Kiwiblog

This policy is so backwards, so appalling and so one-sided I don’t even know where to start. It is clear that the unions have written this, because they have got everything they could think of.  The policy is here.

It includes:

• A 15.3% increase in the minimum wage, including for youth.
• Labour will appoint those union bosses who fail to make their caucus to a new Workplace Commission that will have the power to determine Industry Standard Agreements for entire industries – unionised or not. This is all but a return to the days of national awards. No employer and employee will be able to agree to terms less than those set out by the Workplace Commission
• The Workplace Commission will be able to set a standard for an industry for “union rights”. This could mean anything, from employers forced to fund unions themselves directly to guaranteed access to any workplace at anytime for recruitment purposes.
• The Government will fund unions (“provide resources”) s they can better understand the new law and “build capacity for negotiations”. This means hire more staff. The same staff who come election time turn out en masse for Labour putting up their hoardings, using union vehicles etc etc. This is Labour’s backdoor funding of itself.
• Workers who are not in unions will be “provided with information and advice about joining the relevant unions”
• Will repeal the 90 days laws, despite the evidence that 40% of those hired under it would not have had job offers without it
• Labour will legislate to allow contractors to collectively bargain, as the Australian actors union demanded. Goodbye Wellington and NZ film industry. They really are Hobbit haters.
• State agencies will be told to blacklist companies who tender for work if they are seen as anti-union (‘not respecting the right of their employees to join a union”)

This is their worst policy, by far. The unions are getting their payback for their many donations to Labour – not just money, but especially of personnel and buildings and vehicles. Remember many of the unions are actual affiliate members of Labour, so the more employees they push into union membership the more money Labour gets from those unions in membership subs. This policy is all about appeasing the union masters.

I never thought I would see the day that a party (other than Mana) would effectively propose a return to national awards. Here’s what those good old days looked like:

The only good thing about the policy, is it should send Labour down in the polls further. The Roy Morgan poll out today has just had them drop to 28%.

Bill English has just announced that when the Government returns to surplus (in 2014/15), they will run an automatic KiwiSaver enrolment campaign for employees. This will apply in the same way as when you get a new job – you can opt out within a month.

The estimated cost (based on 55% of those auto-enrolled staying enrolled) is $550 million over four years. They will not do the auto-enrolment before the return to surplus as this would mean the Government is borrowing to pay for the savings subsidy, which mean overall national savings do not increase – you just increase private savings and public debt.

English has said National will not make KiwiSaver compulsory as some peeple prefer to save for retirement in other ways.

Felix Marwick from ZB tweeted:

Getting releases from unions about Labour’s wages policy before I’ve been sent the material by Labour. Embargo times are different too.

Well at least the unions are getting to release Labour’s wages policy for them, rather than have Whale Oil do it like he did for ICT.

No surprise the unions are doing releases on it, as they of course would have written it.

But in another policy, a key organisation mentioned turns out to know nothing about the policy proposal. This is NZ on Screen. Labour’s policy says:

Labour will consider expanding the role of NZ Onscreen as a broader online content storage facility and will actively encourage new business models where NZ creative content can be distributed online in an affordable and accessible way.

Russell Brown notes:

It’s not clear what content an expanded NZ On Screen would be storing or how a strictly non-commercial public-good service would facilitate new business models.

Exactly. NZ on Screen (a wonderful service) provides content for free, and has no access controls, tracking, charging etc. So touting it as a business model is like touting a foodbank as a new business model for Woolworths.

So it is no surprise perhaps that NZ on Screen has tweeted:

To clarify for those interested, we have had no conversations with Labour about this policy: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5794027/Labour-reveals-radical-internet-ideas it’s news to us too!

Oh dear, this is not the sign of good policy formulation.

The Herald reports:

A woman has admitted making calls claiming to be a sexual health worker in a bid to damage the reputation of a girl who was a rival to her daughter’s bid to study at two elite colleges.

The Queenstown 53-year-old appeared visibly shaken when she appeared on two charges in the Queenstown District Court yesterday. …

About 30 minutes later, she called Columba College boarding director Richelle Manson and identified herself as “Anne-Marie Thompson”, a nurse at the Queenstown Medical Centre.

She said she had to make an appointment for the prospective pupil, and named her.

She called the college again at 4.30pm, when she knew Ms Manson had finished for the day. She told staff member Glenys McDowell the prospective pupil “had a sexually transmitted disease and that she was in a lesbian relationship with another girl”.

All of the people phoned became suspicious. They found nobody named “Anne-Marie Thompson” working in either the clinic or the centre.

When police spoke to the defendant, she refused to make a statement and answered “no comment” to all questions, Mr Collin told the court.

Judge Phillips ordered a pre-sentencing report. “A psychiatric report will be of assistance.”

Apart from the intended victims of this behaviour, the one I also feel really sorry for is the daughter. Can you imagine how awful it would be to find out what your mother had done, let alone have it become public.

The reference to a psych report is interesting as I don’t think anyone rational would have done this. You would have to convince yourself that firstly knocking this one other girl out would mean your daughter got in, secondly that such a hoax would actually work, and also overlook how easy it is to trace phone calls.

When I was a university student this was a common prank at the hostel. Someone would ring the hostel and ask for a message to go on the noticeboard that so and so test results were back and they were positive. But never thought someone would try it as a serious hoax in real life.

Owen Hembry at NZ Herald reports:

New Zealand software company Orion Health has struck a deal with Microsoft enabling it to offer a complete applications package to hospitals.

Auckland-based Orion has bought Microsoft’s Hospital Information System software assets, including radiology information system and picture archiving assets. …

“Normally North American companies buy New Zealand companies and New Zealand software assets,” he said. “We’re doing the opposite.”

And this is why those who rail against free trade and foreign investment are wrong. If they get their way in a world with greater barriers, then deals like this wouldn’t happen. We can’t say that US companies should be banned from buying assets in NZ, unless we want companies like Orion banned from buying assets from Microsoft.

Orion’s business is 90 per cent overseas and turnover in the current financial year would be more than $100 million, McCrae said.

A nice little export earner. They also employ 500 people, and grew 40% last year taking on 100 more positions. Their aim is to grow by 200 more next year. Well done to Orion and Microsoft for what looks to be a win-win deal.

Yesterday’s Dom Post editorial:

Should the mainstream media and its self-regulatory body become part of a government? Hell, no. Even the most democratic of administrations should be kept well away from independent media outlets.

Sadly for the Dom Post, the same day Labour released its policy which indicates their interest in doing exactly that, and merging the Press Council and the BSA, so that all media come under Government control.

Labour have spent three years blaming the media for their unpopularity. They just love the idea of being able to appoint people who can fine editors for not being “fair” to them.

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

The secondary teachers’ union says a new National government would strip away its right to strike.

But Education Minister Anne Tolley, who will speak at the Post Primary Teachers’ Association annual conference today, says the union is “making it up”.

In a paper to be debated at the union conference in Wellington, the PPTA says it believes the Government “is considering introducing legislation in its next term to deny teachers the right to strike in pursuit of a collective agreement”.

Mrs Tolley said the Government had not sought advice about the cost of teacher strikes and it was “nonsense” to suggest it would introduce legislation denying them the right to strike.

I really wonder why Anne is speaking to the PPTA conference, if they are going to just make up lies about what National is planning. It’s an act of considerable bad faith. Good on her for fronting up, but really there has to be a limit to how much bad faith one should tolerate.

Would Helen Clark have spoken to the Exclusive Brethren annual conference?

UPDATE: A representative from the Exclusive Brethren has contacted me, complaining of the comparison to the PPTA. I accept their point that the comparison is unfair, and apologise for comparing them to the PPTA. Whiel I don’t approve of what the EB did in hiring a private detective to follow Clark, they have now knowingly published a false document, as the PPTA is doing.

Ian Steward at Stuff reports:

Ex-MP Taito Phillip Field says he spent his time in prison observing the penal system from the inside and giving advice to the many who sought his counsel.

I bet he did.

“So how did you get the witnesses to lie to the QC, Taito”

“So the way you make it legal is to get them to offer to work for free, rather than tell them they must”

I am sure they learnt a lot from him.

The former Labour Party member for Mangere would not talk about his convictions citing a pending Supreme Court appeal.

He said he had to be ”guarded” with his words as he had ”already suffered a media trial before a trial”.

When it was put to him that gaining parole normally meant taking responsibility for your crime he said: ”You’ll have to answer that question for yourself.”

I bet you he will never ever publicly admit he did wrong. His belief is the same as Labour’s official line that the only thing he is guilty of is working too hard to help his constituents.

Stuff reports:

Newsflash: The world will end on Friday night.

This shocking prediction comes from US Christian broadcaster Harold Camping, the same man who said the world would end on May 21 – and also on September 6, 1994.

We’re still here, he believes, because on May 21 only God’s true believers were “withheld” while the rest of us were left to be under “final judgment” for the next five months.

I wonder how many predictions one gets to make before they lock you up in a funny farm?

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES—OHARIU ELECTORATE DEBATE: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

OCCUPIED TERRITORY: The “Occupy Wall Street” movement has travelled the globe and landed in New Zealand. The protesters may not have solidified what they’re fighting for but it’s evident they’re angry at the rich & big business. So, are the poor staying poor, while the rich get rich? Do the rich owe us anything? Is big business to blame for our financial struggles or is it poor decisions made by the world’s governments? If businesses get a bailout from the taxpayer…do they owe us?

TRAINS, BUSES AND AUTOMOBILES: The Ohariu electorate has a lot of residents who rely on public transport and highways to travel to work. But with stories often hitting the press about train delays and fares on the rise—can we improve transportation? A decision on Transmission gully is expected in the months while $58 million has been set aside to buy 45 homes in Transmission gully. Is this the best way to improve access to Wellington? Will it have too great of an impact? Do we need the road? Would you pay the toll?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 19th of October. Our Panel: Green Party Candidate Gareth Hughes, Labour Candidate Charles Chauvel, National Candidate Katrina Shanks, and United Future Leader & Candidate Peter Dunne.

In my blog at Stuff I salute New Zealand’s new national flag.

UPDATE: 39 comments at Stuff in under 30 minutes. Lots of people fired up on this one.

UPDATE2: Now almost 200 comments, and pretty much all since 3.30 pm which is normally the dead zone.

InternetNZ have arranged a debate between ICT spokespersons for four of the parliamentary political parties.

InternetNZ presents the election debate NetVision 2011, focused on New Zealand’s Digital Future. Major political parties will present and debate their visions across economic, social, cultural, environmental and government perspectives.

NetVision 2011 will be held at Wellington’s City Gallery on Tuesday 18 October from 7-9pm.

The debate will be streamed live on the Internet at www.r2.co.nz/20111018

A panel of Political Party spokespeople are participating in NetVision 2011 including Hon Steven Joyce (National), Clare Curran (Labour), Gareth Hughes (Green) and Peter McCaffrey (ACT). Confirmation from the Māori Party is awaited.

Sean Plunket is to MC the event, and journalists including Rob O’Neill and Sarah Putt will be on hand to quiz the politicians. They will also put questions posted on Twitter using the hashtag #Net11 to the politicians.

If you would like to be in the audience for the debate then email rsvp@internetnz.net.nz .

I’m in Auckland so will not be there in person, but will try and watch it online and follow the chat on Twitter. I encourage all those interested to tune in also, and ask questions that you want answers to.

Hawkes Bay Today reports:

Hawke’s Bay apple producer Apollo made a cheeky but tasteful offer to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard for the Rugby World Cup semifinal between the All Blacks and Wallabies.

Apollo’s director, Bruce Beaton, packed a carton of New Zealand Queen apples and asked Napier MP Chris Tremain to transport the fruit to Prime Minister John Key’s house in Auckland at the weekend.

“The idea was that if Julia was over watching the rugby with John in Auckland, she could have a tasty New Zealand apple to munch after the game,” Mr Beaton said.

She wasn’t there, but hopefully the apples will get to her in Australia.

I’m in Auckland and gutted I will miss the Vice-Chancellor’s Debate tonight. But if you are in Wellington and want an entertaining 90 minutes I recommend you pop into the Vic Law School.

Date: Monday 17 October
Time: 6:30 pm
Location: Old Government Buildings lecture theatres (on the Stout Street side of the law school)

The speakers are:

For the Government – Paul Foster-Bell, Hon Christopher Finlayson, Stephen Whittington
For the Opposition – Charles Chauvel, James Shaw, Hon Shane Jones

The moot is “This house has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”.

The debate will be hosted by the Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University, Professor Pat Walsh. Drinks and nibbles will be provided after the debate.

Considering the furore last week over Chauvel denying Whittington’s (correct) claims that Labour MPs used homopohbic nicknames against Finlayson, the debate may be a bit more cutting than normal.

You can RSVP on Facebook, but don’t need to, to attend.

This cartoon by Blunt is very timely as Goff has just done a u-turn and backed away from his previous call for there to be a moratorium on deep sea drilling.

Listen to Goff on Radio Wammo below.

He now says he is not against off shore oil prospecting but there has to be safeguards. Well who the hell would disagree with that? Ironically there were no safeguards around drilling in the EEZ until National and the Greens voted for some last year, and Labour voted against!

Listen to the interview from 3 minutes on as Goff tries to explain why he said he was against a moratorium last week, then announced Labour would have a moratorium and now tries to say that all he is after is some safeguards!

I’m glad Goff has backed down as a moratorium was the worst sort of populist crap, and also would have probably resulted in closing down a number of operations in Taranaki.

Just seen the viewer stats for the rugby last night. As you know it was broadcast on Sky Sports, TV One, TV3 and Maori TV. Each broadcaster tends to only trumpet their own viewers, but let’s add all the individual figures up. This is the percentage of all adults and children (only excludes under five year olds) watching each channel, and the approx number of viewers:

1. TV One 17.0%, 680,000
2. Sky Sports 16.7%, 668,000
3. TV3 10.0%, 400,000
4. Maori TV 6.8%, 272,000

That adds up to 50.5% of New Zealanders or 2,020,000 Kiwis who watched the semi-final. One can only wonder what the final will get?

Which other “programmes” have had 2 million viewers?

Whale Oil blogged yesterday a leaked copy of Labour’s ICT policy, which was due for release today. There’s a mixture of good and bad in it. Let’s look with the two big bad issues.

Labour is proposing to levy a special Internet tax on Internet users to fund copyright holders, plus it is effectively proposing that the Government gain the power to regulate the non-broadcast media, allowing it to fine and censor newspapers and maybe even bloggers.

Let’s start with the Internet users tax.

Labour will also investigate the viability of a small copyright levy on Internet access, which would develop the digital platform for accessing Kiwi content mentioned above. Funds raised could go to content creators through an arms length collecting and distribution arrangement.

So vote Labour if you want a tax on Internet users. And like many taxes it might start small but over time it would grow. At first it might fund a content distribution system. Then it might fund projects which close the digital divide. And then it might fund Government websites (as they are done for the benefit of users not Government).

Just as I am against the Government’s DIA filter, because one day it might expand to be a filter against other content, likewise I am against any Internet tax on users.

Not let us look at the plans to control the media. This is not new – Labour looked at the same in their last term of office.

The consultation will also consider the regulatory mechanisms for content that is carried on broadcasting and telecommunications networks. It may be that the functions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Press Council and the Advertising Standards Authority could be brought together.

Now let us be very clear about this. The BSA is appointed by the Government, and has the power to not just uphold complaints but to fine broadcasters, order statements to be read on air and even to take a broadcaster off the air. The Press Council on the other hand has no powers, except its printed opinions.

Now in a merger (not just a sharing of backend functions), what do you think is more likely to happen under a Labour Government? That the BSA will be replaced by the Press Council or that the Press Council will be replaced by the BSA? But it gets even worse than that – the combined regulator would have power over all content carried on telecommunications networks. So this Government appointed regulator could rule on content on blogs (for example), and if it retains BSA powers even order a blog off the Internet.

The BSA has the powers it has, because the airwaves are deemed the property of the Government, and the BSA so to speak is a condition of leasing them. But newspapers and the Internet are not the property of the Government, do not need Government permission to be used, and the Government should not have content control over them beyond the normal laws of the land.

The only acceptable converage of content regulation is if the self-regulatory model of the Press Council and ASA is extended to broadcasters rather than the BSA model extended to press and the Internet.

So having got past the two big negatives, let’s look through the rest of the policy.

Labour believes a single network regulator for Telecommunications and Broadcasting has merit.

Now on the network side, I agree. I think the two sectors are converging and in terms of competition issues, a single regulator would be sensible.

Labour will investigate creating a Ministry of Communications and IT, based in the Ministry of Economic Development, to bring together all policy involving broadcasting, communications and information technology issues.

A Ministry within a Ministry? So is the CEO of the MCIT responsible to the SSC or to the CEO OF MED?

Labour would appoint a Chief Technical Advisor, who would have responsibility for producing technology roadmaps for New Zealand, for overseeing NZ‟s national digital architecture driving the uptake of ICT across society.

I quite like this proposal, based partly on what Obama did.

Labour will complete the fibre rollout in urban areas within the limit of the $1.35bn of funds available for investment by Crown Fibre Holdings.

Labour at the last election did not commit to fibre to the home. Their total broadband package was $300m compared to $1.5b for National, which would have funded a collection of discrete projects but not a nationwide roll-out to 75% of NZers. It is good they have appreciated the importance of fibre to the home and are committed to carrying on with the spend.

Labour will conduct a public discussion about the objectives and the process for the spectrum auction, and how the proceeds from the auction should be spent in New Zealand, before the auction occurs.

A lot of the document is about reviews and discussions. I thought one could be a bit bolder than that on the spectrum auction. it’s apple pie and motherhood.

Labour will increase funding to Computer Clubhouses for the most vulnerable communities in NZ. Labour will also increase funding to Computers in Homes in order to make more rapid progress in bridging the digital gap. (We have allocated up to $2.7 million a year for the expansion of these two initiatives.)

That’s a nice specific commitment, and they are both very worthwhile projects. Of course we have yet to see how the spending promises will be funded, apart from presumably greater debt. But to be fair the amounts here are fairly modest.

Labour affirms that the fundamental human right to impart and receive information and opinion necessarily includes the ability to access the Internet in order to give practical effect to the right in today‟s world.

Excellent. A very clear statement.

Labour will introduce a bill within 90 days of taking office to remove from the Copyright Act the ability to introduce account suspension for infringing file sharing as a remedy the District Court can impose.

This has been previously released, and welcomed by me. I note suspensions are not available at the moment, and only can be if a future Cabinet decides they are necessary. However it would be a good thing to get the ability removed.

Labour will enact and implement the draft Patent Bill currently before Parliament that excludes computer software.

This is also National’s position, and Government policy.

Labour will issue a binding instruction to government agencies to implement a whole of government approach to open software.

Some specifics of this instruction would be:

• Require that when the government pays for software to be created, it will be owned by the government, and will be shared within government and with the public using an open source license.
• Require all software developed under Crown Copyright to be made available to the public on an open source license.

They look good ideas to me.

Labour will set an aspirational target of 2/3 of government agencies using some form of open source software for a reasonable proportion of their software needs by 2015.

I’m a fan of open source software, and its potential. I think the great value it brings is not the cost savings but the community of developers who can innovate with it. However the aspirational target seems rather arbitrary and populaist to me. Why 2/3rds? Why not 80% or 90% or 100%? And what does a reasonable proportion mean? If an agency uses Firefox browsers will that count?

I’m all for reducing the barriers and inertia in parts of Government to make sure open source software gets considered on its merits. But I think there are dangers in central Government setting an arbitrary target. It is not a case of all open source software is good and all proprietary software is bad. One has to weigh up the suitability for the tasks needed.

Labour will establish a Computer Emergency Response Team for New Zealand.

Most countries have one of these. I’m not sure whether this would be part of the National Cyber Security Centre just opened by the Government, or on top of that.

Overall there are some good aspects to Labour’s policy, and it reflects the work Clare Curran has put in getting to grips with the sector. But I’d be a lot lot happier with it if they firmly ruled out any further content regulation of the media and the Internet, and also ditched their policy to look at having a special Internet users tax to fund copyright holders interests.

Well a pretty impressive effort to stop the Wallabies from scoring even a single try in 80 minutes. Amazing that this will be the first time in 16 years we actually make a RWC Final. Now we just have to repeat this performance with the French.

I did reflect during the game about how much larger the win margin would have been if Dan Carter had not been injured!

Anyway back to the drinking – have a great night celebrating everyone!

I’m an animal lover, so like many hate seeing the photos of poor little birds covered in oil, or dead, on Bay of Plenty beaches. And I loved the footage on TV of the surviving birds being cared for in a pool.

But having said that, it is useful to put the numbers in perspective.

• Birds killed by the Rena – 1,000
• Birds killed annually (in NZ) by predators (possums, stoats etc) – 25,000,000
• Birds killed daily by predators – 68,500
• Birds killed annually by hunters – 1,000,000
• Birds killed daily by hunters during hunting season – 11,000
• Chickens killed for NZers food annually – 77,000,000
• Birds killed by power lines annually – 1,700,000
• Birds killed by automobiles – 800,000
• Birds killed by wind turbines – 500

I think the Rena is an environmental disaster – definitely. But is it the worst environmental disaster of all time as some media have trumpeted? Not so sure about that.

Oh Wales got so very very close. They played to the best of their ability and would have won if the penalty had occurred one metre closer to the try line. The last few minutes were intense, as Wales got into the French territory but never quite got the opportunity for a drop goal.

One shouldn’t be overly confident, but hell if New Zealand wins tonight, we should beat France in the final. They have not shone, if they can only beat a 14 man Welsh team by one point.

So all eyes of All Blacks v Wallabies tonight. What are you predictions. I’m going for All Blacks by 10 points.

The Press reports:

Hundreds of protesters could spend several days occupying Christchurch’s South Hagley Park.

The Occupy Christchurch event comes after thousands began camping out in New York’s financial district last month to protest against corporate greed, social inequality and climate change.

Christchurch Unite Union organiser Matt Jones said today’s event would focus on international concerns, national issues, including the 90-day employment law and the Rena oil spill, and local problems, such as insurance and land zoning after the earthquakes.

“When you boil it down, people just feel alienated and disenfranchised from the system. People don’t feel engaged with party politics.”

He expected at least 25 Unite Union delegates would be at the protest, as well as up to 50 union members.

They’re overlooked one of the issues they should protest about.

They should protest against scum employers who take PAYE from their employees, and steal it – spending it on political activism, rather than paying their tax to the Government like the other 99% of taxpayers.

UPDATE: Keeping Stock has a copy of a form being circulated amongst Auckland “occupiers” which strongly suggests they are planning violence.

The media have suddenly found a speech by Chief Justice Elias and are reporting:

The country’s top judge has taken a veiled swipe at the Government’s justice policies, warning that some Cabinet decisions threaten the “fragile” independence of the judiciary.

In a rare public critique, Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias warns that decisions “which seem quite innocent” are undermining the basic principles of the constitution.

In a speech at Waikato University last month, Dame Sian broke with convention, criticising moves by politicians to interfere with the courts in pursuit of cost savings.

The speech was made on 12 September, so has been available for five weeks. The first part of her speech is about constitutional reform, and I tend to agree with the sentiments of the CJ that the reliance on conventions has its risks. On one issue of electoral law the CJ said:

The Electoral Acts stand in a special category because they establish the conditions of democratic government and have long been subject to supermajority requirements for amendment as a result.

I wish that was the case. But in fact only a small number of provisions in the Electoral Act require a super-majority, and in recent times we have seen highly partisan and even retrospective changes to the Electoral Act done on narrow majorities. I would like to see more of the Electoral Act entrenched.

Of course the entrenchment clause itself is not entrenched so Parliament could change even entrenched clauses with a bare majority, but there would be a significant political price to pay for doing that.

The CJ then refers to three risks from the current “obscurity” of the constitution. They are:

1. the rule of law
2. human rights
3. the role of the Treaty

With regard to (1) she quotes Lord Cooke that there are some rights and duties that are “truly fundamental” and are ultimately an inescapable judicial responsibility. This is an ages old argument about what would the courts do if for example Parliament voted to execute all babies with blue eyes. It is an interesting academic argument but not one I deem necessary to stay awake at nights worrying about.

Personally my view is that the reserve powers of the head of state should be the protection we rely on from a non-benign Parliament, but the problem with our current arrangements is the PM can sack the effective head of state at will.

The part that has got people excited is this:

I think there are signs that the courts are isolated and aspects of their independence precarious. Court resources are within the responsibility of executive government. Regulations prescribe the terms on which citizens have access to the courts. Court fees are within executive control. These are matters which should be subject to more public discussion than has been the case, perhaps because they are not popularly seen as touching on the constitutional principle of access to the courts. One of my colleagues has asked in a previous Harkness Henry lecture, not entirely in jest, whether we would regard with similar equanimity the imposition of fees to have access to a member of Parliament or a responsible Minister. Judges and lawyers may get the point. But if the wider community does not, it is no jesting matter at all.

Judges complaining about court fees is nothing new. But unless the Judges wish to self-fund their salaries, then Parliament will set the fees (or delegate to Govt) as it is Parliament that raises the revenue to pay for their operations.

As for the comparison to access for MPs, I think it is apples and oranges. No developed country charges for access to MPs and no developed country I know of has no court fees.

Judicial support staff are Ministry employees. The Registrars of the courts are managers employed by the Ministry although nominally responsible to the judges for their registry functions. The judges have no effective say in the allocation of the budget for courts and have had little influence in the priorities set by the Ministry. It seems to be assumed that the administration of the courts (including the administration of judges) is an executive function and that judicial independence is sufficiently preserved if individual judges are not directed how to decide particular cases.

Here the Chief Justice is acting as head of the Judges’ Union. Most previous CJs have done the same. Wanting their own budget has been a long-standing issue, as is wanting to control their support staff directly. I have some sympathy for their desires but would be interested in how many countries have the judiciary actually managing their own department.

It can be expected, too, that the work of international agencies such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee will provide encouragement towards commonality. It would be bold to suppose that legal cultural differences will not shift under such external influences.

The UN Human Rights Committee/Council is probably the biggest threat to human rights we have. They seek to invent new rights such as for religions to be immune from criticism which would be fatal for free speech.

Perhaps it is time to think again about the recommendation of Lord Lester that we would benefit from a Human Rights Committee of Parliament to keep a close watch on legislation which impacts on fundamental rights and freedoms. Such a Committee might even with advantage take on a wider responsibility to scrutinise measures which impact upon constitutional values.

The CJ says several times that protecting human rights is not the duty of the courts alone. I agree, and think a Human Rights Committee of Parliament could be a good thing.