Matthew Hooton has a very good piece in NBR on beltway politics.

The Herald reports:

A Labour MP is calling for Government action over the poor condition of State Highway 3, between Taranaki and Waikato.

Andrew Little says the Government is allowing a road to block for exporters trying to transport goods efficiently.

We should celebrate this day. A Labour MP has called for spending on a road. This is a good thing.

NZ Herald quiz here.

The Herald reports:

North Korea has warned diplomats in Pyongyang that it can’t guarantee the safety of embassies in the event of a conflict and suggested they may want to evacuate their staff, Russia’s top diplomat said Friday.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is demanding an explanation from the North Koreans asking whether the warning is an order to evacuate the North Korean capital or merely a proposal to consider doing so.

It is very difficult to analyse what North Korea is doing, because the leadership is so abnormal. The cold war between US and USSR never became a major conflict because both sides could analyse what the other side was thinking and would do.

The recent rhetoric from North Korea is much more aggressive and specific than in the past.  With most countries this is a cause for alarm, because you can’t back down from such aggressive language without losing face.

However as the regime controls almost all communications within North Korea, they can just lie to their people and claim the US has agreed to withdraw a warship or something and claim it as a huge victory. The poor people will probably never know better.

But there is a not insignificant risk that North Korea will want some sort of “victory”. They are unlikely to attack the US directly as that would be regime suicide. but could they attack some South Korean targets? Yes.

What if they lob a couple of missiles at some non populated areas in South Korea? Or sink a ship? Does South Korea retaliate? If they do not, then they may invite more unprovoked attacks. If they do, then war could eventuate.

My pick and hope is North Korea will declare some sort of fake victory and not actually attack. But this is far from certain.

The Dom Post editorial:

Confusion has seized Wellington City councillors, and the spectacle is not pretty. While many of them were asleep, it seems,150 council jobs have been axed. “How did that happen? Why were our hands not on the steering wheel?’ asks Mayor Celia Wade-Brown.

This is a damaging question for any politician to ask, at least out loud. If the mayor did not know how the jobs went west, she should have. If her hands were not on the steering wheel, they should have been. It is no excuse to plead ignorance. It is the mayor’s job to know such things.

It was a damning thing to say.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the council has blundered about in confusion and ignorance. It is only a few weeks ago that Ms Wade-Brown was astonished to learn that the renovations for her temporary office were going to cost $350,000. When this newspaper revealed the fact, Ms Wade-Brown said it was unacceptable and would be scaled back.

It is beyond belief that the Mayor was not previously aware of the cost of her own office renovations.

Phil Kitchin at Stuff reports:

The Human Rights Commission plans to prosecute the Sensible Sentencing Trust for breaching a serial paedophile’s privacy.

I’m speechless.

It stems from the trust printing the man’s name and details of his offending on its website. The commission says this breaches his privacy because the trust does not mention that he has name suppression.

However, neither the paedophile nor the commission have been able to supply a court record to prove he has name suppression.

Which is rather important. I don’t think taking the paedophile’s word for it is a good idea.

In January, the present commission director, Robert Kee, wrote to the trust saying it had not ensured it was publishing accurate information when it put the paedophile’s convictions on its website.

Publishing the information without referring to “the fact there is a suppression order” breached the man’s privacy, Mr Kee said.

But three paragraphs later, Mr Kee said he agreed with a judge’s minute that said there is “no record on the file of a final suppression order” being made.

He said the sentencing judge’s written decision was missing, but he believed the Human Rights Review Tribunal “could find on the balance of probabilities that there was a suppression order”.

Balance of probabilities? Not good enough. If you can’t find one, there isn’t one.

On one side of the case is the taxpayer-funded Human Rights Commission, which includes the Office of Human Rights Proceedings and prosecutes cases under the Privacy Act.

On the other side is the Sensible Sentencing Trust, staffed by volunteers and funded by donations.

In the middle is the convicted paedophile, a 58-year-old Wellington man whose offending is alleged to have spanned 14 years.

He was jailed for a year in 1995 on five counts of committing indecent acts on two girls aged 10 and 14.

At the same trial he was acquitted of a further two charges of rape and four charges of indecent assault on young girls.

Twenty years earlier he was charged and acquitted in three separate rape trials.

He also has a conviction for careless driving causing death.

The man lost his job as a chief executive when members of his organisation learned of his sex offending. Documents obtained by The Dominion Post from members of the organisation said he had access to children in his work and had lied about being employed when he was in prison.

I know which side I am on. If this proceeds, I’ll be happy to solicit donations from readers for the Sensible Sentencing Trust on this issue. You don’t have to agree with everything the SST says or does to be appalled by this prosecution.

The Economist has published their 2012 democracy index.

Our score out of a maximum 10 is 9.26. Norway is top on 9.93. North Korea bottom on 1.08.

25 countries are classified as full democracies, 54 as flawed democracies, 36 as hybrid regimes and 52 states as authoritarian.

In terms of the global population only 11.3% live in a full democracy compared to 37.1% who live in authoritarian regimes.

NZ scores are:

• Electoral process and pluralism 10.00
• Functioning of Government 9.29
• Political participation 8.89
• Political culture 8.13
• Civil liberties 10.00

The Herald reports:

The New Zealand government had a smaller operating deficit than expected in the first eight months of the financial year as it took in more income tax and tax from source deductions than it had forecast.

The operating balance before gains and losses (obegal) was a deficit of $3 billion in the eight months ended February 28, 16 per cent smaller than forecast in the December half-year economic and fiscal update.

Core Crown tax revenue was $37.6 billion in the first eight months of the year, which was $719 million, or 2 per cent higher than forecast. Source deductions were $266 million above forecast, which the Treasury said showed underlying strength in the economy.

That is an encouraging sign that we may get out of deficit by 2014/15. In 2008 the projected deficit was permanent and ever-growing. The outlook was a Europe type spiral into ever-increasing debt.

The Press details the three options for Christchurch Cathedral:

Option 1: Restoration
Cost $104m-$221m
Time 6.5 – 22 years
A complete restoration of the original cathedral.

Option 2: Traditional
$85m-$181m
Time 5-22 years
A re-interpretation of the original Gothic revival building in modern materials.

Option 3: Contemporary
Cost: $56m-$74m
Time: 4.5 – 9.5 years
A contemporary new building with a sculptural spire.

Worth following the link to look at the design sketches.

I called the consultation a bit of a sham, on radio last night. This is because it is obvious what the preferred option and inevitable decision will be.

Two of the three options will cost around $200 million and take up to 22 years to build. The third will cost less than half of the others, and can be completed within a decade, maybe even half a decade.

Not hard to work out the likely winner.

As it happens my preference is the contemporary one anyway.

Not that I get a vote. I am not a member of the local Anglician parish. This is not a public building – it is their building. God knows why prominent Catholic Jim Anderton is trying to impose his views on the Anglician Church as to their building. Jim – the Anglicians left you guys in 1534. You don’t get to decide.

UPDATE: It gets worse. The Labour MP for Wellington Central is saying the Anglician Church should go with the traditional restorations option as “the traditional restoration option may well be more expensive than the alternatives, the cultural, historic and heritage values of the building warrant those costs being met”.

What the fuck has it got to do with a Wellington Labour MP?

But tell you what, Labour. If you think the extra $145 million cost is worth it, then why don’t you pay for it? Start organising the sausage sizzles. Labour has around 6,000 members so if each member can fund-raise $24,000 they can cover the cost.

Finally, it is out. The announcement:

New Zealand retail investors in the Mighty River Power share offer will receive one loyalty bonus share for every 25 shares they hold for two years from the offer, up to a maximum of 200 bonus shares, Finance Minister Bill English says.

Mr English also announced that the indicative price range for the shares is $2.35 – $2.80 per share, with the final price expected to be announced on 8 May after the retail offer has closed and the institutional offer has been conducted by a book-build process.

“The loyalty bonus scheme that I am announcing today is another way to encourage widespread and substantial New Zealand ownership of shares in MRP,” Mr English says.

“It also recognises the loyalty of those New Zealanders who retain their shares and contribute towards the country’s savings culture.”

The loyalty bonus scheme is available only to New Zealand retail investors – not to institutions in New Zealand or overseas.

A 1 in 25 bonus is basically a 4% premium for holding on. Experienced investors will buy and sell regardless as potential gains are greater than 4% but for first time investors, the bonus will probably encourage them to hold onto their shares for at least the initial period.

People who pre-registered will be posted or emailed copies of the share offer document once the offer opens, expected to be Monday 15 April.

686 million shares are up on offer.

A useful summary of risks is here:

• The availability of the fuel (mainly water, geothermal fluid and gas) that Mighty River Power requires to generate electricity may reduce for a wide number of reasons;
• Mighty River Power’s power stations may not be able to generate electricity as expected if they cannot operate in the normal manner or at all;
• If the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter were to significantly reduce its electricity consumption or cease consumption altogether, the resultant drop in demand could lead to a sustained reduction in electricity prices in general;
• The wholesale price at which Mighty River Power sells the electricity it generates, or buys electricity to sell to customers, is subject to significant variability and may be unfavourable;
• The volume and price at which Mighty River Power is able to sell electricity to customers may be adversely affected by competitor behaviour, economic conditions, changes in customer demand or regulatory changes;
• Investment in geothermal development activity requires significant early stage capital and may encounter unexpected delays, increased costs, a requirement to impair assets or not be commercially viable;
• International geothermal development faces additional risks associated with operating in jurisdictions outside of New Zealand;
• Changes in the regulatory environment that adversely impact Mighty River Power;
• A single (or multiple) catastrophic event generating losses not covered by insurance;
• Insufficient access to future capital; and
• Treaty of Waitangi and other Māori claims relating to ownership and governance of land, water and geothermal resources that directly or indirectly impose additional restrictions, conditions or additional costs

I plan to buy shares, despite those risks. There are no rewards without risk. I’m pleased that I will be able to make an individual choice as a citizen about whether to invest my money into Mighty River Power, rather than have the decision solely up to the Government,

Stuff reports:

Being a parent takes up more time each day than a fulltime job, Statistics New Zealand figures show.

The average Kiwi parent spent more than eight hours a day caring for children, and some mothers were spending twice that, social statistics manager Steve Manning said.

Parents with children under 14 spent on average eight hours and 18 minutes a day caring for their children.

“The information from the Time Use Survey 2009-10 shows mothers on average spend four hours a day more than fathers caring for children,” Mr Manning said.

“Mothers of young children [under 5 years] spend on average 12 hours a day caring for them.”

This doesn’t surprise me. I think those who have not had kids can only imagine the intensity of being a parent.

Stuff reports:

Southland Chamber of Commerce chief executive Richard Hay urged people to consider what was really going on.

Pacific Aluminium, a business unit of Rio Tinto and the majority shareholder of New Zealand Aluminium Smelters, had been perceived as playing hard ball, he said.

“If anybody was getting the short end of the stick, it would appear to be the smelter.”

Rio Tinto was shown as begging from the Government and using the Mighty River Power partial asset sales policy as leverage to get what it wanted, he said.

“However, has any consideration been given by the public that it’s Meridian playing hard ball.

“After all, it has been making a yearly profit of $200 million off the Manapouri power generator, while NZAS is losing $50m and is in the shadow of closing,” Mr Hay said. …

“Rio Tinto wants Meridian to reduce the power price in tough times but be prepared to pay more for it again when the market improves.”

I understand that essentially Rio Tinto want the price they pay for electricity to be linked to the price they get for aluminum. This is very understandable from their point of view. Electricity makes up over 30% of their operating costs.

What they are effectively asking Meridian to be more a partner than a supplier. To share both the risks and rewards of the aluminum market.

While Meridian is 100% Government owned, I’d be very reluctant to have a Government owned business getting involved in a risky commercial enterprise such as aluminum – beyond their current role as a supplier. Why should taxpayers be forced to invest in the aluminum market?

But if Meridian was fully or partially privately owned, then Meridian shareholders could well want their Board of Directors to accept a deal where the price they charge is linked to the aluminum price.

So my hope is that Meridian and Rio Tinto can reach an agreement for now. Once Meridian is no longer an SOE, then it should have greater flexibility to consider variable price agreements.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

The New Zealand flag has been lowered for the final time at Kiwibase in Bamiyan marking the official close of the Provincial Reconstruction Team and this country’s 10-year involvement with it.

The United States and Malaysian flag, representing other nations in the PRT, were also lowered leaving the Afghan flag flying alone. …

At the flag-lowering ceremony Governor-General Jerry Mateparae said the final “crib 21” rotation could now start the 13,000km trip home.

“You leave a legacy of which you can be proud.”

Sir Jerry read out the names of the 10 Kiwi soldiers who died in Afghanistan: Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell, Private Kirifi Mila, Corporal Dougie Grant, Lance Corporal Leon Smith, Corporal Dougie Hughes, Lance Corporal Rory Malone, Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer, Corporal Luke Tamatea, Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker and Private Richard Harris.

He said they had come to resists tyranny, promote democratic values and bring peace to troubled lands. …

Nato’s deputy senior civilian Andrew Steinfeld, who arrived with other official in a fleet of Black Hawk helicopters just before the event, thanked the PRT for its effectiveness. It had helped make big improvements in health outcomes, especially for children and had lifted the number of girls going to school.

He said it was appropriate Afghanistan now take the lead, but it would not have to do so alone.

Bamiyan Governor Habiba Sarabi thanked Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman for the PRT’s “remarkable service” and said the withdrawal should not indicate the end of the friendship and support of New Zealand but expected “a more sustainable friendship and … continued humanitarian support”.

New Zealand will continue to support two “legacy” aid projects including agriculture and the establishment of three solar powered generators that will start coming on stream in May and provide power for 2500 users in business, government buildings and residents.

Afghanistan is never going to turn into a post-war Germany or Japan. But life is way way better for the ordinary Afghani since the fall of Taliban, especially for women.

Another interesting UMR poll. I like the scale they used which was:

• Are absolutely certain it is true
• Are fairly certain it is true
• Believe it’s true but are not too certain
• Believe it’s true but are not at all certain
• Believe it’s not true but are not at all certain
• Believe it’s not true but are not too certain
• Are fairly certain it is not true
• Are absolutely certain it is not true

The first four can be totalled to be agreement and the last four disagreement, but as interesting as the totals are the breakdowns.

On belief in God, the responses were:

• 28% absolutely certain it is true
• 13% fairly certain it is true
• 9% believe it’s true but are not too certain
• 11% believe it’s true but are not at all certain
• 6% believe it’s not true but are not at all certain
• 5% believe it’s not true but are not too certain
• 11% are fairly certain it is not true
• 16% are absolutely certain it is not true

I am amused at the 44% who answer absolutely certain there is or is not a God. I’d love to know how they can be “absolutely” certain!

The demographic breakdown is interesting:

72% of women believe in God, compared with 52% of men.

That’s a large difference, and not one I was aware of previously. Why would 20% more women believe in God? Is it men are more into proof than faith?

65% of Maori and 72% of Pacific people believe in God.

Less surprising.

Another question was if you believed Jesus Christ was a real person who lived 2,000 years ago. This was regardless of if you think he was the son of God, a prophet, a preacher etc.

• 29% absolutely certain it is true
• 25% fairly certain it is true
• 10% believe it’s true but are not too certain
• 14% believe it’s true but are not at all certain
• 4% believe it’s not true but are not at all certain
• 4% believe it’s not true but are not too certain
• 6% are fairly certain it is not true
• 8% are absolutely certain it is not true

I’m surprised 14% are fairly or absolutely certain that Jesus never existed.

Today’s pic is of a local bird, the kereru.  This threatened species is also the largest extant pigeon in the world (and NZ”s only pigeon species)

Click for larger, higher res image

Enjoy your Friday.

Charlie Gates at The Press reports:

A satirical website launched just two weeks ago by a Christchurch man has become an instant hit and is already being heralded as “New Zealand’s answer to The Onion”.

Former University of Canterbury student Ben Uffindell set up The Civilian as a sideline project, but its success has turned the website into his day job.

The irreverent, satirical site gets an average of 15,000 page views a day and already has more than 2000 likes on Facebook.

It’s very good. I’ve been enjoying it a lot.  Some satire is too laboured or try hard, bbut Ben has got the tone just right, in my opinion.

Definitely worth bookmarking.

The editorial of USA Today is a good read:

The arrival of charter schools in any city usually starts a fight.

Critics — whether district superintendents or teachers’ unions or school boards or a traveling band of academic doubters — snipe at the newcomers, arguing that they’re siphoning students and money from traditional public schools.

But as evidence from the 20-year-old charter experiment mounts, the snipers are in need of a new argument. There’s little doubt left that top-performing charters have introduced new educational models that have already achieved startling results in even the most difficult circumstances.

Worth remembering that the biggest supporters of charter schools in the United States are African-Americans.

That doesn’t mean all charters are automatically good. They’re not. But it’s indisputable that the good ones — most prominently, KIPP — are onto something. The non-profit company, which now has 125 schools, operates on a model that demands much more of students, parents and teachers than the typical school does. School days are longer, sometimes including Saturday classes. Homework burdens are higher, typically two hours a night. Grading is tougher. Expectations are high, as is the quality of teachers and principals, and so are the results.

KIPP’s eighth-grade graduates go to college at twice the national rate for low-income students, according to its own tracking. After three years, scores on math tests rise as if students had four years of schooling, according to an independent study.

The question isn’t whether such successful models should be replicated, but how best to do it.

That’s where the debate should be in New Zealand. Not mindless ideological opposition to charter schools – but how do we get the best model possible for charter schools.

A rigorous new study of KIPP, the nation’s best known and most scrutinized charter network, blew away criticism that has fueled the charter fight. Critics have long contended that KIPP’s success with minority and low-income children is less about its methods than about skimming the best students with the most motivated parents. Not so, the five-year study of 43 KIPP middle schools concluded.

Instead, Mathematica Policy Research found that KIPP schools improved student achievement in math, reading, science and social studies. Researchers compared students who had won lotteries to enter KIPP schools against students in the lotteries who lost out. Thus, students and their parents were equally motivated. Even so, the KIPP students did better.

And what did that report conclude:

• Math: Three years after enrollment, the estimated impact of KIPP on math achievement is equivalent to moving a student from the 44th to the 58th percentile of the school district’s distribution. This represents 11 months of additional learning growth over and above what the student would have learned in three years without KIPP.
• Reading: Three years after enrollment, the estimated impact in reading is equivalent to moving a student from the 46th to the 55th percentile, representing 8 months of additional learning growth over and above what the student would have learned in three years without KIPP. 
• Science: Three to four years after enrollment, the estimated impact in science is equivalent to moving a student from the 36th to the 49th percentile, representing 14 months of additional learning growth over and above what the student would have learned in that time without KIPP
• Social Studies: Three to four years after enrollment, the estimated impact in social studies is equivalent to moving a student from the 39th to the 49th percentile, representing 11 months of additional learning growth over and above what the student would have learned in that time without KIPP.

Those results are astonishing.

Labour will try and close down charter schools if they win the election. Their biggest fear is that they will prove popular and successful if allowed to survive. It is vital for those kids who are not achieving at school they they get the opportunities that good charter schools can provide.

The Political Marketing Group asked me to do an article for their March newsletter. There might be some wider interest in it, so I thought I would blog it here also:

Barack Obama was re-elected for a number of reasons including the quality of the candidates, their policies and their records. But one of the reasons was also the quality of their campaigns, and the Obama’s campaign use of big data to bring a new level of sophistication to political marketing.

The days of campaigns being about getting the best coverage on the 6 pm news every night are well and truly over. By 6 pm, many people already know how the campaign has gone for candidates. The buzz on Twitter has often made it clear how the day’s happenings will be reported.

The Obama campaign used data to divide voters into three categories. Those who were not worth pursuing who were left alone, those who were moderate supporters who might donate if asked and those who were strong supporters who might become activists.

They used research to survey millions of voters so they could sort them into the three categories. The research was a mixture of postal surveys, phoning and visiting. This data was supplemented by social media data and advertising.

An interactive Facebook video would depict to individuals how the President’s policies would help them and their friends. But the real purpose of the video was to get their permission to siphon off data about all their friends so they could be matched to their state voting records.

Having collected so much data on voters, the Obama campaign then used it to personalise online advertisements and messages. Their data told them the most appealing celebrity for middle-aged women on the East Coast was Sarah-Jessica Parker so they used her to appeal for their votes.

Having done badly in 2010 due to low turnout, Obama’s campaign focused on identifying those who voted for him in 2008 and ensuring they voted again. Every voter in the country was assigned two scores. One being their likelihood to vote and one being the probability they would vote for Obama. They then calculated for each individual precinct who were the likely people who voted Obama in 2008 and worked on making sure they voted in 2012.

They also used data to test their messages. Up to ten different varieties of an e-mail solicitation would be sent out to a test group. The communication that achieved the highest response or donation rate was then used for the entire population. Almost every single message and communication was tested scientifically. It didn’t matter so much what the creative director though of the communication. What mattered was measuring what impact it had.

Advertising has been the traditional channel for persuasion in political campaigns.  It still remains an important element, especially as they can impact media coverage also. But the lessons from the 2012 United States presidential campaign are that advertising alone is most definitely no longer enough. Data, social media and electronic communications are the weapons now used in a 21st century campaign, and political parties and candidates that fail to use them will struggle to achieve the result they want.

Judith Collins has announced:

• Creating a new civil enforcement regime that includes setting up or appointing an approved agency as the first port of call for complaints.
• Allowing people to take serious complaints to the District Court, which will be able to issue sanctions such as take-down orders and cease-and-desist notices.
• Making it an offence to send messages and post material online that is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or knowingly false, punishable by up to 3 months imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
• Creating a new offence of incitement to commit suicide, even in situations when a person does not attempt to take their own life, punishable by up to 3 years imprisonment.
• Amending the Harassment, Privacy and Human Rights Acts to ensure they are up-to-date for digital communications. In some cases, existing laws were written before cell phones, instant messaging devices and social networking websites became common communication channels.

This is mainly based on the Law Commission report, but with a key difference.

The Commission recommended a specialist Communications Tribunal, instead of the District Court. I think it is better to have it as part of the District Court, as there is less concern about scope creep.

I have no issue with the proposed law changes above, however one area remains a concern:

The FAQ says: The Government proposes adopting the 10 statutory principles recommended by the Law Commission, which are based on criminal and civil law and regulatory rules.

This is the area which concerns me the most. The principles are:

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.

I blogged last year on a legal analysis of the principles, and I think some are too wide-reaching.

I would encourage people to read the proposed law when it is introduced, and make sure they submit to select committee.

Kate Shuttleworth at NZ Herald reports on what Government agencies said on the minimum wage. The summary is:

• Treasury – $13.50
• Cabinet decision – $13.75
• Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment – $13.80
• Ministry of Social Development – $13.80
• Ministry of Women’s Affairs – $13.80
•  Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs – $15.00
• Te Puni Kokiri – $16.00

Te Puni Kokiri must think we need more unemployed people!

A guest post by Green Party MP Kevin Hague:

One of the striking things about the submissions  – both written and oral – received against the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was the very high degree of support that now exists for acknowledging and extending rights to same-sex couples through the mechanism of civil unions. This stands in stark contrast to the positions many of these same people took when the Civil Unions Bill itself was being debated.

There’s more: the now popular Civil Union Act passed its Third Reading by only 65-55, and just a couple of days before, a 3News poll found 46% of people in support, while 45% opposed.

In fact what all this shows is that Civil Unions followed the same path as Homosexual Law Reform and protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Certainly there is a group of people whose opposition to these measures is based on dogma of some sort, usually a religious one. These folk try to live their lives according to a particular code based on a set of rules (and believe that everybody else should also, regardless of belief). But probably the larger group of opponents is one whose opposition is motivated by fear: either of a general sort or of specific undesirable outcomes should the law reform succeed.

Opposition based on fear has always been temporary. Before each of these previous reforms a significant proportion of the population were led to believe that it would tear the fabric of our society in some awful way. But, surprise, surprise, the sky did not fall. And now it is only a very small group who believe gay sex should be illegal, who believe it should be legal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation or who believe same-sex couples should not be able to have their relationships acknowledged and protected.

Perhaps unsurprisingly I am writing about this because, once again, the same dynamics are at work in the opposition to marriage equality. There is a group of people, almost exclusively from particular religious faiths, who strongly and sincerely believe that marriage is fundamentally an institution that should be defined by their own particular dogma. They usually say the State has no right to determine who can marry, and seem oblivious even to other religious faiths whose dogma supports marriage equality. They are fundamentally theocrats and oppose pluralism, one of the basic ideas of modern society. Their position does not seem to be one that can be influenced by logic or evidence.

But the larger group of opponents is, as usual, one motivated by fear. Typically they have been encouraged to hold these fears by those who know better and who are exploiting them. Most of the ‘arguments’ made against marriage equality, including most of the amendments proposed to the Bill have been based on imaginary fears:

• No celebrant will be forced to solemnise a marriage against their will. The law states that no celebrant is obliged to marry a particular couple. This has been the law since 1955 and the “right to refuse” has never been denied.
• No church will be forced to use its religious space for same-sex weddings if it does not approve of them, or do anything at all differently.
• Nobody will be forced to say anything different, or not to express their beliefs. In fact the Bill will repeal s.56, which, while never used, made it an offence to deny the validity of a legally-conducted marriage. Despite the histrionics of some, nobody will be sent to prison for their beliefs.
• The ethical and legal obligations for teachers will not change in any way. There are professional requirements that influence how teachers can and cannot express their personal views to students. The Bill does not change these.
• Children will not be “denied the right to their biological mother and father”. Married same-sex couples being able to adopt will almost exclusively affect children who are already being raised by same-sex couples (there are thousands, by the way) who currently have less security because of the relatively precarious legal status of their parents. The number of children made available for “stranger adoption” each year (who by definition are not being raised by their biological parents) is tiny. This Bill will have the effect that when the biological parents of a child choose adoptive parents, married same-sex couples can also be considered.

What will actually happen once this Bill passes is that some same-sex couples will choose to get married. Some of those will do so in churches that welcome them. Others will find independent celebrants they like, and who like them. People will be happier. And in time, as has happened everywhere else in the world where this reform has already occurred, most New Zealanders who currently oppose marriage equality will realise that their fears were groundless, and join the majority who already believe that, well, love is love.

What I found interesting that the when the Civil Unions Bill was being passed, public opinion was so evenly divided. Yet less than a decade later there is almost no opposition to civil unions, and in fact opponents of same sex marriage cite civil unions as so good, that there is no need to change the marriage law.

I’ll make a prediction. That by 2020, fewer than 20% of New Zealanders will be saying that they are opposed to same sex marriages being legal.