Kiwiblog

I’m as happy to bash Transpower as the next person when they stuff up, but in this case, it seems pretty clear most of the fault lies elsewhere according to this Herald report:

Waikato farmer Steve Meier has fought a five-year battle with Transpower. He has never made a secret of the fact he doesn’t want its workers or pylons on his land.

Yesterday, those pylons sparked a fire in a shelterbelt of trees, leading to major power disruption in Auckland and beyond. …

However, company chief executive Patrick Strange said Mr Meier was the most difficult person in the country to deal with.

Transpower finally got access to the farm last night with an armed police escort – but not before five chaotic hours. Power was down as firefighters tackled the blaze.

“We have had major difficulties with this guy,” said Dr Strange. “We do have a right to enter the property but we can’t just walk on. We have to deal with him in a legal sense.

“We have been trying to get on the land for some months. We’ve been sending him notices saying we needed to do tree-trimming … When the fire was on this afternoon and we tried to attend to it, he still blocked us and we had to basically have over 10 police, I think, on site to allow us to go on to the land.”

So Mr Meier had refused for months allowing Transpower to trim the trees (which would have prevented the fire), and then even as the fire is burning, he still refuses access, necessitating armed police.

Paula Bennett is doing the 40 hour famine in a couple of weeks, to help raise money for Haiti. You can support Paula’s efforts here.

The Gisborne Herald reports:

Te Ahu Aaron Mankelow, 31, pleaded guilty to five charges of wilful cruelty to animals after he recorded himself on a cellphone tipping out five kittens from a box for his dog, and urging his dog to eat them.

It arose from an incident at a party at a house in Childers Road last September, prosecutor Vicki Thorpe told the court.

Mankelow was going into the property with his 18-month old pitbull dog Pepe.

Something in a truck parked alongside attracted the dog’s attention. When Mankelow looked inside, he saw five kittens, their eyes not yet open, in a cardboard box.

He took the box from the truck to a reserve alongside the property.

He tipped the kittens out of the box for his dog, which attacked them one by one, urged on by Mankelow, who recorded the whole attack on his cellphone.

All of the kittens were killed.

Someone called an SPCA officer who identified the remains of five kittens, with broken bones. At least one kitten had been disembowelled.

The officer estimated they were aged between six and 10 weeks.

Mankelow initially denied his actions, but then admitted it after being shown the video.

The law change promoted by Simon Bridges, increasing the maximum penalty for this sort of vile behaviour, can’t happen too soon.

Calling for a pre-sentence report, Judge Spear warned Mankelow that although community or home detention was a possibility, he could not rule out prison. This depended on the judge on the day.

Anything less than prison should not be a possibility. The maximum sentence is three years, and this case is so vile, that it should be at the higher end.

And the sick fucker is so proud of what he did, he recorded what he did on his cellphone.

This also reinforces my prejudices against pitbull owners. People who decide to buy a pitbull, rarely do so for good reasons.

His relatives hurled abuse and obscene gestures at reporters as they sought to question them. One member of the family told The Herald the incident had been over-publicised.

Nowhere near enough, I say. I hope the media show off who these relatives were hurlign abuse defending their kitten killing socio-path.

Cactus Kate blogs on the recommendations of the Tax Working Group. With respect, I disagree with her on one aspect. She says:

Much has been made of building depreciation. Those who still think this is a starter should read up on the IRD website about “depreciation recovered” . It is erroneous to say that the current system doesn’t already have a clawback on sale where depreciation has been overclaimed. As it does for other fixed assets depreciated in business as well.

Now it is true that when a building is sold, you have to pay back the cost of the tax on the claimed depreciation. Everyone knows this. But Cactus misses the point – you get to have interest free use of that money in the interim – this is like interest free student loans, but even better.

It is effectively lending landlords taxpayers money for free. Residential buildings do not generally depreciate – they appreciate (along with the ladn they are on).

Let me give an example. Say you purchase a house and the building is deemed to be worth $200,000 of the total price. You can claim 3% depreciation diminishing value. In year one that is $6,000. Now if you pay 38% tax, then you effectively end up with $2,280 extra cash.

Now even if you are the worst investor in the world, let us assume you can at least earn the risk free rate of return of 6.29%. So you earn $143.41 of your $2,280.

Now that doesn’t sound much. However in year two you then have $2,423.41 of money to invest plus you claim $5,820 off your income as depreciation, which at 38% which is a further $2,212 to invest. So then your return courtesy of the taxpayer is $291.54.

If you sell your property after ten years, you will have claimed $52,515 off your income, resulting in reduced taxation of $19,956. But you will by then have $28,774 of extra money (at the conservative risk free rate of return), so after paying back the claimed depreciation you still have $8,818 left over.

If you keep your property for 30 years, then after paying back the depreciation you will have $106,639 surplus from being able to use that money interest free. Now this is in nominal terms, so won’t be as much in real terms. But it is still money for nothing and bad economics – just like interest free student loans are bad.

Depreciation is a necessary tax loss, when the asset really does depreciate, as it allows you to fund the cost of replacement. But when we have decades of evidence that residential buildings appreciate, not depreciate, I’d rather not give out interest free loans to property owners to claim a depreciation that doesn’t exist.

The Jakarta Globe reports a former Prime Minister of a certain country saying:

said on Wednesday there was “strong evidence” the US faked the September 11 terror attacks as an excuse to go to war against Muslims.

“There is strong evidence that the attacks were staged. If they can make Avatar, they can make anything,’ …

and as with many 911 conspirayc nutsm they are also anti-semites:

The former premier also blamed Jews for hindering progress in US foreign policy. Voicing his disappointment that Barack Obama had not yet ended the war in Afghanistan or closed the US terror detention center at Guantanamo, he explained that “there are forces in the United States which prevent the president from doing some things. One of the forces is the Jewish lobby.”

And the highlight being his disappointment over the final solution not being final:

Jews “had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole governments to ransom,”

“Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world.”

This shows how extreme some anti-semites are. You would think such a speech should get the former PM condemned around the world, but instead his comments get largely ignored.

Now as blogged elsewhere, consider how people in Israel feel, when the former premier of one of the most economically advanced Muslim-majority countries openly endorses the view that Holocausts against Jews are natural and inevitable.

The former PM may surprise some (but not those who know him). It is not Iran, or a gulf state. It is Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

The Dom Post reports:

Momentum is building for more public funding for stomach-stapling operations, with at least four MPs showing the benefits of the procedure.

It is understood three National MPs have had the operation, which shrinks the stomach, dulls the appetite and usually leads to weight loss.

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia led calls yesterday to boost public funding of the procedure after revealing she had already dropped 13 kilograms and shaken off her diabetes just nine weeks after having the $28,000 operation.

So many MPs have had stomch staples, I’ve quipped to a number of friends that I have found the solution to the MPs travel perks issues.

Instead of MP gaining greater and greater subsidies for international travel as they serve more terms, they should gain greater subsidies for stomach staple operations!

So after one term, an MP gets 25% off a stomach staple, 50% off after two terms, 75% off after three terms and after four terms (by which time the unhealthy lifestyle of an MP will have probably made such operation necessary) they get the operation for free!

And the public would be far happier seeing their MPs get stomach staple operations, than getting subsidised international travel.

I call it a win-win.

The Dom Post reports:

The Commerce Commission has opened the door to mobile phone companies sharing a 4G mobile network, saying it would be willing to engage in “appropriate discussions” on issues that may be relevant to network sharing.

Telecommunications Industry Group chief executive Rob Spray suggested in December that Vodafone, Telecom and 2degrees could build a 4G network using shared cellphone towers and radio spectrum that they jointly owned, to avoid a proliferation of cellphone towers.

2degrees chief executive Eric Hertz expressed support for the idea, while Telecom said it was open to it in principle. However, Vodafone feared that any move to a single mobile network might fall foul of competition law.

A commission spokesperson says the Commerce Act does not bar such arrangements, except where they might greatly lessen competition.

I think it is very sensible to avoid duplication in infrastructure for mobile phones. The competition should come in services and applications.

In fact an idea which has occured to me, is that regional fibre companies could be tasked with responsiblity for future cellphone towers in their areas. My rationale is:

• RFCs are set up to provide infrastructure to telcos and ISPs
• RFCs are not allowed to be majority owned by a telco that provides services or applications
• As more of the Internet goes over the mobile network, you need better backhaul from cellphone towers, so who better than the local fibre company
• The telcos might even consider selling their existing cellphone towers to RFCs

Of course at this stage we don’t have any RFCs yet, but once they are established it may well be a conversation worth happening.

The Herald reports:

Labour received a battering at Ratana township yesterday as National and the Maori Party continue to bask in popularity after more than a year in office together.

Labour was challenged to reciprocate the loyalty shown to it from Ratana for decades by accepting four Ratana candidates for winnable positions in Parliament – on the list.

To rub his nose in it, Labour leader Phil Goff had to endure a speech praising Prime Minister John Key for being “a brilliant speaker” and “a person who should be admired”.

Heh. Now one has to understand the significance of this. Ratana is not just a meeting of Maori. It is not like Waitangi. Ratana has been an ally for Labour for many many decades. As a Labour leader, having Ratana praise National is somewhat akin to a Green Leader having to listen to Greenpeace praise National.

And Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples was welcomed in the morning, with him telling Ratana that the Maori Party was their party – it holds five of the seven Maori electorateseats.

The recent Marae Digipoll showed the Maori Party massively ahead of Labour amongst Maori voters on the Maori roll. It also showed National ahead of Labour amongst Maori voters on the general roll.

Mr Goff rejected the suggestion of greater Ratana representation in the Labour caucus, other than on merit.

I have a two word response to that – Ashraf Choudary!

Ratana minister Kereama Pene, who delivered the critical speech, was told by Labour MP Shane Jones he should stick to ministering.

How to win friends and influence people.

In The Press report I note Goff is using their new slogan – the ordinary person:

“Sure, you need to update it to be a 21st-century relationship, but it shows the coincidence between Ratana and Labour working for the ordinary person.”

We should start a competition to count up how often the phrase “ordinary person” appears in Labour press releases, blog postings and speeches.

Have had a great three days in the Mount. Swimming, bbqs, meeting a couple of the local cougars, reading and just generally relaxing. I find I can relax far better when I am away from home!

This morning I went out for what I was told would be a walk around the Mount. It turned into a walk up the Mount. We took the difficult steeper route (as locals say it is quicker) and I have to say was not the most pleasant of ascensions, but the view from the top is well worth it – a must do if you are in the Mount.

Now I didn’t take a camera up with me, so this photo is courtesy of Virtual Oceania, but it is the view you get. Hardly a cloud in the sky.

Many readers will have seen by now reports of the correction by the IPCC, retracting the claim in the 2007 4th report that the Himalayan glaciers may have 80% melted by 2035. The IPCC report said:

“Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035.”

Now one error doesn’t negate the proposition that if you keep increasing greenhouse gases, it will place upward pressure on temperatures. But what the error does do is allow us to understand better how rigorous, or not, the IPCC reports are. You see there was not just one error, but three, in that paragraph:

1. The 2035 date is absolute nonsense, and was either made up or was 2350 transposed.
2. The rate of receding by the Himalayan glaciers are not in fact receding faster than anywhere else in the world.
3. The size of the Himalayan glaciers is around 1/15th of 500,000 square kms – 33,000 square km.

So what does this tell us about IPCC processes:

1. An assertion made by a single scientist in a phone conversation in 1999 is deemed credible enough to make the IPCC report (even outting aisde whether the assertion is true).
2. No one in the IPCC applied a common sense test to the claim, that there is no way the Himalayan glaciers would be mainly melted in under 30 years – something that would require an 18 degree c warming in 30 years.
3. An obviously incorrect assertion can remain in an IPCC report for around three years before it is retracted.
4. No one in the IPCC fact checked whether Himalayan receding was in fact faster or not than aothe rglaciers.
5. No one in the IPCC face checked the size of the Himalayan glaciers, despite them being out by a factor of 15.
6. That when someone attacks an aspect of an IPCC report, the Chairman labels your attack as “voodoo science”, even though you were in fact correct.

To my mind this casts more doubt on “the science is settled” than the Climategate e-mails. It just points to a process where any assertion that was supportive was included, without checking.

Now again, for me this doesn’t change my basic viewpoint that there is a link between increased levels of greenhouse gases and upwards pressure on temperatures (other factors can exert downward pressure).  But it certainly changes my view as to the robustness of the IPCC reports, and when they publish their 5th report, they’d better display a far higher level of basic competence, if they want policy makers to place much reliance on it.

This should be displayed in every newsroom.

Hat Tip: The Standard

The Nelson Mail report:

Nelson MP and Government minister Nick Smith faces trial later this year in a significant defamation case.

A six-week hearing in the High Court at Auckland is scheduled to start on June 8, but Dr Smith hopes it can be resolved out of court before then.

Timber preservatives producer Osmose New Zealand began legal action in December 2005 against timber preservation scientist Robin Wakeling and Dr Smith over statements they made in July 2005 about one of its timber treatments.

The company is seeking nearly $15 million in damages.

The legal costs to date alone has been massive for Nick, let alone what the trial will cost, and if Osmose are sucessful, any damages.

Dr Wakeling published an article critical of the Building Industry Authority (BIA), now the Department of Building and Housing, for approving the use of the treatment in timber framing of houses in 2004.

Dr Smith issued a press release later the same day critical of the then-Government and BIA, along with a copy of Dr Wakeling’s article. He was interviewed on the issue on radio and television.

Osmose’s statement of claim pleaded 11 causes of action. Five were directed at Dr Wakeling – two in defamation, two for injurious falsehood and one for breach of the Fair Trading Act.

The other six were against Dr Smith for defamation and injurious falsehood but did not include an alleged breach of the FTA.

Dr Smith said yesterday the legal action had become more complex with six other parties added to the action.

“That takes a little bit of the pressure off in that there are more people to fund the defence,” he said.

The legal costs of the various parties would be well over $500,000, he said.

Ouch.

Michael Laws writes:

In short, the policy properly aligns sentencing for serious criminal acts with parliament’s intent. The great frustration for generations of politicians has been that they create the law, only for the courts to screw it up.

Sentencing is a classic example. The law isn’t even much use as a reference given that the courts can, and do, set their own generous compensation to mitigate any maxima. To make matters worse, parole provisions frustrate even that intent. Now violent and/or sexual offenders get a strike for their first offence, no parole for their second, and the maximum prescribed sentence for their third. …

We want the deranged, the psychotic and criminal classes as far away from us as possible, for as long as possible. Releasing the addled and anti-social back into our community can only create new victims. Indeed, you might argue that the cost of recidivist reoffenders – their arrest, charging, legal aid, trial, sentencing and the like – is actually more expensive than throwing away the key. Certainly for their victims.

And, although criminals are not the brightest species on the planet, neither are they wholly moronic. The three strikes policy has the capacity to reduce offending by scoping a harsher environment. The Californian experience shows that the stick can work: the policy sends an understood message.

Not much to disagree with there.

Former US Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards has finally admitted he is the father of Rielle Hunter’s child. This is not surpise as it has been obvious he was for a while, but what is interesting is how long he kept lying and lying and lying about it.

This was no one off “I did not have sexual relations” comment. He did not just lie to his staff, family and the public over first the affair, and then the child. He actually got one of his friends to claim he was in fact the father, and also tried to fake a paternity test.

The only reason Edwards has finally admitted it, is the friend is about to have his book published detailing the cover-up. Edwards has flown to Haiti to show how much he cares about poor people, and avoid questions.

I’ve always detested Edwards as a phony – he seemed so fake, and was.

First Audrey:

At Tuesday’s caucus meeting in Manukau, Goff will be confirmed resolutely as leader. Under the party’s rules the leadership must be addressed in the first caucus of the year before election year.

Before inviting the caucus back to his Clevedon farm for dinner, he will deliver a short message to his MPs – do better than you did last year.

The implication must be that if they don’t shape up, they will be shipped out.

That is a fair message, as some in Labour have not performed and are missing in action, such as Parekura. Goff should seriously consider a front bench reshuffle and sticking up some of the 2008 intake. He also needs to think about signals to former Ministers – ie does he see a place for them as a Minister, if Labour should win. Then they can make decisions about retiring, and allow further new blood in next election.

Foreign Affairs spokesman Chris Carter had a shocking year, due in no small part to his reaction to media stories about about high travel costs. He will miss the first caucus meeting because he is in the Caribbean monitoring elections for the Commonwealth.

Parekura Horomia made no impact against the Maori Party but is seen as untouchable because he held his seat against it, and is the senior Maori.

Shane Jones, whose leadership ambitions are a frequent source of teasing by National, made no impact in his areas of environment and economic development, but was de facto Maori Affairs spokesman.

And David Cunliffe, whose leadership ambitions are a regular source of teasing within Labour, will be expected to do better against Finance Minister Bill English.

One could suggest Shane and DC need to concentrate on their portfolios, and not Phil Goff’s

Goff is expected to lead a concerted effort this year to make Cunliffe and other MPs put ordinary working people uppermost in their minds as they develop their portfolios and policies.

Is it just me, or the way many Labour MPs talk about “ordinary working people”, they sound like a curator at a museum who is enthused about studying them!

Vernon Small writes:

Labour leader Phil Goff’s job will be on the line at the party’s first caucus meeting of the year on Tuesday, but he is confident no challenger will emerge.

The party’s leadership is always on the agenda at the first caucus meeting of the middle year of each parliamentary term, but despite’s National’s jibes that he is “fill-in Phil” – an interim leader while Labour regroups – Mr Goff is so confident he has invited his team to a barbecue at his Clevedon home … bringing with it the inevitable jokes.

I agree that Goff will not face a challenge this January, and I doubt he will next January either. The odds are that he will remain Leader until the 2011 election (and I have money on iPredict that his job is safe this year).

There will be a bit of a danger period for him – it is the second half of 2010. If National is still 20 points ahead in the polls a couple of months after the 2010 budget (which is the most likely game changer between now and the election), then some in Labour may start to get nervous.

However two things should keep Goff in the job even if Labour remain 20 points behind. The first is the lack of confidence in the alternatives. The second is MMP. Under FPP, MPs would panic at bad poll ratings as them losing their seat meant the end of their political career. But with MMP those on good list positions are insulated from all but the most disastrous election results. So the propensity to panic for self survival is lessened.

Reuters reports:

China has attacked Washington’s call to lift internet censorship and warned the Obama administration to heed alarm bells over trade, Taiwan and Tibet.

China said that US calls for greater internet freedom were harmful to bilateral ties and that the Chinese government banned any form of hacking, in response to a speech by the US Secretary of State.

The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for China and other authoritarian governments to lift their curbs on citizens’ use of the internet in a speech on Thursday (Friday NZ time).

It was a good speech which is in full here.Also an interesting Q&A.

This is not just about what China do behind their own borders, but the threat they may pose to the greater Internet with state sanctioned cyber attacks.

“A new information curtain is descending across much of the world,” said Clinton, calling growing internet curbs the present-day equivalent of the Berlin Wall, contravening international commitments to free expression.

Clinton also urged Beijing to investigate the complaint about cyber spying from China that Google said targeted it and dozens of other companies, as well as Chinese dissidents.

One of the best parts of the speech was:

As I speak to you today, government censors somewhere are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already condemned these tactics. Two months ago, I was in Germany to celebrate the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leaders gathered at that ceremony paid tribute to the courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression by circulating small pamphlets called samizdat. Now, these leaflets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc and many people paid dearly for distributing them. But their words helped pierce the concrete and concertina wire of the Iron Curtain.

The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided and it defined an entire era. Today, remnants of that wall sit inside this museum where they belong, and the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls.Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

A speech by itself won’t change anything, but the focus of the US Government at the highest levels is a good thing.

Brian Fallow has a nice summary of the pros and cons of various tax options. They are:

RAISING GST

Pro: GST is a robust and efficient tax, and shifting tax from incomes to spending might improve saving.

Con: It is very hard to prevent a rise in GST hitting those on lower incomes harder.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

Pro: Potentially very lucrative, allowing more tax relief elsewhere.

Con: Lots of practical difficulties and the IRD, which would have to administer it, hates the idea.

LAND TAX

Pro: Broad base, low rate and could bring in billions.

Con: Liable to be undermined by exemptions as in the past. Hard on the retired, Maori trusts and farmers.

RISK FREE RATE OF RETURN FORMULA APPLIED TO RENTAL PROPERTIES

Pro: Targeted at a sector that seems undertaxed now.

Con: Because it is based on equity, it could perversely encourage more gearing in the rental property sector. Could flow through to tenants.

SCRAP BUILDING DEPRECIATION

Pro: Could be done quickly.

Con: It is not easy to distinguish buildings which do depreciate from those which don’t.

I hope the Government will act on at least a couple of these, using the revenue to reduce income taxes. What we tax does matter – not just how much we tax. The best system is broad based and low rate.

John Roughan looks at the current tax system:

Read a few lines further into the Tax Working Group’s report and the picture gets worse. Once you distribute family tax credits, welfare benefits and national superannuation those top 10 per cent of taxpayers have provided 76 per cent of what is left for general public services. Seventy six per cent.

Yep 10% of taxpayers provide 76%. And what happens if more and ore of that 10% go offshore?

The Working for Families refund alone results in 40 per cent of households effectively paying no income tax. It would be cheaper not to tax their wages at all.

It would be. The best system would be that no one pays any tax until they are earning what one regards as the minimum amount needed for a family of their size. Churning money from tax to welfare to inefficient.

The Herald reports:

But it took only one surprise sentence from a kaumatua speaking on the marae to indicate that while Labour leader Phil Goff will have the crowds when he appears tomorrow, he could face a more difficult time.

Joe Everett, a morehu (Ratana follower), noted the long connections the Church has with Labour but then said that since becoming Prime Minister, John Key had abided by his promises to the Maori people.

“In the short time you have been in power, you have done so much more than others have done for the Maori people.”

The overt praise and implicit criticism of the previous Labour government made it clear the Church followers at least are openly reconsidering their alliance with Labour.

Church elder Andre Meihana said Mr Goff could well face criticism over the controversial speech he gave last year, as well as what some saw as a failure by Labour to foster its close ties with the Church over the past five years.

I thought Key might get some stick for not agreeing to Maori seats on the Auckland Council, but that seems to be an agree to disagree issue.

And the Dom Post:

Mr Key opened his speech by joking about flowerpots at the marae – six were blue and four were red.

“I like that. Don’t go changing that when the other fellow [Labour leader Phil Goff] turns up on Sunday.”

He said his almost exclusive focus this year was to improve educational standards in the country, “so that every child in New Zealand gets the opportunity to succeed in life”.

Of course Labour and the educational unions are against having national standards and reporting to parents on them.

Audrey Young takes a look at Labour (which I will blog on also), and as part of that identifies what she calls the “hardcore” left as:

1. Ruth Dyson
2. Chris Carter
3. Maryan Street
4. Lianne Dalziel
5. Charles Chauvel
6. Steve Chadwick
7. Sue Moroney
8. Jacinda Ardern
9. Carol Beaumont
10. Iain Lees-Galloway
11. Grant Robertson
12. Phil Twyford

I wouldn’t disagree too much with any of those 12 names, except maybe Charles Chauvel. Charles is pretty hard left on social issues, but he does show some understanding of business and economic rationality and is probably not as hardcore left as the others on economic issues.

I’d also add on to the hardcore left Moana Mackey, Lynne Pillay, Darien Fenton, Rajen Prasad and Carmel Sepuloni. You could also debate Pete Hodgson but I’ll give him benefit of the doubt!

I love this. The media break the convention of not publishing photos of the SAS while deployed, and then they try to turn the story into blaming John Key for confirming that Apiata was Apiata. Did they want him to look like a moron and say he can’t confirm that the photo of Apiata was Apiata when it clearly was?

Anyway the Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key yesterday defended his decision to reveal the identity of SAS soldier Willie Apiata in a photograph taken in Kabul this week and published in the Herald.

He said he had revealed the name because media outlets viewing the photo in the Herald had suspected it was Corporal Apiata and he knew he would be asked.

“I’m not going to stand up and lie to the New Zealand media. It was pretty clear to anyone who knows the man that that’s who it was.”

The Herald editorial defends their decision of course. I do hope they note their own readers in their own online polls are saying that made the wrong call by a 7:1 margin.

A French cameraman offered us photographs of two of them uniformed and armed, apparently on patrol in an urban street. We published one. The picture told us something about what our forces are doing. Their appearance and their surroundings suggested they are not always engaged in the clandestine operations, often behind enemy lines, that can justify a policy of extreme secrecy for special forces.

We did not know for certain that one of the photographed soldiers was Corporal Willie Apiata VC and would not have named him if we had known. Mr Key’s decision to identify him the next day was needless and unwise. Our intention was not to expose Corporal Apiata but to give the public its first sight of our forces in Afghanistan.

Note the weasel words “for certain”. That suggests they thought it was Apiata. And again I like the hypocrisy of the media complaining that the PM told the truth. It is inane to think that Apiata was not going to be associated with his own photo- and of course the media were planning to ask Key if it was Apiata, in some sort of game to see if they could get him to deny the obvious, so they could then no doubt complain about it.

The Herald also runs an op-ed from Commander Shaun Fogerty who is the NZDF Comms Director:

I believe that media have until now respected the need for anonymity, and appreciated operation security risks that images of the SAS present, especially from within an operational theatre.

For example, when media think they have a good photograph of two soldiers in the field, it is entirely possible that captured within that image are weapons configurations, ammunition quantities, communications equipment, and protective clothing that may be revealing to an adversary.

That is, close study of such images by an enemy may present them with something they will exploit in the future – directly affecting the safety of these personnel.

In the case of insurgents in Afghanistan, we know them to be technologically sophisticated and to be adept at using tools such as the internet.

So with pictures revealed in the New Zealand media it is entirely possible that they will be seen and studied by insurgents on the other side of the world. We do not say to New Zealand media “do not publish”. Instead we urge caution, and ask that media weigh carefully these points in their consideration to publish.

Our concern about showing the faces or other identifiable traits of members of the SAS is about creating situations in which their identity, including that they belong to this particular unit, might be used against them.

I just hope the lapse in this case doesn’t become the new standard for the future.

Tom Scott hits the mark!