Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Telecom plans to slash 200 management jobs by mid-year, and more lay-offs are likely as the company seeks to slash its costs.

Never good when a company cuts jobs, but often necessary. Very tough on those in the affected areas.

The job losses within its 8000-person workforce are part of a programme announced last year that aims to slice more than $500 million from the business’s costs by 2013.

Mr Reynolds said $113 million had been cut last year, and a further $244 million was expected to be cut this financial year.

200 out of 8,000 is 1 in 40 jobs gone, but as they are all management jobs, then the ratio will be considerably lower.

In a related story:

Telecom is seeking relief from the Government on its regulatory obligations in the face of pressure on earnings.

I’m somewhat supportive of this, but the key is timing. As a fibre network is built, access to the copper legacy network will become less important, and access conditions can be reduced. But one needs that fibre network to be reasonably progressed, before one can start to strip back some of the copper network regulation.

UPDATE:

Tom Pullar-Strecker writes in the Dom Post:

Telecom has caved in to Government pressure and will consider splitting into two separate companies.

This would make it more likely that the Government’s $1.5 billion plan to roll out ultrafast broadband to three-quarters of homes will get off the ground.

I’m not sure it makes the fibre to the home plan more likely. I think it makes Telecom’s chances of winning the bids more likely.

After playing chicken with the Government over the ultrafast broadband contract, chief executive Paul Reynolds blinked first and said the company was open to working with the Government on a “full range of approaches”.

I’m not sure I quite read that as saying they will consider splitting. If Telecom is open to spinning Chorus off (which would be a good thing), they should make it clear, as it will improve their chances (in my opinion) with the fibre to the home initiative.

The Herald reports:

The minimum legal driving age could yet rise to 17, after the Government moved yesterday to have it raised from from 15 to 16 by the middle of next year.

The Cabinet yesterday approved the rise to 16, which is part of the Government’s 2010-20 Safer Journeys project.

The project also includes encouraging 120 hours of supervised driving for a restricted licence; learner drivers now do about 50 hours.

Young drivers could also face restrictions on how powerful their cars can be, and tougher penalties for breaching restricted licence conditions.

I think the move to 16 is sound, especially as the school leaving age is no longer 15. It also is more consistent with the general regime we have that young NZers get a partial set of rights at 16 (sex, driving, marriage with parental consent etc) and get most of their full rights at 18 (voting, drinking etc).

The 120 hours of supervised driving to get a restricted is sensible also.

This morning Citizens & Ratepayers announced an initial 11 candidates for the Auckland Council. They are:

Albany Ward

Linda Cooper is a current Waitakere City Councillor and was second highest polling in her ward. A former nurse.

Josephine Kim was the first Korean women to gain a NZ law degree

Albert-Eden-Roskill

Chris Fletcher is the former Auckland Mayor, and quite a coup for C&R that she is standing on their ticket.

Paul Goldsmith is a current Auckland City Councillor.

Franklin

Des Morrison, of Nga Puhi affiliation, worked for NZ Steel for 32 years and is currently on the Frankin District Council, where he was second highest polling in his ward.

Maungakiekie-Tamaki

Alfred Ngaro is a New Zealander of Cook Island descent and people tell me he is a real star in the mould of Sam Loti-Iiga. He has been active in the community sector for 20 years and has a huge network of people behind him. In 2009 Alfred Ngaro was awarded a Sir Peter Blake Emerging Leader Award for his contribution in the Tamaki Transformation Programme

Orakei

Doug Armstrong is in his third term on Auckland City Council and is well known in his role as Finance Committee Chair. A former CEO of Unitec.

Te Irirangi (Howick)

Dick Quax is also well known. He received 17,000 votes for Manukau Mayor and easily topped the poll for the Pakuranga ward.

Jami-Lee Ross is on the second term of the Manukau City Council, and is known for his tireless campaigning.

Waitemata and Gulf

Michael Barnett, the Auckland Chamber of Commerce CEO will probably be up against Mike Lee in a Battles of the Big Beasts. Michael has been a member of the Auckland Regional Council for several terms.

Whau

Noelene Raffills has been on the Auckland City Council since 2000 and was the top polling Councillor for the Avondale-Roskill Ward.

Not that I think it is a huge issue, but some try to portray C&R as all white men in suits. Of the 11 candidates, two are of Maori decent, one Korean and one Cook Islands. And 4/11 are women. Reasonably diverse.

The Herald enthuses over Queens Wharf:

It has been a long and tortuous road but, finally, an acceptable plan for the use of Queens Wharf during next year’s Rugby World Cup has been arrived at. “Party central” will be in a temporary structure on the site of one of the wharf’s two cargo sheds. This has two compelling pluses: the sprucing up of Queens Wharf for the Cup festivities for as low a cost as possible, and the demolition of both the unsightly sheds, an essential precursor to the wharf later being developed to its full potential.

All that is required for the World Cup celebrations is a gathering point. Little needs to be done. A temporary structure housing television screens and places for eating, drinking and dancing will suffice. Solidly constructed, it will easily withstand the buffeting of a wet and windy spring. The swept-up development advocated until recently by the Government was always unnecessary, as well as becoming constrained by time. It could also have resulted in the wharf’s final development being compromised for the benefit of a one-off event.

I tend to agree. People just need shelter, screens, sausages and drink and it will work.

The Dom Post calls on Australia to accept the WTO ruling on apples:

Australia has led New Zealand apple growers a merry dance for 89 years. Now the jig is up.

A World Trade Organisation disputes panel has found that Australian fears that fireblight, a bacterial disease found in some New Zealand orchards, can be transferred from mature New Zealand apples to Australian fruit trees are groundless.

It is past time for the Australian Government to show some leadership on the issue. The ruling is an embarrassment to a government that trumpets the cause of free trade in other arenas, Australian scientists who have lent legitimacy to an illegitimate argument and Aussie growers who appear to believe they cannot compete with their New Zealand counterparts.

Rather than prolong the process yet again, Australian officials and growers should sit down with their counterparts in New Zealand, agree a sensible regime, and develop a marketing strategy that will benefit growers on both sides of the Tasman.

Trans-Tasman believes that the Governments are working on an agreement which would be a good thing.

Delighted to see the new Wiri prison will be openly tendered. Not only may it cost less, but more importantly it provides opportunities to have a lower escape rate, and a higher rehabilitation rate.

Now Labour have said:

Locking people up in jails is a job for the state, not for private businesses whose prime motivation will inevitably be to make money out of a PPP venture, says Labour Law and Order spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove.

As usual, they put ideology ahead of any potential gains. But let’s rewrite their press release to show how stupid their statement is:

Prosecuting criminals is a job for the state, not for private businesses whose prime motivation will inevitably be to make money out of prosecutions, says Labour Law and Order spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove.

Prosecutions are just as much a core part of the criminal justice system, as are prisons. And we already have what is effectively PPPs in the crown law system.

The Crown Law office sets policies and standards for prosecutions, but contracts private law firms to do most of the prosecutions. Those private law firms make money out this arrangement.So why is Labour not calling for prosecutions to be nationalised?

Labour’s great weakness is their inability to put aside ideology to do what is best.

Some may accuse National of doing the same, but I can point to a specific counter in the law & order field.

Criminal defence work is also effectively privatised at present. It is done by private lawyers and law firms. However National is supporting and expanding the Crown’s Public Defender Service, as it has found in this case it can produce better outcomes. This is effectively nationalising a small part of something that was previously done purely by the private sector.

The Herald reports:

Pushing the line that the Government’s tax changes would “benefit the few, not the many”, Mr Goff said the Government’s promise that taxpayers would be compensated for any increase in GST did not stack up.

“You are going to get a one-off compensation for GST in advance. But what you know is that might barely meet the cost of GST, but then it will run out. And in a couple of years’ time, there won’t be the compensation, but there will still be the GST.”

I’ve read this many times, and still don’t know what Goff means. The increase in superannuation does not last for a year only. The Government doesn’t take it back at the end of the year. And the tax cuts lift after tax wages which will lift super permanently.

A Grey Power delegate rose to his feet, saying he loved what Mr Goff had to say, but asked if it meant that he would be reversing the GST increase if he was elected to Government.

Mr Goff replied: “I know the answer you want to hear to that. But I’m going to give you an honest answer: I can’t tell you at this point.

“If I was to promise you I could do that, without knowing whether we will have the financial means to be able to do that, I would be misleading and I won’t do that,” he said.

That is a no, in other words.

John Armstrong writes:

Still waters run deep when it comes to the public’s attachment to New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy. Just how deep could be plumbed by this week’s misinterpretation – deliberate in some instances – of a few innocuous remarks by Sir Geoffrey Palmer about the desirability of an American naval vessel soon visiting a New Zealand port. …

Sir Geoffrey’s statement that a port visit would be “desirable” was rapidly translated on both sides of the political fence as him arguing for a change in the anti-nuclear law.

I never thought it meant that.

He was certainly not advocating any change to the anti-nuclear policy. He doesn’t need to do so. Whether the Americans send ships here is purely a matter of their choosing. That has been the case for the past 19 years.

In 1991, the US removed all nuclear weapons from its surface naval vessels, confining such firepower to ballistic nuclear missiles on its nuclear-powered submarines. Along with those submarines, other surface vessels – principally aircraft carriers – were still shut out by New Zealand’s tandem ban on nuclear-powered vessels.

The upshot was that all the Prime Minister had to do to determine if a ship could enter New Zealand’s coastal waters was to consult Jane’s Fighting Ships, the reference bible on the world’s navies.

The point I made yesterday.

What is really at stake here, however, is the mending of the extensive military ties between Washington and Wellington which existed before the bust-up of Anzus in the 1980s.

The restoration of such links is hotly opposed in some political quarters. The easiest way to try to stop that happening is to scare the public into thinking the anti-nuclear policy is under threat. Sir Geoffrey unwittingly provided the platform for others to do that.

In other words a bout of scare-mongering.

This piss take ad is a couple of years old but very topical again.

Last Monday I blogged that the Liberals were to govern in Tasmania.

What is interesting is that Labor have surrendered power voluntarily, rather than trying to hold onto power by doing a deal with the Greens.

The outgoing Labor Premier said before the election that he believes the party that won the most seats, or the most votes if seats are equal, should be given first chance to govern. The libs had 2.1% greater share of the vote.

The Greens are miffed that the decision by Labor, means the Libs do not need to negotiate with them. Both the Greens and Labor have said they will vote supply to allow the Government to govern, but the Greens are under some pressure to renege.

Labor in fact have gone further and said they will not move a motion of no confidence, unless there is maladministration.

But a week is a long time in politics.

Labor backed away from their pre-election position to let the party with the most votes govern, and also backed away from their leader’s statement they would support a Liberal Government, as reported in The Mercury:

A DISGUSTED and dejected Will Hodgman said last night Labor had grossly betrayed the trust of the Tasmanian people.

The Liberal leader did not attempt to hide his anger when he fronted the media yesterday, shortly after returning from Government House where he received the shock news he would not become the state’s 54th premier.

He accused Premier David Bartlett of reneging on his commitment to hand over government to the Liberals in the event they won a higher proportion of the statewide vote. …

He was also scathing of the Greens for cooking up an 11th-hour deal to support Labor.

“The Greens tried to blackmail the other political parties,” he said.

“In his lust for power [Nick] McKim has backed an illegitimate government that has no moral authority to govern.”

Mr Hodgman accused Mr Bartlett of blatantly changing his advice to the Governor in a desperate attempt to hold on to power.

Now there is one other thing Labour were explicit on. They had ruled out doing a deal with the Greens. Well that did not last long as reported yestoday:

The Bartlett Government is negotiating to make Tasmanian Greens MPs ministers in its new Cabinet.

Premier David Bartlett announced this morning he would delay announcing his full cabinet of nine ministers for another week, to allow discussions with non-Labor MPs to continue.

The role of the Governor is also under scrutiny as detailed in Wikipedia:

On 7 April the results were declared, and under the Constitution Act 1934, the Governor of Tasmania, Peter Underwood, had seven days to commission a Government. Ultimately, after speaking to all of the leaders, he recommissioned Bartlett.

In an unusual move, he released the detailed reasons for his decision,saying that Bartlett did not have the right to promise power to Hodgman, and that Hodgman was not in a position to form stable government. …

Hodgman accused Bartlett of breaking his promise to hand over power, noting that in a letter to the Governor, Bartlett had contradicted a public statement made on 1 April where he had said he would not move any vote of no confidence against a Liberal government. However, Professor Richard Herr of the University of Tasmania believed the Governor’s stance was a correct one, as it served the interests of stable government.Constitutional law expert Michael Stokes disagreed, saying too high a bar had been set for the Liberals and Labor had not proven it could deliver stable government in the new Assembly.

It is important to distinguish two things here. There is no automatic right for the top polling party to form a Government. In that regard, there is nothing unusual about Labor and Greens combining to form a Government, despite the Liberals winning 2% more seats than Labor.

What has offended some, is that Labor lied to the electorate. They did not follow through on their word, given both before and after the election, to allow the party with the most votes to govern.

It would be the equivalent of if John Key did a deal with Winston Peters after the 2008 election, despite explicitly saying he would do no deals with him, and rather stay in Opposition, than rely on him.

You can debate whether or not that was a good position to take, but most would say once you state such a position, you should honour your word.

Labor’s share of the vote dropped 12.4% at the election. I suspect it may drop by that much again at their next election.

The NZ Computer Society is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, and has a great line-up of speakers at their conference in Rotorua from Thu 16 to Saturday 18 September.

There are two days of the main conference, and then on the Saturday a BarCamp unconference.

Speakers in the main conference include:

• Craig Nevill-Manning, Engineering Director, Google
• Greg Lane, National Director, Canadian Council of IT Professionals
• Sam Morgan, Founder, Trade Me
• Nat Torkington, open source and data guru
• Ian Taylor, Founder, Innovation Research Ltd
• Rod Drury, Founder, Xero
• Sam Knowles, Founding CEO, Kiwibank
• Ian McCrae, Founder, Orion Health

Hope to see a few people I know there.

They’re all Kiwis incidentially

It is very rare to have an Ambassador comment on a domestic policy, and even more rare amongst friendly countries. So I was surprised and pleased to see the US Ambassador to Australia speak out against the Government’s planned compulsory filter:

CHILD pornographers can be captured and prosecuted without having to resort to mandatory internet filters, says Barack Obama confidante and US Ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich.

Speaking on ABC TV’s Q&A program last night, Mr Bleich said Australia had been made aware of his own government’s no internet censorship stance and that the US has had “healthy discussions” with its Australian counterparts on the matter.

“On the issue of the internet we have been very clear. The internet needs to be free,” Mr Bleich said.

“It needs to be free the way we have said skies have to be free, outer space has to be free, the polar caps have to be free, the oceans have to be free. They’re shared resources of all the people in the world.”

The US had told Australia child pornographers could be nabbed without the use of internet filters, Mr Bleich said.

“What we’ve said is we have been able to accomplish the goals that Australia has described, which is to capture and prosecute child pornographers and others who use the internet for terrible purposes, without having to use internet filters,” he said.

I like the quote about how the Internet is a shared resource of all the people in the world.

The Herald chomps into the apple debate:

Apple-growers from China, the United States and Chile are queuing to sell their fruit in Australia.

They, especially, will be interested in New Zealand’s reported success in persuading the World Trade Organisation to overturn Australia’s long-running ban on the importing of apples from this country.

But they, too, are the reason Australia is bound to use every conceivable delaying tactic to deny the benefits of that verdict to New Zealand orchardists.

Protection of struggling Australian producers has become the only rationale for the ban in the latter years of its 90 years’ existence.

Hypocrisy for a nation which has championed free trade in agriculture.

In the process, however, Australia is besmirching its reputation as a promoter of free trade. At the moment, its trade practices are the subject of 10 complaints from other countries.

New Zealand has no such cases against it.

Yay.

The Press also takes up the cudgels on apples:

The reported World Trade Organisation decision which would allow New Zealand to export apples across the Tasman is not just a victory for our pipfruit industry. It is also a big win for New Zealand trade officials and for the cause of free trade itself. For Australia to have used spurious science to block for so long New Zealand apples was nonsensical and a complete contradiction of its otherwise strong free-trade credentials.

If Australia do not accept the ruling, once final, then NZ can apply for and get trade sanctions against Australia. That would be very damaging to the relationship, but may be necessary if Australia refuses to comply with the rules it signed up to.

The Dominion Post focuses on the Waihopai Three:

Father Murnane believes it unlikely that the Government will pursue a lawsuit against them because, he says, they don’t have much money and civil action would cost taxpayers too much.

He is right that yet more court proceedings would not be cheap. But sometimes protesters need to accept that principles can come at a cost.

Messrs Murnane, Leason and Land would surely be prepared to pay that price? If principles are worth standing up for – and they almost always are – those who hold them dear must be willing to go down to the wire to uphold them. If that means having an attachment order assigned to their income, or a lien placed against their property, to meet the cost of paying for damage to public property, so be it. And if the jury verdict was as popular as the triumvirate believes, their supporters will obviously be willing to help fund any damages awarded against them.

The solicitor-general should proceed. Taxpayers should not have to stump up the cash to fund this pointless protest.

The news their claimed poverty didn’t include half a million dollars of land, does make a civil case more appealing.

The ODT looks at competitive education

Comparisons can help human beings, a competitive species, strive to do better – whether in NCEA pass rates or scholarship numbers or in provincial education correlations.

They give schools and communities the chance for pride, often well earned, or for motivation to do better next time.

Sometimes, too, they provide opportunities for finding reasons, often valid, why performances are down the scale. Even if bald results taken at face value can be misleading, they are a part of the information mix.

Except for those who want to ban them.

Quiz is here. 44 seconds.

It would be cool if the Dom Post published how many people sit the quiz every week, and what the scores were.

Colin Espiner blogs:

New Zealand is, according to Key, happy to lend its anti-nuclear credentials in support of Obama’s bid to stop nuclear arms from falling into the hands of terrorists.

It’s possibly a bit late for that, and possibly a little hypocritical, given that the US is the only country in the world ever to have used nuclear weapons against other people.

Ummm. Is Colin really equating the US use of nuclear weapons to force a Japanese surrender in WWII, to terrorists using nukes?

If not, then what is the hypocrisy?

Which brings me to my question. What was Sir Geoffrey Palmer doing at the weekend, calling for US navy ships to be allowed back into New Zealand ports? Can we really have our anti-nuclear cake and eat it, too?

The part of me that always felt proud at our nuclear-free stance and the speech David Lange delivered so beautifully all those years ago to the Oxford Union (you remember, the one about “uranium on the breath”) blanched at Sir G’s suggestion.

I don’t see why. Sir Geoffrey was not advocating a change in the law.

So was Sir Geoffrey right after all? As one of the architects of the legislation, it was a big call for him to say it’s time to let bygones be bygones.

But I suspect that such a policy change would be difficult to implement without changing the nuclear free law. For us to accept ship visits we would need to ascertain that they were nuclear-free and to do that they would need to tell us – and I’m pretty sure they never will.

No they do not need to tell us. Section 9(2) of the Act states:

The Prime Minister may only grant approval for the entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by foreign warships if the Prime Minister is satisfied that the warships will not be carrying any nuclear explosive device upon their entry into the internal waters of New Zealand.

That does not mean the PM has to ask about a specific ship. General statements that no surface ships currently carry nuclear weapons can be deemed sufficient to satisfy the PM.

The Dom Post reports:

Appalled Child, Youth and Family workers have taken a one-year-old baby into care after his father left him unattended in a car while he watched strippers in a nearby Wellington bar. …

A passer-by noticed the child about 3am yesterday and contacted police, who arrived within seven minutes and broke a window of the locked car to rescue the baby. They took him to Wellington police station but he was later taken to Wellington Hospital by ambulance staff concerned about his breathing.

Most parents freak out if they lose sight of their baby for even half a minute. Leaving a baby in a car is horrendous. But doing so at 3 am, so you can go to a strip club, is close to the ultimate in selfishness.

The ODT alarms:

Dunedin could face some stark choices by the end of the century, with sea-level rise expected to force either the retreat from, or complete evacuation of, South Dunedin, St Kilda and St Clair.

Dunedin will just be one giant swimming pool!

A report on climate change and its effect on Dunedin includes a prediction of an upper level for sea-level rise of 1.6m by 2090.

Okay that is 1600 mm over 80 years which is an average rise of 20 mm a year.

Predicting the upper range for sea-level rise was also “problematic”, he said, with the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggesting 0.6m, but more recent research suggesting 1.6m was a more prudent prediction.

I prefer to wait for the IPCC to update their report, rather than have people cherry pick individual more alarmist pieces of research.

The IPCC report said that the likely increase in sex levels was 180 to 590 mm, which is an average rise of 1.8 to 5.9 mm a year – between one tenth and one third of what the ODT story reports.

So how likely is a sea level rise of a massive 20 mm a year?

What has been the rise so far in NZ?

Consequently, sea levels around New Zealand have risen on average 1.8 mm/year over the last 40 years with the total sea level rise over the last century of 0.17 m.

So the rise over the last 100 years has been 1.7 mm a year and last 40 years has been 1.8 mm a year. So that is 10% of the 20 mm Dunedin will be flooded scaremongering.

Now in the last 17 years, sea level rises have been greater – an average 3.1 mm a year. That is consistent with the IPCC 590 mm increase, but still a long way off the 1600 mm talked about in the ODT article.

Also one has to understand that to get an average of 20 mm a year over 80 years, you need quite massive increases in the latter section to make up for the current slower rises.

If you assume a linear increase in the average annual rise, then the amount of annual rise has to increase by 0.45 mm a year. What this means is that by 2020 the rise will be 7 mm/yr, by 2030 12 mm/yr and by 2090 it would be 39 mm/yr.

Is anyone willing to bet money that by 2020 the average sea level rise will be 7 mm/yr?

There is little doubt about whom the Police think killed Kirsty Bentley. Look at this wonderful story in The Press:

Kirsty was carried down a bank, rather than thrown, and the body placed in the foetal position, with her clothes arranged neatly, respectfully covering her.

TVNZ’s Sunday show interviewed former British policeman and child-murder expert Chuck Burton.

He said an interpretation of the evidence put Sid and John “in the mix” as suspects. The means of death was the result of a youthful-type assault, Burton said, while the state of the body pointed to a more mature hand at work, and possibly someone who had an emotional connection to Kirsty.

Wow, someone young and someone older – almost like a father and sob combination. And a father and son who had an emotional connection to Kirsty, Who could that be?

Williams said the state of the body suggested there was “a strong link between the offender and Kirsty”.

Also, the girth of the tree the dog was tied to at the Ashburton scene suggested the dog had to be let off its leash when it was being tied up, and it had not run away.

Hmmn, why would the dog not run away? Oh the Police are being so cryptic. You need to have an IQ of at least 75 to work it out.

And just in case, you had not worked it out, we are reminded:

Among the suspects were Kirsty’s brother, John, and father, Sid. …

John and Sid Bentley repeated their denials of any involvement with Kirsty’s death on Sunday night’s programme. Sid Bentley was again unable to recall what he did on the afternoon of Kirsty’s disappearance.

Goodness knows who killed Kirsty. Maybe it was the killer from the mystery ketch?

Or perhaps Robin Bain did it?

Or the burglar who killed the Lundys.

The Times reports:

The general election campaign claimed its first scalp today when Labour sacked one of its candidates in Scotland who posted dozens of offensive comments on his Twitter page.

The spectacular “Twitter suicide” overshadowed Labour’s formal campaign launch in Scotland and left Gordon Brown fuming.

Stuart MacLennan, 24, a rising star of the Scottish Labour Party who was standing in the Moray constituency, shut down his account on the microblogging site early this morning after The Scottish Sun reported that he had branded the elderly “coffin-dodgers”.

He had also labelled the Commons Speaker John Bercow a “t**”, David Cameron a “t***” and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, “a b******”.

Oh dear “coffin dodgers” is not going to get in over 60 vote for Labour.

Nor was his ire limited to the political world. The Sun reported that Mr MacLennan called the X Factor judge Louis Walsh a “c***”, referred to Jedward as “odious little s***s” and wrote: “I f****** hate Paolo Nutini”.

Well he has a point, with those descriptions, but best not to think out loud when you are planning to stand for Parliament.

The Herald warms up on nukes:

Who would have thought even a few short years ago that the New Zealand Prime Minister would be on the guest list for the nuclear security summit hosted by the President of the United States in Washington? John Key’s presence offers further evidence that the anti-nuclear rift of the 1980s is all but mended. It may be too soon for a resumption of visits to New Zealand ports by American warships, but there is an undoubted resonance between this country’s anti-nuclear law and President Barack Obama’s long-time commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons.

Indeed. And while I doubt we will ever rid the world of nuclear weapons, I will be glad to see a lot less of them.

A constant grievance of non-nuclear nations has been that, while the non-proliferation treaty denied them the right to acquire nuclear arms, those countries with such weaponry seemed to regard its retention as their right. The importance of President Obama’s initiatives, and those of Russia, is that they illustrate a change of attitude by the pair, which possess more than 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear weapons between them. Their move towards disarmament provides, in turn, a greater moral authority to address examples of proliferation, real and potential, whether the likes of Iran’s nuclear programme or nuclear weaponry becoming part of the arsenal of terrorists.

In this area, I think Obama’s policies have been sound, It is hard to preach restraint to the rest of the world, while not doing anything to reduce your own arsenal.

President Obama said last week that nuclear terrorism posed a graver threat than the risk of war between nuclear nations. He is undoubtedly right, and the crafting of a pact to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of groups like al Qaeda will be a focus in Washington.

Stopping Iran from developing them would be a good start to that.

The Press also talks nuclear, but ore on ships:

Passage of the nuclear-free legislation in 1987 marked New Zealand as a nation prepared to take an independent stance on the world stage.

This stand did win friends, especially in Europe, but it also came at a cost. It led to a defence freeze with the United States, including an end to US navy ship visits. But with Prime Minister John Key now attending a nuclear summit in Washington, it is inevitable that a resumption of visits should be mooted, in this case by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, an architect of the nuclear-free law.

Renewed visits by US navy vessels would be a logical step in the thawing of the defence freeze with our former ally and would not require a change to the present anti-nuclear law.

Yep. No law change needed. Of course the Greens will still protest it, but they protest almost everything about the US.

It is possible that the nuclear propulsion issue will be revisited in the future. But this is likely to be in the context of nuclear power generation, especially if other electricity sources, such as hydro and wind turbines, continue to be beset by opposition to their location, and the security of power supply is seriously threatened.

Actually nuclear power is not particularly practical for New Zealand, but I agree it should be an option. Much better than coal!

The Dominion Post focuses on Justice Wilson:

Justice,” a former lord chief justice of England said, “should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

Manifestly that has not been the case in the long-running, and convoluted, dispute between the former Wool Board and a group of woolgrowers that found its way to the Court of Appeal in 2007.

One of the judges who considered the case, Bill Wilson, was a close friend and business partner of Wool Board counsel Alan Galbraith, QC. Justice Wilson disclosed their shared ownership of a racehorse or racehorses to counsel for the woolgrowers and, if his recollections are accurate, their shared ownership of a horse stud. But for reasons that are now presumably costing him a great deal of sleep, he did not disclose that he owed Mr Galbraith almost $250,000. Nor did he disclose the debt to colleagues in the Supreme Court when they considered an appeal from the growers in March last year. In fact, he led the court to believe he was not beholden to Mr Galbraith in any way. …

Justice Wilson is a well-liked and well-regarded legal practitioner who has added a dose of common sense to the bench. However, in this instance his judgment has failed him completely.

By neglecting to fully inform the growers’ counsel of his links with Mr Galbraith, he has not only damaged his own reputation, but that of the highest court in the land.

The operation of the justice system relies upon public confidence in those who administer it. New Zealand is a small country. Inevitably, there will be friendships between judges and lawyers, and lawyers and lawyers. The public knows that lawyers who one day are verbally brawling in court may the next be arguing in support of each other and that, on other occasions, they may be observed enjoying each other’s company in social settings.

That is reasonable. Members of the legal profession are not expected to carry professional enmities over to private life and judges are not expected to sever all personal ties on being elevated to the bench. However, for public trust in the system to be maintained, all conflicts and potential conflicts of interest have to be properly disclosed.

And that lack of disclosure, especially to his Supreme Court colleagues, may extract a heavy price.

But such processes take time. In the meantime, the reputation of the judiciary is being compromised.

At the very least Justice Wilson should have stepped aside from his duties, when the case was referred to the judicial commissioner. When he did not do so, Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias should have stood him down.

I disagree. A mere investigation by the JCC should not require a Judge to stand down. However if the JCC recommends a complaints panel be established, then a stand down would be appropriate.

And the ODT also talks nuclear:

A year ago, President Obama announced his plans for a world without nuclear weapons, expressing a hope rather than any rational expectation, but nevertheless a plea for disarmament that was widely welcomed.

This week he signed the “New Start” treaty with Russia, under which both powers will reduce their nuclear arsenals, while still deploying 1550 warheads each. …

Perhaps the true significance of these measures is to compare the situation with that which existed before 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed: at that time each side deployed more than 20,000 strategic warheads.

I remember those days well. At school we saw films about nuclear war, and around half of my generation though a global nuclear war was likely in our life time.

The collapse of the Soviet Empire was a wonderful thing.

The live-to-air pub politics TV show is heading to Dunners for a Dunedin special.

WHEN: April 14, Wednesday night at 9.10 pm ( come around 8-30)

WHERE: The Robbie 374 George St, Dunedin

Panellists:
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE – NATIONAL
METERIA TUREI – CO LEADER GREENS
HEATHER ROY – ACT
CLARE CURRAN – LABOUR

The Mayor and other guests in the audience..come for a beer!

BACK BENCHES – WALLACE CHAPMAN & GUESTS | TVNZ7 & SKY 97 | WED 9.10 PM & FRIDAY AT 9.10 PM. FREE ENTRY..

Phil Kitchin writes:

A supreme court judge under investigation for not fully declaring a conflict of interest has been accused by another judge of making up a story to avoid disclosing his true financial debt to a top lawyer.

The accusation against Justice Bill Wilson, who sits in New Zealand’s highest court, was made by distinguished retired judge Sir Edmund “Ted” Thomas in a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Sir David Gascoigne.

Sir Edmund claimed Justice Wilson made up a “fictitious” story which Sir Edmund believed indicated Justice Wilson wanted to continue to withhold his true financial position from the Supreme Court.

Justice Wilson is at the centre of a mounting controversy about his repeated failures to fully disclose that he owed $242,000 to Alan Galbraith, QC, when he sat on Court of Appeal cases involving Mr Galbraith.

A point worth making is that the debt itself does not necessarily mean Justice Wilson was biased, or even should not have heard the case. The issue is that the debt should have been disclosed so Saxmere could decide whether or not they wanted another Judge.

Justice Wilson has in fact ruled both for and against Mr Galbraith’s clients in various recent cases. I don’t think he was biased. However as with Nixon, it is often the “cover up” rather than the original offence that does you in.

The growers later went to the Supreme Court alleging apparent bias against Justice Wilson. The court dismissed the growers’ complaint but at paragraph 25 of the judgment, Justice Blanchard effectively said the case might have turned out differently had there been evidence of Justice Wilson being beholden to Mr Galbraith by owing him money.

“However, the materials placed before the court reveal nothing of the kind. There is nothing to indicate any indebtedness,” Justice Blanchard said.

Sir Edmund’s complaint alleged Mr Galbraith said he phoned Justice Wilson after the hearing and was “astonished” to hear Justice Wilson say he was vindicated.

Sir Edmund claimed Justice Blanchard’s comments caused “considerable consternation” and Justice Wilson also told Mr Galbraith he had approached Justice Blanchard about paragraph 25 and was told the comments were only intended to apply to “on demand” debts.

“This advice was met with disbelief,” Sir Edmund’s complaint alleged.

“This story is fictitious. No such conversation with Justice Blanchard took place,” Sir Edmund told Sir David. He considered it “highly improbable” that Mr Galbraith would make such a story up.

Now this is only one side of the story, and the Judicial Conduct Commissioner should complete his work. I think calls for resignation are premature, and should not be based on newspaper stories.

However if the allegations, as reported, are correct they pose a severe challenge to Justice Wilson’s ability to continue. There is a considerable difference between an accidental non disclosure, and a deliberate one.

If the Judicial Conduct Commissioner finds that “an inquiry into the alleged conduct is necessary or justified” and “if established, the conduct may warrant consideration of removal of the Judge”, then a Judicial Conduct Panel will be established.

Any such panel will have three members – two judicial/legal and one lay. Its hearings will be in public, and will not be a lot different from a public trial. It is hard to imagine a Judge would go through such a public process, rather than resign if a panel is formed.

If the panel recommends dismissal, then the decision goes to the Attorney-General. He can not decide to dismiss, if the panel does not recommend it, but he can decide not to dismiss, if they do so recommend.

If the AG did decide to support dismissal, it would require a motion in Parliament asking to the Governor-General to do so.

Otago University and the VUW Institute of Policy Studies have organised a public seminar on National’s proposed electoral finance reforms, and international perspectives on such reforms. The key details are:

Friday 14 May 2010
RW501 Level 5, Wellington Railway Station (West Wing)
8.40am to 12.15pm

The programme is:

8.20-8:40: Registration and coffee/tea
8:40-8:45: Welcome by Jonathan Boston
8:45-9:00: Andrew Geddis – New Zealand’s proposed new political finance rules.
9:00-9:50: Jacob Rowbottom – What lessons does the U.K.’s experience have for New Zealand’s proposals?
9:50-10:40: Colin Feasby – What lessons does Canada’s experience have for New Zealand’s proposals?
10:40-11:00: Coffee/Tea Break
11:00-12:15: Joo-Cheong Tham and Graeme Orr – What lessons does Australia’s experience have for New Zealand’s proposals?

Please note the Symposium will be followed by a seminar by Jacob Rowbottom entitled The British General Election and the Prospects for Electoral Reform

If you wish to attend then email: law.reception@otago.ac.nz (please include the “political finance symposium” in the subject line of your email).

I’m attending and looking forward to it.