A Maori friend once told me that we all have a lizard near our hearts that can flash out to bite others, and sometimes yourself. Some keep their lizard under tight control, others are ruled by it.

Russel Norman’s lizard must live half-way up his throat.

My Saturday post was deliberately circumspect about the extraordinary appearance of the lizard in St Andrews Church Hall on Saturday afternoon. That was partly because we all say and do things we regret in the course of election campaigns. I did not know whether his display   was his usual self, or an aberration.

From his comments in today’s DomPost he deserved no forbearance.

My  comment that triggered his lizard was not an interjection. It was a genuine reflection to Murray Smith beside me, who’d also worked with Rod Donald, on how I thought Rod Donald would have handled the situation. Still, I should not have made it then, however sincere it was.

I said so when I apologised to the audience (at least 40 people – not the 20 Norman seems to have suggested, presumably to minimise the offensiveness of his outburst). People I did not know came up to me afterwards to thank me, though most had not heard my comment. Russel did not attempt to apologise to them (and of course not to me).

I’d previously wound Norman up by describing as "fake protections" the Green amendments to our Bio-fuels bill to require that the fuels come from sustainable sources. They must know that in a global market, what we take from dubiously "sustainable" sources will just increase the price for similar ehanol from other (grain) sources. Their amendments do not sanitise the bill. They should ask that it be deferred until the science has caught up. I’ve been concerned about this law for some time.

I’ve heard Green spokespeople excusing eco-terrorism (against GM food research) because of the terrible risks they’re opposing. But Russell Norman seems to consider the fate of the millions whose rice price has doubled to be trivial, compared to his desire not to hear harsh words in an election debate.

To me the the continued Green demand for this law is a deplorable instance of political embarassment triumphing over genuine concern for the environment, not to mention the 300 million starving as grain is turned into fuel.

Rod Donald  was a genuine role model for the Greens. He was a hard political fighter. But he had a debating integrity I trusted. My first Select Committee minority report was signed by us both. When he and I served on the MMP review committee, we both thought the issues were worth debating seriously. Sure he brought his party’s preconceptions to the table, but he wanted to argue the substance.

Nor would he have wasted the Forum’s time point-scoring with false descriptions of the Building Act before the knee-jerk and expensive "leaky buildings changes.

This post is from NCPA’s website, specifically to wind up Jordan, who has commented on my earlier posts on the debate about the stereotypical characteristics of the left and the right.

In his new book, "Makers and Takers,"  Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and Stanford University,  explores why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less and even hug their children more than liberals.

Using the latest data and research, Schweizer shows that the claims that conservatives are mean-spirited, greedy, selfish malcontents with authoritarian tendencies are a myth.  Instead, he finds that many of these claims actually apply more to liberals than to conservatives. 

For example:

• Some 71 percent of conservatives say you have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent versus less than half (46 percent) of liberals.
• Conservatives have a better work ethic and are much less likely to call in sick than their liberal counterparts.
• Liberals are two and a half times more likely to be resentful of others’ success and 50 percent more likely to be jealous of other people’s good luck.
• Liberals are two times more likely to say it is okay to cheat the government out of welfare money you don’t deserve.
• Some 55 percent of conservatives say they get satisfaction from putting someone else’s happiness ahead of their own, versus only 20 percent of liberals.
• Those who are "very liberal" are three times more likely than conservatives to throw things when they get angry.

Schweizer argues that the failure lies in modern liberal ideas, which foster a self-centered, "if it feels good do it" attitude that leads liberals to outsource their responsibilities to the government and focus instead on themselves and their own desires. 

Source: Peter Schweizer, "Makers and Takers," Doubleday, June 3, 2008.

Sign on Glasgow Street wall.  Under Wellington City Council rules, election signs on Council property may go up only after the official start to the campaign. On residential property, signs may only advertise a neighbourhood event.

Whether on road reserve or private property, it seems to breach WCC rules.

Another case of Labour breaking the law they insist everyone else obeys?  Perhaps for an epitaph it’s OK.

At yesterday’s Social Justice forum at St Andrews on the Terrace, from the head nodding I discerned a consensus in favour of State tenants being permitted to buy their own homes (National’s policy). That included guarded favour from the other party representatives ( the Labour candidate was in favour only if those sold were replaced, which is National’s policy).

One of the delegates explained his enthusiasm by favourably contrasting the "feel’ of Porirua streets, with the feel of Manukau. He thought that Porirua’s advantage was probably a much longer average tenure, allowing a genuine sense of community to emerge.

It would be interesting to know from the Housing Corporation whether Porirua is distinguished in that way, and whether other sorry indicators (vandalism, rent default etc) are significantly lower in porirua.

That focus on long staying residents reminded me of my recent attendance at the AGM of the Wellington Housing Trust. The Trust’s Annual Report was ilustrated with a page from from the original Trust Deed. The Trust had updated their deed during the year.

It looked familiar. I realised I was recognising my own drafting from 25  years ago, when I was the initial honorary solicitor to the Wellington Housing Trust. Twenty five years is reasonably long term

A busy Saturday afternoon.

I’d previously committed to Joel Cosgrove’s Aro Street private election forum, followed by the St Andrews Church Social Justice forum..

When the Grand Final of Wellington Rugby League’s premier division was postponed to this weekend I had a dilemma. As WRL Chairman I desperately wanted to be there, but I try not to renege on committments. In the result I had to leave Porirua Park before the clash of the titans.

I’m sure the Hon Winnie Laban handled the League prize-giving (as Patron) without being feeling disadvantaged by my absence.

Jousting with the Aro Valley left has its charms but they are not intellectual. Too much righteous faith and too few with an objective interest in knowledge to offer sustained challenge. Still, this was a new generation. As Joel had promised, the audience did want to hear the answers, even if many only wanted to reassure themselves that their their prejudices were properly aligned. To me the extreme left’s sorriest characteristic is defining themselves by their hatreds, rather than their purposes.

The people at St Andrews were more focussed on the poor.  I came in part way through thoughtful comments by Alan  Johnson of Manukau, exploring the traps for their clients in ready access to vices like the pokies. He seemed to be challenging the audience to support limitations on personal freedoms, but with clear wariness about the consequent risks of paternalism. I would like to have heard more.

The politiican question session involved four parties – Green, Labour, United Future and National. It was well chaired by Rev Margaret  Mayman.

It was the first time I’d seen  the Green’s Russell Norman in action. Russell waxed rhetorical on a question about housing affordability. I interjected when he told the audience that the Building Act (before the Labour/United Future/Green changes) had not been concerned about buildings being weather proof.

The consequent exchange struck a note of sharp contrast with the panel’s general agreement on the seriousness of the stresses looming for the lowest income New Zealanders as energy and food costs rise.  A member of the audience described it as "unedifying".

Maybe. But the word derives from the same root as ‘education".

I think that audiences can learn more in those moments of head on conflict, about the real difficulties of politics and the importance of personal relationships, than in hours of honeyed words carefully workshopped through focus groups.

Thanks to Piripi of http://rupahu.blogspot.com/  (see the post of 17 June 2007) for the illustration of that phrase using whakaama, mentioned in yesterday’s post.

Some times the behavioural geneticists are comforting. 

A report you’ll have to pay for, but summarised by NCPA, gives us candidates reasons for not beating our breasts when voters seem immune to all our efforts.

The study lets me blame their genes. It used comparisons between identical twins and fraternal twins to find:

"Genes have a significant influence over whether you’re "liberal" or "conservative" on various political and social issues.  Some heritability estimates have been as high as 50 percent".

So  it isn’t my clunky oratory, or less than lucid reasoning. It’s just how they are. 

Is that comforting, or even more worrying?

Kim Hill often asks the questions I’ve never asked but meant to. This morning she missed one in her interview with blues musician Dave Murphy.

I loved his pieces, but must Blues singers always sing in American? It’s fine when they are American, but to me there is an irritating ‘try-hard’ overtone when they’re Kiwis.

Is it just me? When I was a child kids affected American accents to seem tough, like cowboys.  "Skiting" was a cardinal sin in those days, and Americans were skites by definition.

Is the accent a  genre rule for the Blues? What happens to those who break the rules and sing in Kiwi?

Why not reinstate concern for reputation as the first reason for not preying on your neighbours?

I’ve been concerned about the law’s devaluing of reputation as a constraint on bad behaviour since I first gave advice on  privacy issues. That was in 1993, when the Privacy Act  was going through.

So yesterday I  challenged Jim Mora’s Panel (Afternoons with Radio New Zealand) with the question. They were discussing a report of distribution by the Christchurch  police of flyers warning a neighbourhood about a 16 year old burglar. The flyer used a photo of Coltraine, to avoid rules protecting young offenders from being identified, saying:

"Robbie Coltrane is not the burglar, but imagine him aged 16 with lank, greasy hair and you have the picture."

The leaflet said the boy lived locally, travelled by bicycle and burgled houses in the area.

"He will break windows to gain entry and ransack the property, targeting electronic items, cash and jewellery,"

How did we get ourselves into such a stupid pickle? Why do we have law prohibiting the most natural and effective action open to a community watching a young person become a career criminal – that is to tell neighbours to keep a wary eye on him, at the same time telling him that crime will no longer pay for him?

How nutty it is to prevent the neighbours from protecting his victims and showing those tempted to imitate him that  it will not be a successful way to spend a life?

There is no evidence that abolishing shame for youth offending (which is the real, though possibly unintended effect of privacy and name suppression in Youth Justice) has improved any outcomes.

Shame is the basis of most cultures’ informal sanctions for bad behaviour. Shame (whakaama in Maori) was the primary foundation of Polynesian responses to offending.

The anointed who’ve run criminal justice policy often pay lip service to multi-culturalism. They afflict prisoners with "cultural affirmation" programmes. But the falsity of their "respect" shows in their rejection of any genuine return to effective traditional beliefs about offending, and how to deal with it.

Instead, to avoid stigmatising a guilty threat to the community who had thoroughly earned his stigma, we risk stigmatising a whole bunch of look alikes (not to mention Mr Coltraine).

We should not be surprised at the huge pressure for more punitive formal processes, when we’ve deliberately nobbled the first line of defense of all healthy communities. 

"Fresh Start" and other expensive programmes are necessary to deal with the youth crime wave. But perhaps there would not be such a wave if we had not had years of government collusion with offenders and their families to protect kids from the reputation consequences of the harm they inflict on others.

It’s no surprise that the kids get the message that the community is not serious when it says it will not tolerate predators.

Our Reserve Bank has warned for years that our love of housing investment has been irrational. Some have said it is not irrational given a tax preference created by the absence of a capital gains tax.

Robert J Samuelson in Newsweek lists the US tax "breaks" for housing that frothed their market. He warns that the rescue plans will exacerbate that problem.

Interestingly, we have virtually none of the tax incentives that bedevil other housing markets (other than the absence of capital gains tax). Yet we’ve shared their cycle.

I agree more with those who point to red tape and compliance costs as a primary cause of  the loss of housing affordability in New Zealand.