On Tuesday we went around the floating markets of Cai Be in the morning, and looked at the local French Gothic Cathedral. Then in the afternoon e went to the fruit markets of Vinh Long which had some amazing looking and tasting fruits.

Each boat signifies what they are selling by hoisting it up on a stick. There are around 100 of these boats in total floating on the river, buying and selling and bartering.

You even have a soft drink dispenser!

They took us to a rice paper and candy manufacturer where they make amazing products from rice. This is of sand being mixed with brown rice, to make white rice products.

They then chop it up.

And package it. The staff get paid around $2 an hour, which is pretty reasonable for Vietnam.

This mother hen was picking at rice paper and feeding it to her chicks. Then they got noticed and chased off by stick wielding women!

Anyone fancy pickled snake for lunch?

Deshelling. She (and her mother) get paid 25c a kg and are pretty fast at it. The kids all go to school, but are expected to help earn money when not at school.

The exterior of the Gothic Cathedral. The rest of the town is pretty basic, so this sticks out somewhat.

And the interior.

This is from the afternoon at the fruit markets. These are in fact a type of apple.

I’m not sure if you eat the fruit on the right or use it as a weapon!

No plain packaging in Vietnam!

Yum, fish. The markets were fascinating – both from an economic perspective, but just to see the variety of fruit, and trying them out. We have such little variety in NZ.

Dom Post reports:

Broadcaster Sean Plunket will be taking over Michael Laws’ Radio Live show next year.

Laws made the announcement on his talk back show this morning.

The former Whanganui mayor said his replacement was to be Sean Plunket, who would take over the show after March 31.

‘‘I have decided to pursue something new, something, exciting and something that I’ve always wanted to do.’’

Become Deputy Leader of NZ First? 🙂

Radio Live will be interesting with both Plunket and Garner taking up shows there.

The NZ Drug Foundation has published a bingo card of “cliched phrases” they say MPs will use to defend the liquor industry.

Firstly I’m disappointed that the NZDF, normally fairly sensible on drug and alcohol issues, is now into denigrating motives of MPs. I expect Doug Selman to rant on about MPs defending the liquor industry, not the NZDF. The fact that MPs disagree with them on an issue, doesn’t mean they are defending the liquor industry. It means they don’t agree with the proposed law will have more benefits than harm.

What is interesting is the list of phrases they include, because I assume that in including them, they think that the proposition is flawed.

• Unfair to responsible drinkers
• We’re doing research on this
• Parental responsibility
• Education Is the answer

So are NZDF against doing research, against education, against parental responsibility and for punishing responsible drinkers?

I think NZDF do a good job overall, but they should stick to sensible research based advocacy, and avoid stupid stuff like this which may make them feel they are hip or cool, but will have no impact with those they are trying to influence.

Sunset on the summit of Aoraki / Mt Cook, New Zealand. Photography by Todd Sisson.

Welcome to the most timely Wallpaper Wednesday post in living memory (my memory only spans one month these days).

Having dissed sunset/sunrise images in my outro last week I now present you with a sunset image….

I almost blew the making of this image while indulging in a rare (in my humble opinion) dose of ego-mania. I had been set up for some time waiting for a thick valley fog to clear and provide a glimpse of the summit of Aoraki Mt Cook. While waiting, I got to talking with a couple of Australian photo enthusiasts and was modestly explaining how awesome I was – with my back turned to the mountain…. fortunately, one of the Aussies was sick of my rhetoric and kindly pointed out that the mountain was glowing orange. A frantic ‘practical demonstration’ of my awesome skills ensued. I was really lucky to get this, and one other, sharp shot out of the shoot as every other image was marred by sloppy technique.

Lesson learned. I never talk to Australians now 😉

See you next week.

Cheers – Todd

You may download the large version from this link:  [free iPad wallpaper] Password = freewallpaper

Also available on our website as a canvas print.

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd

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

Well I only followed it on Twitter, but the polls show Obama was judged better by a clear majority. This is not a surprise. His approval ratings for foreign policy have been consistently high, and in my opinion he does deserve credit for some of his work in this area. He did basically exit Iraq gracefully (on much the same timetable as Bush proposed though), and the surge in Afghanistan has worked (as it did in Iraq) and they are on track to leave there in the next term. And you have to give brownie points for killing Osama Bin Laden. The mission was risky, and could have ended in a Iran style Carter disaster effectively ending Obama’s presidency. It was a gutsy call to do it.

The killing of the US Ambassador to Libya is of course a low point – especially the misinformation from the US Government on why and how it happened, and the revelations that they were asked multiple times for more security. That issue is yet to be resolved.

The biggest reason not to vote for Obama on foreign policy grounds is probably the fact that John Kerry is his likely next Secretary of State. I think Hillary Clinton has generally done a good job, and I actually have a lot of respect for her. I have almost none for John Kerry. Think how close we came to a Kerry/Edwards presidency!

Too soon after the debate to know how it may have influenced the polls. Five Thirty Eight is projecting Obama 291 and Romney 247 – pretty close.  Real Clear Politics has Obama 281 and Romney 257. Pollster has Obama 254, Romney 191 and 94 tossups.

All the focus is now going on the key swing states – especially Ohio.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR ON THE
MARRIAGE (DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE) AMENDMENT BILL TO THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
2. While not a detail I would normally include in a submission, I am heterosexual, so have no self-interest in this bill.

Overall Bill

3. I submit in support of the bill proceeding. To quote Dr Paul Hutchison, “I simply cannot construct a strong enough intellectual moral health or even spiritual argument against it … and the reverse is very much the case.” This bill will allow a couple of the same sex to marry each other, which I believe to be good for the couple, good for the institution of marriage, and good for New Zealand. I do support some amendments being made to clarify the impact of this bill on other Acts of Parliament

Equality

4. A same sex couple is of course different to a couple of the opposition gender. But this doesn’t mean that the law should discriminate in not allowing same sex couples to marry. Same sex couples fall in love, commit to each other, form households and raise children – the core of being a family. The law should allow such couples to marry. Why would we want an adult couple desiring marriage to not be able to marry?
5. Some argue that as a same sex couple can’t produce children naturally, that they should be ineligible to marry. I do not accept this argument as many married couples are infertile, choose not to have children, or have children from past relationships. We don’t ban woman who have reached menopause from marrying, and now should we ban same sex couples.

Strengthening Marriage

6. I think marriage is a wonderful institution, and the benefits of marriage are well documented. I believe allowing a same sex couple to marry, hence committing to each other for life, strengthens the institution of marriage.
7. I would like to quote three conservative leaders as to why same sex marriage is good for marriage. US Solictor-General (for George W Bush) Theordore Olsen has said “Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize.Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society.

   The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.”

   and“I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual.

   To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

8. UK Conservative PM David Cameron: “But for me, leadership on families also means speaking out on marriage. Marriage is not just a piece of paper. It pulls couples together through the ebb and flow of life. It gives children stability. And it says powerful things about what we should value. So yes, we will recognise marriage in the tax system.
   
   But we’re also doing something else. I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage.
   And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.

9. Former Australian Liberal Party Leader Malcolm Turnbull said “Families are the foundation of our society and I am firmly of the view that that we would be a stronger society if more people were married – and by that I mean formally, legally married – and fewer were divorced. …And I have to say that I am utterly unpersuaded by the proposition that my marriage to Lucy, or indeed any marriage, is undermined by two gay men or two lesbians setting up house down the road – whether it is called a marriage or not.

   Regrettably, this aspect of the debate is dripping with the worst sort of hypocrisy, and the deepest pools are all too often found among the most sanctimonious.
   
   Let us be honest with each other. The threat to marriage is not the gays. It is a lack of loving commitment – whether it is found in the form of neglect, indifference, cruelty or adultery, to name just a few manifestations of the loveless desert in which too many marriages come to grief.”

10. I agree with Messrs. Cameron, Turnbull and Olsen that allowing same sex couples to marry will strengthen the institution of marriage.

Welcoming diversity

11. Adolescence is a difficult time for many teenagers, and gay/lesbian teenagers especially can find it more challenging than most as they wonder whether there is something “wrong” with them as they are not attracted to the opposite sex like most of their peers are. We see the results of this in the significantly higher levels of suicide amongst gay and lesbian teenagers. The 2007 Auckland University study of around 9,000 secondary school students found 20% of youth attracted to the same (or both) sex attempted suicide in the last year. This is an appallingly high figure.
12. Knowing that despite their “different” sexual orientation, that one day they can love and marry someone will I think send a very powerful message to young gay and lesbian New Zealanders that there is nothing wrong in being different, and that the Parliament of New Zealand has said so by allowing same sex couples to marry.

Tradition

13. One argument against allowing same sex couples to marry is that this goes against the traditional definition of marriage.
14. This is no surprise. Up until 27 years ago, it was a criminal offence for a homosexual man to even have consensual sex with another adult man. So of course there is no recent tradition of same sex marriage.
15. If we go back far enough to be very traditional, I would point out that In the 1^st century AD Emperor Nero is reported to have married a male slave. Later in 342 AD Emperor Constantius II outlawed same sex marriage with a penalty of execution. This suggests that there were a number of same sex marriages prior to that.
16. Regardless marriage has in fact changed significantly over time. I follow with some examples.
17. Traditionally the age of marriage was the onset of puberty. In the 12^th century European canon law documented by Gratian allowed marriage from the age of seven onwards, and stayed in force religiously until 1918. In 1689 a nine year old Mary Hathaway was married in the US.
18. Interracial marriage was banned in the US until the California Supreme Court over-turned this in 1948 and then the US Supreme Court in 1967. The ban was not removed from the Alabama state constitution until the year 2000.
19. Married couples were prohibited from using contraception in the US until 1965.
20. Traditionally under English common law, a married woman had no legal identity outside that of her husband, until laws started to change in 1839. It wasn’t until 1981 that a married woman in the US had equal property rights with her husband.
21. I hope these examples show that the nature of marriage, and the eligibility of two people to marry, has changed over time and I think we would all agree for the better. Tradition should not trump equality.

Religious v Civil Marriage

22. Some people advocate that ideally the state should not decide who can or can’t marry. That marriage is primarily a religious institution, and that the state should merely register civil unions, and allow couples to get a “blessing of marriage” from a religion should they wish to.
23. I agree that this would be an ideal situation, respecting the origins of marriage as a religious ceremony. If an MP wishes to put up a bill abolishing marriage as a civil institution, then that would be good, and I would advocate for its passage,
24. However the reality is that marriage is a state institution in pretty much every country on Earth, and that it is unlikely to ever not be a state institution in New Zealand. While it remains a state institution, I believe it would be wrong to deny the institution of marriage to same sex couples.
25. PM John Key recently said that in politics you don’t start with a blank slate of paper, you start with the real world. In the real world marriage is a state institution, and rejecting same sex marriage on the basis that the state shouldn’t decide at all who can get married is turning a blind eye to the fact that the state does decide, and is likely to always do so.

Amendments

26. It is unclear to me whether this bill as currently worded would allow a married same sex couple to adopt under the Adoption Act 1955. I note a gay or lesbian individual can currently adopt, but not jointly with their partner.
27. The definition of adoptive parent in s2 of the Adoption Act refers to a husband and a wife. However in s3(2) it refers to “2 spouses jointly” being able to apply for an adoption order. I suspect a court would have to decide which clause takes precedence, which will mean uncertainty.
28. To remove uncertainty, I propose that this bill be amended with the addition of a clause stating that a married couple should be treated as eligible to jointly adopt under the Adoption Act. Arguably such a clause could be worded to apply to any other Act which refers to married couples, spouses or husbands and wives.
29. A benefit of having a specific clause amending the Adoption Act is it would allow MPs to vote explicitly on both the issue of same sex marriage and same sex (as a couple) adoption. I would advocate Parliament votes in favour of both.
30. Some people have expressed a concern that churches could be forced to marry same sex couples in contravention to their religious beliefs. I agree this is undesirable. I do not regard this as likely, and note neither does the Human Rights Commission. To remove doubt, I recommend an explicit clause be inserted to state no religious body, or minister of religion shall be required to perform a marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs, nor provide facilities for such a ceremony unless that facility is available to the general public.
31. Another concern is that it is an offence under s56 of the Marriage Act to allege that “any persons lawfully married are not truly and sufficiently married” and that this could capture someone saying that a same sex marriage is not in the eyes of their religion a “true” marriage. I recommend the select committee look at amending or repealing s56 to minimize this perceived risk. I note there has never been a prosecution (it appears) under s56, and other laws such as defamation may be sufficient to repeal it safely.

Thank you for considering this submission. I would like to make an oral submission in support, and look forward to appearing.

David Farrar

Oral Questions 2.00 pm -3.00 pm

Questions to ministers.

1. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What measures has the Government taken to support families through the global financial crisis?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on asset sales “It’s a minor delay, but in the overall scheme of things, sometimes the longest way home is the fastest way home”; if so, is he still confident that his asset sales schedule is on track?
3. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What is the Government doing to encourage businesses to invest, and grow jobs?
4. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development:Does she have confidence in Work and Income’s approach to privacy and the security of information?
5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “We’re not environmental bandits. If we don’t believe drilling can take place in a way that is environmentally sustainable and wouldn’t put at undue risk the environment, we wouldn’t go with it.”; if so, why?
6. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Associate Minister of Education: How many teachers and support staff were incorrectly paid in the latest pay cycle and what is the total amount of outstanding pay still owed to teachers and support staff due to errors in the Novopay system?
7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: When did he first learn of a German resident living in the Chrisco mansion in the Prime Minister’s electorate?
8. Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: What changes will the White Paper for Vulnerable Children make to better support professionals working with children?
9. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Education: Will any newly merged or reopened schools in Christchurch be expected to use some community facilities that are ordinarily provided on-site at a school?
10. CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Prime Minister: When will he be informed of the Inspector-General’s findings concerning the three cases where the Government Communications Security Bureau has been unable to assure him that its actions have been lawful, and how will he communicate those findings to the House?
11. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister for ACC: How will the Government improve accidental injury outcomes for under-six-year-olds?
12. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Has Hon John Banks satisfied the Cabinet Manual requirement of upholding the highest ethical standards in his political and personal capacity?

Today there are four questions to Ministers from National, five from Labour, two from the Greens and one from NZ First.

Labour are asking about asset sales, Work and Income information security, the teacher payroll system, the GCSB and John Banks. The Greens are asking about deep sea oil drilling ,the Christchurch schools restructuring and NZ First is asking about Kim Dotcom.

Patsy of the day goes to Dr Jian Yang for Q.11: How will the Government improve accidental injury outcomes for under-six-year-olds?

General Debate  Twelve five minute speeches

Government Bills 4.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Alcohol Reform Bill-Committee Stage (continued)

2.Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill (Third Reading)

3. Financial Markets Conduct Bill  (Second Reading)

The Alcohol Reform Bill seeks to implement the Government’s decisions on the reform of alcohol legislation; decisions made in response to the Law Commission’s 2010 report on alcohol. Specifically, it seeks to limit the sale of alcohol from grocery stores and creates an offence of being on licensed premises outside of licensed hours.

The Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill sets the annual income tax rates for the 2012/13 year, introduces amendments to the requirements for filing and storing of tax returns and amends other acts and regulations such as the KiwiSaver Act 2006.

The Financial Markets Conduct Bill was first introduced into the house last year under the former Minister of Commerce Simon Power, and is now being guided through the house by Craig Foss.  It seeks to reform the regulation of financial market conduct to promote confident and informed participation in New Zealand’s financial markets.

For the next seven days I’m on board the RV La Marguerite as we go up the massive Mekong Delta eventually crossing into Cambodia.

It’s a great wee boat, at 72 metres in length. It can take up to 90 people, but we have only 60 to 70 on board. The bedrooms are reasonably large (for a boat) at 21 square metres.

The 1st floor has the dining room, the second floor the lounge and the library and the top floor the pool and the gym. The wifi is in the lounge so I am there a fair bit – now 9.40 pm at night and only one still up! The free drinks (including spirits) on board helps!

They’ve done the pool area quite nicely with shades all around the pool, plus a bar on the pool level also – and yes they serve you in the pool – none of this nonsense about no glassware.

You can’t really do laps in the pool, but it;s still bloody relaxing. My routine each day is:

• NZ afternoon blogging 6 am – 7.30 am
• Breakfast 7.30 am – 8.30 am
• Morning tour 8.30 am – 11.30 am
• Read 11.30 am – 12.30 pm
• Lunch 12.30 pm – 1.30 pm
• Read 1.30 pm – 3.00 pm
• Afternoon tour 3.00 pm – 5.00 pm
• Swim and sun bathe 5 pm – 6.30 pm
• Briefing  6.30 pm – 7.00 pm
• Dinner 7.00 pm – 8.00 pm
• Morning blogging 8.00 pm – 10.00 pm

We passed under this bridge while I was in the swimming pool. It was a somewhat unusual sensation having people on a bridge waving at you as you have a drink in the pool.

One of the three boats we would go ashore in. Had to laugh that the Vietnamese captain assured us the lifejackets were not Made in China. Even in Vietnam, that signifies crappy and unreliable quality 🙂

I’m not a fan of cruises where you spend days and days at sea with nothing to do. But cruises where it is basically a floating hotel, and you’re in a new location every half-day or day is pretty good. And being a smaller boat makes a big difference too.

An excellent ODT editorial:

Recently, control of Fisher & Paykel Appliances, the company which maintains a presence in Dunedin, passed quickly and almost quietly into the hands of the Chinese-owned Haier Group. Haier already owned 20% of FPA after effectively rescuing the company in 2009, when it acquired the holding as part of a capital raising that let FPA refinance its debt. FPA got distribution into China as a result of the deal and the ability to further licence its technology.

David Parker has said he wants Ministers to decide on private owners selling their shares to other private owners. What this may mean is companies going bankrupt, as F&P may have gone under if Haier hadn’t rescued them in 2009. We saw this under the last Labour Govt when they refused Singapore Air buying Air NZ, leading to the airline facing bankruptcy.

While the semantics would suggest that 52% ownership means the company is still in Kiwi hands, the reality is that a controlling interest is just that: controlling. (Haier’s offer is still subject to Overseas Investment Office approval, but it seems a formality.)Compare then the ease with which Haier took control of a long-established New Zealand company with the prolonged struggle by Chinese company Shanghai Pengxin to buy 16 central North Island Crafar farms. It now hopes to settle the purchase of the farms after the Supreme Court last week removed the last obstacle to the deal, an appeal by Maori trusts.

While it would be easy for Haier, a global whiteware group, to shift FPA to China, it is impossible for Shanghai Pengxin to shift 16 dairy farms anywhere. It seems xenophobia ruled in the farm debate. Why should the Chinese be allowed to buy New Zealand farms, the critics howled?

Exactly – you can’t move a farm or land. I’d point out that companies can move their manufacturing offshore also, regardless of who owns them.

And compare that reaction with the welcoming of recent news that Canadian film-maker James Cameron continues to expand his south Wairarapa property portfolio.

Incidentally, Mr Cameron’s neighbour, American billionaire Bill Foley, has won permission from the Overseas Investment Office to expand his Kiwi-based wine operation.

However, just like Haier, it is likely both Mr Cameron and Mr Foley paid market rates for their purchases. If the Maori trusts, and their benefactor Sir Michael Fay, had been truly serious about buying the Crafar farms, all they had to do was offer a higher price than that being offered by Shanghai Pengxin.

Xenophobia is not the determining factor in such sales: shareholders make their own decisions based on price and their own circumstances.

Not if Labour gets in. Their policy seems to be that Ministers will approve all sales that are not purely domestic. Decisions will be based on Ministerial opinion, not what is good for shareholders and investors.

The Waikato Times reports:

Hamilton Labour MP Sue Moroney reckons if young women knew how many calories there were in alcoholic drinks they might think twice before getting drunk.

That’s why she wants nutritional information labels for booze added to the Alcohol Reform Bill.

I understand health groups have said that full nutritional information on alcohol may actually encourage people to drink more as it is basically zero fat etc. However I do think just having a calorie count of alcohol could be beneficial – and not just for young women!

However, her National counterpart, Tim Macindoe, said such amendments were not as important as restricting the supply and marketing of alcohol.

Perhaps, but it is not a case of choosing one or the other. Put it like this – is there a good argument against including calorie information on alcohol, considering almost all other food and drink has it?

Matthew Backhouse at NZ Herald reports:

Hotels are charging exorbitant rates for Wi-Fi and guests are much better off paying for mobile internet, a consumer advocate says.

A survey of New Zealand’s top central-city hotels, as rated by Five Star Alliance, has found only two offer free wireless internet in rooms – despite some exclusive suites costing more than $2000 a night.

It’s like charging for water. I can understand 10 years ago charging extra for wifi, but the vast majority of hotel guests today will want wifi – either because they are travelling from overseas or to reduce their mobile data usage.

What I want to do one day is set up a website (or get an accom website to do it) which lists the wifi charges for every hotel and motel in NZ, so people can pick ones with cheap or free wifi. I think that would provide an incentive for more accom providers to stop charging for it. Whne you have have paid over $200 for a room, it is aggravating to be told 24 hours of wifi will cost more than a month’s data for a residence.

The other top hotels either make guests buy packets of data or charge up to $45 a day.

The rates compare poorly with mobile data plans, which give 1GB of data for an average of $20 a month.

I used to have a vodem, just to avoid hotel wifi charges. Now I tether my iPhone.

Tourism Industry Association chief executive Martin Snedden disagreed that free Wi-Fi was the norm overseas, saying he had been charged as much as $30 a day during a recent trip to Europe and America.

Now sure where Martin stayed, but in the US it is free most places I have stayed at.

Cao Dai is a funny little religion. It is basically endemic to Vietnam and has two to three million adherents. A sort of mixture of Buddhism and Catholicism!

This is the main temple of the Cao Dai. Pretty impressive. As you may surmise, one has to leave your shoes outside to enter it.

One of their regular prayer services.

A close up of the roof decoration. It is a beautiful structure. We visited it on the way back from the tunnels.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Shearer said anything which stopped the sale of state-owned assets was a “good thing”.

So, for example, another massive earthquake which destroyed half the country’s hydro-dams and hence stopped the partial floats, would be a good thing?

I think it shows how unbalanced Labour have got on this issue.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: At his meeting with the boss of American oil giant Anadarko in November 2011, was the issue of making deep sea oil drilling a permitted activity under the EEZ legislation raised?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “we’re trying to change the economic picture to encourage more New Zealanders to stay”; if so, how many people have migrated to Australia since he took office?
3. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Finance: What steps are being taken to improve housing affordability, as part of the Government’s wider economic programme?
4. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding Australia that “It has been a bit of a safety valve for jobs for people who can’t find jobs here”; if so, what advice, if any, has he received on the effects of emigration on the level of unemployment in New Zealand?
5. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made on ensuring those working with children recognise and report suspected child abuse, as part of the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children?
6. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister of Education: Will she extend the consultation timeframe for Christchurch schools which are proposed to be merged or closed, to enable them to fully engage with their communities; if not, why not?
7. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to ensure meaningful consultation with school communities in Greater Christchurch?
8. CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Prime Minister: Since he assumed ministerial responsibility for it, has the Government Communications Security Bureau undertaken surveillance of any person who is a citizen or resident of New Zealand, other than Mr Kim Dotcom?
9. Dr CAM CALDER to the Associate Minister of Health: What progress has been made on the introduction of a comprehensive clinical assessment tool for older people in rest homes?
10. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by his comment of 17 October 2012 that, “We need to make sure that New Zealand continues to do its fair share, alongside other countries, to combat the effects of climate change…”?
11. MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Customs: What is the Government doing to combat the smuggling of precursors used to manufacture methamphetamine?
12. ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Finance: Is reducing the current account deficit a priority for the Government?

Questions to Members

1. DENISE ROCHE to the Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill: Why did the member draft the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill?
2. DENISE ROCHE to the Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill: What is the purpose of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill?

Today there are five questions to Ministers from National, four from Labour, two from the Greens and one from NZ First. Denise Roche of the Greens is asking two questions to Metiria Turei on her casino bill.

Labour are asking on the economy and Australia twice, Christchurch schools, and Dotcom. The Greens are asking on deep sea drilling and climate change, and NZ First are asking on the current account deficit.

Patsy of the day goes to Scott Simpson for Q3: What steps are being taken to improve housing affordability, as part of the Government’s wider economic programme?

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Alcohol Reform Bill – committee stage (cont)
2. Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill– third reading
3. Legislation Bill – committee stage

The Alcohol Reform Bill seeks to implement the Government’s decisions on the reform of alcohol legislation; decisions made in response to the Law Commission’s 2010 report on alcohol. Specifically, it seeks to limit the sale of alcohol from grocery stores and creates an offence of being on licensed premises outside of licensed hours.

The Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill sets the annual income tax rates for the 2012/13 year, introduces amendments to the requirements for filing and storing of tax returns and amends other acts and regulations such as the KiwiSaver Act 2006.

The Legislation Bill was introduced by Chris Finlayson in 2010 to modernise and improve the law relating to the publication, availability, reprinting, revision, and official versions of legislation and to bring this law together in a single piece of legislation. It passed its second reading with unanimous support.

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

MPs are set to embark on a long and laboured debate to pass what critics have labelled the ”alcohol non-reform” bill.

An overhaul of liquor laws is expected back in Parliament today for its committee stage – the most detailed debate of any bill.

Some have tipped the bill could carry on being debated at the committee stage for some weeks, with about 20 amendments to be thrashed out by MPs.

The length of the debate is more about how many parts the bill has, not how many amendments have been put forward. However amendments can take a wee while to vote on and there are not 20 amendments but 20 SOPs, and each SOP can have multiple amendments.

There are 10 parts to the Alcohol Reform Bill, which means 11 debates of probably two hours each. Each vote on an amendment takes around a minute of whips case the votes but will take much longer if they do a personal vote on each amendment. MPs can give their proxies to the whips to vote on each amendment but with Labour allowing a free vote on every amendment, someone may ask the Speaker for a personal vote on each amendment.

Among the amendments proposed by Labour MPs is a ban on liquor sales from off-licences after 8pm and a minimum pricing regime.

Jesus Christ – 8 pm? Let’s bring back 6 o’clock closing also. So if you go to the supermarket at 8.30 pm to do your weekly groceries, you wouldn’t be able to buy a bottle of wine. I’ll look forward to seeing who votes for that stupidity.

The NZ Herald editorial yesterday:

Labour’s xenophobic employment restrictions will not resonate with most.

Appeals to patriotism seek to tap the most accommodating of instincts. They can also be the most dangerous of tools. Too often, politicians talk of it when they want to beat the populist drum without much regard for the potentially dire consequences. So it was with a speech by Labour leader David Shearer last week, during which he set out policies that promised to give New Zealanders the first crack at jobs by making it harder for businesses to bring in migrant labour. Helpfully, Mr Shearer underlined the dismal nature of this approach by using the word “patriotic” as many as five times.

It must have tested well with a focus group!

The Labour leader said the current requirements for employers to try to find New Zealand workers before migrants were lax, often requiring a boss to show only that a job had been advertised. Labour would require companies to work with agencies, industry groups and Work and Income before approval was given to employ a migrant.

What this means is more hoops and bureaucracy for a business just wanting to get the best person for a job.

Mr Shearer placed his policy in the context of the rebuilding of Christchurch. This was an opportunity to employ and train New Zealand workers but there was a risk it would be squandered because of cheaper migrant labour, he said. Such talk may impress those still harbouring xenophobic tendencies, but Mr Shearer is mistaken if he thinks it will strike a chord with most New Zealanders. Least impressed of all will be the business community. It will be appalled by Labour’s intrusiveness and red tape that will serve only to stifle initiative. It will also point out, quite rightly, that government has no business interfering directly in staffing, as would be the case under a policy requiring companies with government contracts to train one apprentice for every $1 million investment.

Appeals to patriotism are usually a port of call for politicians desperate to win popularity. But the changed face of New Zealand and an appreciation of the important economic role of immigration has deprived this approach of much of its impact. Making it harder for migrant workers to enter the country will only hinder development. Most New Zealanders understand that. So should Mr Shearer.

Here’s a pop quiz for you all. What percentage of 16 and 17 year olds who are in employment, are currently earning more than the minimum wage?

Guess to the nearest 10%.

UPDATE: The answer is 79% or roughly 80%. So only 20% of 16 and 17 year olds are in minimum wage jobs.

Eva Moskowitz at the WSJ reports:

New York City recently released official progress reports for the city’s 1,230 schools, including measures of how each school compares with other schools that have similar students. The reports provide yet more proof that charter schools–which outperformed traditional public schools by a wide margin–are working. Eight of the top 11 elementary and middle schools by student performance are charters, and four of those charters are in Harlem.

What might be most notable about the city’s findings, however, is that Harlem’s experiment with school choice has improved educational outcomes not just for the select few (some 10,500 currently) who win lotteries to attend charter schools. Although critics claim that charter schools succeed at the expense of district-run schools–because, the argument goes, charters “cherry pick” students, leaving behind those who are hardest to educate–Harlem’s results prove otherwise.

Of New York City’s 32 school districts, three serve students in Harlem. Suppose we treat all of Harlem’s charter and district schools as a single district (while separating out the Upper West Side, which shares a district with Harlem). In 2006, the third-graders in this Harlem district were near the bottom of the citywide heap–28th in math and 26th in English. Today, this overall group of Harlem students ranks 16th in math and 18th in English.

This is what the so called caring left are fighting tooth and nail. Their hatred of private sector involvement blinds them to the gains for disadvantaged students that have been achieved with some charter schools.

If it can work in Harlem, it can work in deprived areas of New Zealand.

Shane Jones appeared on Q+A at the weekend to defend the Government’s position on fishing in the Ross Sea, from the Greens. This was notable for several reasons.

• Jones is currently suspended as a spokesperson for Labour, so shouldn’t be agreeing to go on TV shows unless he no longer regards himself as bound by caucus discipline
• He was (again) attacking the Greens
• He was implicitly defending the Government’s position

Shane said:

I actually think the Kiwis are in a fantastic position of leadership, etc. They used a science-based approach. The science around that particular fishery is considerable, not only based on published papers from our own scientific community, but acknowledged by the Aussies and a host of others. Now, if it comes to pass that we completely lock it up, etc, well, that will be a decision that’s made on the basis of values. The fishing industry are there at the moment. I don’t think that their impact is anywhere near as destructive as Gareth would have it. I mean, if you take that money out of the industry, and it’s vastly more than $20 million, I mean, what is the industry to do? It can retire back home and find fresh activities. They’re not going to find activities with Gareth’s approach where they’re banning aquaculture and they’re banning fish farming.

And on the Greens and Greenpeace:

Um, I think Gareth ended up doing the bidding of the green priests, otherwise known as Greenpeace. They are an international franchise organisation, and they raise a great deal of money from our country, and they should expect to be criticised, as we are. Did the workers deserve to be dissed by the Green Party? No, they didn’t. I mean, I think it’s hypocritical at one level. Russel, someone I considerably respect as their leader, is up in a manufacturing inquiry, and Gareth is out there acquiescing with the deprecation and humiliation of New Zealand workers. You can’t have it both ways.

So what does this mean. It certainly fist my theory of Shane being happier in NZ First. NZ First love the fishing industry (especially their cheques).

Claire Robinson noted on the panel:

Interestingly, you know, Shane Jones – that could have been a government representative sitting up there talking to you. He was so much along the lines of what the government might say.

Imagine what the rest of the Labour caucus feels, having a Labour MP on the coveted Q+A show defending the Government.

Scott Yorke blogs:

 Despite not being Labour’s spokesperson on conservation or fisheries (he’s not the party’s spokesperson on any issue, after being stood down pending the Auditor General’s investigation of the William Yan matter), Jones appeared to endorse the government’s approach to the marine reserve issue. He made no attempt to distance his own views from the official Labour position.

Labour hasn’t actually determined its position on the issue. So why did Jones appear at all? Did he get clearance from David Shearer before appearing?

Labour having no position at all, is confirmed in this story:

Labour says it has not taken a position on whether to back the United States proposal for a large reserve in the Antarctic’s Ross Sea or the Government’s proposal for a smaller reserve that are about to be debated in Hobart.

Conservation spokeswoman Ruth Dyson confirmed yesterday that the party had not taken a formal position, after colleague Shane Jones appeared on TVNZ’s Q&A supporting the Government’s reserve.

“Our consistent policy has been to make sure we always use the best science,” Ruth Dyson said, as it had done to support the net bans to protect Maui dolphins.

Saying our policy is to use the best science is a slogan not a policy. The question is quite simple – does Labour back the US proposal or the NZ proposal?

Scott continues:

Labour needs a leader who will bring wayward MPs into line, because the voting public will not enthuse over a party that does not have a clear and consistent message. If some MPs won’t accept that then they need to be encouraged to consider their futures.

Or maybe he already has. Either way, the ball is in Shearer’s court.

Imagine a complex of tunnels that could house up to 11,000 people. Well that is what the Viet Cong built during the Vietnam War. You get to understand how very different tactics are needed in a classic war, and a guerilla war.

Making the tunnels would have been gruelling work, and living in them not much better. They were often just 1.2 metres high if that, and infested with critters.

This is how they got air to the tunnels below. They would use termite mounds as cover for air holes. Bear in mind in some areas there were three layers of tunnels, and the third layer could be 10 metres below the ground.

There are 121 kms of tunnels in total. regardless of your views on the Viet Cong, that is an incredible achievement – and one that many say was reasonably influential in their ability to remain potent.

A solider showing one of the entrances into the tunnels. Pretty damn narrow hole, and under the leaves could easily be undetected.

You can see how narrow it is. Imagine walking through the bush and having armed soldiers spring out of the ground.

This is half of a pit trip. The grass covers swings when you step on it, and the bamboo spikes below would be lethal. Nasty.

One of the tunnels wen went through. You don’t spend much time underground, which is a relief as you are crouched over the whole time.

The VC made rubber sandals out of the discarded tyres left  by the US forces.

The tour through the area takes around 90 minutes and is absolutely fascinating. Regardless of your political opinions on the war, it is a fascinating example of how to fight a guerrilla war.

Philip Greatrex writes in the NZ Herald:

One of the biggest problems with age-based laws is that they assume the existence of an invisible line that, when crossed, makes that individual smarter, more mature, more capable and more respectable as a person.

Yep hey are a problem. But it is not an assumption that (for example) at 17 years 364 days you can not be trusted to purchase alcohol, and the next day you can. It is just the simple reality that an age restriction is a poor proxy for competence – but is simple to understand and administer.

If you don’t want age based laws, then let us have competency testing. You could argue that anyone should be able to apply for a driver’s license if they can pass the theory and practical tests.

If you don’t want an age restriction for voting, then bring in a competency test.

Teenagers, upon turning 18, do not suddenly gain more political knowledge or understanding; chances are they have about the same amount they had when they were 16, given most 18-year-olds haven’t yet left school.

But with a voting age of 18, hundreds of thousands of people are being deprived of having their say in the way their country is run.

And same for a voting age of 16 or 15 or 14. All ages can be arbitrary. The argument Philip needs to make is why 16 is a more justifiable arbitrary age than 18.

For my 2c I think 18 has more arguments in favour of it, even putting aside the consistency issue. I think 18 is the age at which most people finish up full-time secondary study.  I don’t think that many people under 18 follow or care about politics. The fact that 18 to 25 year olds have an appallingly low voting turnout doesn’t suggest that those even younger are wanting to vote. Sure of course some want to – I would have liked to have voted at eight. But 16 is just as arbitrary as 18. Why at 16 are you mature enough but not 15?

In the end I believe in consistency with our age laws. If you want the age of voting to be 16 – fine. But then that should be the age of adulthood for all your rights – to marry without consent, to join the Army, to sign contracts, to be tried as an adult.

What I’d like to happen in New Zealand is for all our age laws to be aligned. For 16 to be the age at which people get partials rights (to drive, to leave school, to marry with consent) and 18 they get their full rights (voting etc). At the moment our ages are all over the place:

• 10 – can be charged with a murder or manslaughter
• 12 – can be charged with crime with a maximum penalty of 10 years or more
• 14 – can be charged with all crimes
• 16 – can get a drivers licence, leave home, refuse medical treatment, get a tattoo, leave school, get a gun licence, consent to sex,
• 17 – treated as an adult for crimes, can join armed forces
• 18 – now an adult without guardians, get married, make a will, buy alcohol, tobacco, get a bank account, gamble,
• 20 – can find out your birth parents
• 25 – can adopt

Most rights are 16 or 18. I can’t support a law that says at 16 you can vote but not get a credit card.  If you want a voting age of 16, then make the case for all the adults rights to occur at 16.

Sir Wilson Whineray has died aged 77. A huge loss. He was the longest serving All Black captain, and many (including T.P. McLean) say he was the greatest.

He turned down Governor-General in 2006 and would have made an excellent head of state for New Zealand.

He was captain at age 23 in 1958 and remained so until 1965. After rugby he got an MBA from Harvard and eventually was Chair of Carter Holt Harvey.

His family, friends and former teammates will miss him the most, but their loss is also New Zealand’s loss. He was one of our greatest.