety of New Zealanders I think you need to cast the net a little wider than the end of the hallway when you’re looking for new talent.
A fair point.
The selection is not a dead cert. As I have said before, I think Josie Pagani i very talented, and she could well gain grassroots support. But where head office has such a powerful say, it is hard to see them turning down the Leader’s chief press secretary.
If Kris gets selected, it will be interesting to see who replaces him in his press secretary role.
Stuff reports:
Liquor companies lobbied the Government furiously in the weeks before a reform package was announced.
They pressed Justice Minister Simon Power with claims he was being served up biased and flawed recommendations by the Law Commission.
Documents obtained under the Official Information Act show a procession of companies and industry groups wrote directly to Mr Power, but he insists they had no influence over his recommendations to the Cabinet.
On Monday, Mr Power announced changes that will affect bar hours, off-licence trading, liquor advertising and the purchase age. He declared a moratorium on meeting advocates on either side of the debate after the Law Commission tabled its report on alcohol law reform in April.
I’m sorry, but what is the purpose of this story?
The Minister refused to meet with lobbyists from either side. How could criticise him for that? So the story is about the fact is about that some industry groups wrote him a letter? Even worse, they wrote “directly” to him. Well how else do you write? Should they have sent letters to Mrs Smith of Taihape and asked her to pass them onto the Minister?
But that did not stop more than 150 people writing with concerns about liquor and a further six industry groups or companies sending their views.
As people and groups should. In fact it would be unthinkable for such groups to not write to the Minister with their views.
If there is a proposal to regulate the medical profession, would one expect the Medical Association to not offer its views? Of course not. So why is it newsworthy in this case? Because certain lobby groups are trying to push a theme that the “liquor industry” has too much influence. I can only imagine they wish them to be banned from writing letters.
On May 10, Hospitality Association chief executive Bruce Robertson wrote to Mr Power expressing “real concerns with the interpretation of some of the data … and inconsistencies with the [Law] Commission’s advocacy”.
The Law Commission seemed to have chosen data which supported the advocacy of the public health sector, he wrote. Then, on June 14, Mr Robertson wrote to Mr Power with a full commentary on 146 of the Law Commission’s 153 recommendations.
Bruce would be sacked if he did not offer a commentary on the recommendations. That is his job. Again – why is this a new story?
Where are the stories about how Alcohol Action is funded, and the massive amount of lobbying they have done?