Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Favouritism


Last week during the submissions to the Civil Union bill people were grouped up so that they got five minute slots each to present their submission. That’s just not long enough. But get this: Marilyn Waring, who was also doing a personal submission, got 40 minutes and the opportunity to present a power point presentation to the committee in support of the bill.

So when sites like Gaynz.com state that submissions opposing the bill were not "quality submissions" perhaps that’s one of the reasons why: If you support the government line, if you are well known, well, you get more time to do a quality submission. I call it favouritism. So do most other people.

George Hawkins, the MP who answers questions during Question Time like a "possum in the headlights", still has his job. For now. That`s got to be bad for Labour. But I can't help wondering where the standards are here: Ruth Dyson (temporarily) loses her warrants for drink driving, Lianne Dalziel (and this will be temporary too) loses hers for lying - yet Maharey keeps his when lying. Helen Clark stays where she is for signing a painting she didn’t paint and Harry Duynhoven stays where he is for not being a NZ citizen. And you know what happened to prospective United Future MP Kelly Chal.

Hawkins stays where he is for being incompetent - ie not doing his job. Yet Miss Clark has said Hawkins has "handled his portfolios well" and is a "loyal minister".


Where's the consistency in that? Oh, that’s right, loyalty is seen as a greater virtue than competence, telling the truth or obeying driving rules. But Hawkins will lose his portfolios at the end of the year, and be given light duties. Maybe he could go back to being minister for Ethnic Affairs, or Helen could create a new portfolio - Minister for Watching Grass Grow. After all, National did have an unofficial Minister of Silly Walks, namely David Caygill.

I'm outta here for a few days - will be going to a place where blogging is not an option. Back early next week.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, John Banks was a Tourism Minister in the
second Bolger Cabinet, so plus ca change...

Craig

MrTips said...

So Marilyn Waring got 40 minutes and had a powerpoint presentation. Nice, very nice.......

We'll just have to see how long people like Maxim get; in theory, an obvious opponent should get the same time as an obvious supporter of the Bills. But then.......

The problem the Gay Lobby groups have, and this is especially true of Tim Barnett in person, is that if they carry on the way they are going with this Civil Union submission process, they will be justifiably open to sorts of legal challenges (such as conflict of interest, favouritism and unethical fast tracking of minority legislation). And believe it, it will happen: 95% of submissions are agin the CUB and an ever increasing proportion of the community is fed up with the extremist social agenda from Rainbow Labour.

So much for democracy, but then the Gay Activist Lobby movement has never been respectful for the processes of democracy. They make it worse for the rest of the Gay community by doing so.

Anonymous said...

Oh, similar to the way in which SPUC and Muldoon
wouldn't let pro-choice groups make submissions
about the Contraception, Sterilisation and
Abortion Act 1977, which was so badly drafted
that it had to be significantly amended in 1978,
you mean?

And I haven't seen any other opinion polls that
indicate majority opposition to the CUB/RSRB.
Moreover, Tim did make a valid point. If anti
submissions consisted of proof texting, rants
about the alleged immorality of homosexuality
per se, or made assertions without proper
footnoting, why shouldn't they be ignored?
If they're pro forma reprinted letters from
templates, can they be said to reflect
independent and considered thought from those
who submitted them? Etc.

Craig

MrTips said...

Craig

You wrote: "Oh, similar to the way in which SPUC and Muldoon wouldn't let pro-choice groups make submissions about the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, which was so badly drafted that it had to be significantly amended in 1978, you mean?"

Big call, prove it. If this was the case then how the the Act become law? I won't be holding my breath.......

Next, you wrote: "And I haven't seen any other opinion polls that indicate majority opposition to the CUB/RSRB".

Well, that's easy to do if you don't look for them. Opinion polls are just that - opinion. The real data is the submissions, of which 95% oppose the CUB and the majority oppose the RSRB. The people have spoken, but does this government listen?

Finally, you said: "If they're pro forma reprinted letters from templates, can they be said to reflect independent and considered thought from those who submitted them? Etc."

So you can decide what people think huh? So, on that basis I'm sure you'd recommend the civilunion.org.nz be shut down as it does exactly the kinds of things you critique.

Consistency is a good part of an argument Craig.

span said...

actually David Caygill was Labour.

and Marilyn Waring was reported in the Herald as OPPOSING the CUB because it is the apartheid option.

Dave said...

Yes you`re quite right Cagill was Labour, of course he was, and as for Ms Waring, her submission was one the committee welcomed as she didnt say the bill undermined marriage, ie she agreed with the intent of the bill, that is to make relationship laws equivalent, whereas most opponents didnt. Ms Waring obviously does not understand, or at least does not agree with, the Quilter case. My point was that no individual that considers the CUB undermines marriage would get anywhere near 40 minutes.

span said...

well organisations seem to get 20 mins each to submit, according to The Man Who Sits In The Comfy Chair who submitted in Auckland a few weeks ago - every organisation he saw submit got 20 mins, whether they were for or against. it may be that Waring was submitting on behalf of two organisations as I hear that when organisations have the same submitter and want to do one big submission instead of two or more shorter ones they can? also The Man Who Sits In The Comfy Chair observed that those who went over their time were not stopped, so that might be another factor.

all in all, those who are opposed to the CUB, for whatever reason, have got far more of the Select Committee's time than those who support it.

Dave said...

Hey span, of COURSE the select committee spent more time hearing submissions from bill opponents, given that 95 % opposed the bill. It`ll be a bit difficult spending more time on supporters when there are not tooo many of them! Also did you not read my post - I did say that Waring did a personal submission... in fact, I'm sure I said that. Oh thats right, I did. So what was your point.....

span said...

you are right Dave, you did say it was a personal submission - sorry about that. maybe former MPs have some kind of weird and archaic submitting right? (i hope not)

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to see how Ashraf Chowdary (Muslim) and Winnie Laban (Christian elder) are going to vote for these bills.

One is the Marriage Act in drag and the other so changes fundamental societal structural relationships as to be funny.

Funny as they who support them lie straight faced whilst stating that they aren.'t.
When in actuality they are just a waystation on the way to complete changes to the law, obstencively leading to societal acceptance of homosexual lifestyle behaviour.

The truth is this will never happen as at the basic core, is the fact that it (homosexualit) goes against our design and therefore is not natural and wrong.
It is an aberation of design.

Nor does it fulfill the evolutionary chain which I would have thought. thoughtful people would see.

As the choice of homosexuality or condoning it is an act of the will and based on values I understand why people won't look at it dispasionately.
They then have to hold themselves accountable logically for their choices.

It is a behaviour choice and therefore open to scrutiny and discrimination on the that basis as a choice.

Whilst I respect it is a choice one can make, I don't have to agree with it nor support or condone it, least of all accept it and say nothing.

In fact given that it is unnatural I have a duty and right to speak out against that choice as it is unhealthy individualy and societally.

Explain to me how it is natural from a design point of view and I will recant.

best
Mike

Anonymous said...

"Aberration of *design,*" Mike?

I must say, I don't think you'll win any support outside that area of the fundamentalist community
that accepts intelligent design creationism for
that stance!

As for evolution, how does this sound? It is quite
possible to theorise that LG individuals within some
species populations relieve overpopulation pressures, so Neo-Darwinian perspectives would indeed favour spousal and parenting rights and responsibilities for the LGBT communities.

And as for the CSA Act debates (both of them), read Hansard, matey...

Craig

Anonymous said...

As for Ashraf, remember, he voted for the Relationship (Statutory Reference) Bill. And I sent him some material about LGBT Muslim groups. As for Winnie, there's also the matter that her social justice values led her to vote for the Prostitution Law Reform Bill at its final reading after she'd met with transgender
sex workers.

Incidentally, why aren't you similarly lambasting Ross Robertson, an evangelical Christian who voted for both pieces of legislation?

Craig