Defending Dame Sian
January 12th, 2012 at 4:00 pm by David FarrarThe Dom Post reports:
Judges have clocked up more than $18 million on travel and accommodation over the past three years, including five overseas trips where Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias took along husband and business tycoon Hugh Fletcher at taxpayers’ expense.
Mr Fletcher, whose family’s wealth was estimated at $70m last year, accompanied Dame Sian to the Caribbean Turks and Caicos islands in 2009-10 for a Commonwealth Magistrates Judges Association conference. That year, he also accompanied her to the United States, London and Melbourne.
Judges must pay personally for spousal travel, except where the chief justice attends in a representative capacity and is accompanied by her spouse.
The fact Hugh Fletcher is wealthy is beside the point.
If the Governor-General travels overseas, do we expect his wife to pay her own travel bills if she attends also? Of course not.
One could legitimately question whether the total number of trips taken is prudent, but I think we look petty if we question whether the spouse of the Chief Justice should have to pay for their own travel, when accompanying them on official duties.
And as for the $18m spent over three years, few would note this part:
Mr Pigou said most domestic claims related to circuit work by some 170 judges who travel around New Zealand.
I mean, we could have all court sittings in major cities only, so no Judges need to travel. But the many witnesses, victims, and defendants would be disadvantaged then.
Over the three years till June 2011, judges of the High Court, Supreme Court and Appeal Court spent $5.2m on domestic air travel and accommodation (including allowances), car rentals, taxis and mileage. Their international travel bill was $281,000.
District court judges spent $8.3m on domestic travel costs and $404,000 on international travel.
The amount of international travel is a small proportion of the overall travel bill.
No tag for this post.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
When Justice Scalia was here (we both attended one of his talks, David) nobody seemed concerned whether he paid for his travel out of his own pocket or through his expense account. Did Maureen come with him?
God what a petty little country we have become. And Vernon Small wrote that crap. He should be ashamed of himself.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
I can’t see any good reason for a spouse of the Chief Justice of the Governor-General attending overseas (or NZ) functions on the taxpayer. Spousal attendance at overseas and NZ functions is a practice in long-term decline in private and public sectors that only exists in the areas cited in your post due to non-reporting, tradition and resistance to change. While it may have been commonplace 20-30 years ago, it is less common now, just as spouses’ programmes are rare at conferences now.
Hugh Fletcher’s wealth is irrelevant to the issue.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
This is a disgraceful beat-up. Most of the expenses are actually administrative, for the circuit judges who I would guess are less than thrilled at the thought of several weeks away from home to deal with other people’s low lifes. But it is in the service of justice and people get fairer justice because of the circuit.
This travel bill should properly be put against court costs. The suggestion that it is due to judges’ junkets – or that Dame Sian should fork out herself when she is on an official trip – is just rubbish. I have no problem with the spouse going too on occasion, rich or not. Most of these trips are deadly boring however glamorous any travel seems to our jealous journos.
No wonder our brightest and best bugger off overseas from this grudging, nosey parkering nickle and diming.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Indeed, BeaB, one High Court judge noted, at his retirement sitting, that he was on circuit some 24 weeks of the year. That is quite a bit of time away from home!
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Some of the most cretinously miserable, dwarf-minded people seem to be among this country’s left-leaning journalists. Any presumption of professional judgement would appear to play second fiddle to elemental meanness of spirit – objectivity being obviously a totally foreign concept.
Whatever are such hacks taught nowadays in the way of journalistic standards – or are such old-established principles completely dispensable now when it comes to the individual’s peculiar indoctrination.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
This is the sort of stuff i thought Jock Anderson would have come up with and not Vernon Small.
Vote:Must be very little happening in Wellington if he has to produce this rubbish.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
DPF said:
The fact Hugh Fletcher is wealthy is beside the point.
—————-
I completely agree. The spouse shouldn’t be given a free ride, regardless of their wealth.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Dave A (38) Says:
January 12th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
When Justice Scalia was here (we both attended one of his talks, David) nobody seemed concerned whether he paid for his travel out of his own pocket or through his expense account. Did Maureen come with him?
God what a petty little country we have become. And Vernon Small wrote that crap. He should be ashamed of himself
Vote:.
Wow IT MUST BE GREAT TO TRAVEL on my sweat of my brow (TROUGHER) can myself and my hard working wife come along (SHE IS PROBABLY SHARPER THAN YOU) the law criminals wearing wigs
January 12th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Read the article and can only conclude that the NZ judiciary are trying to out do the parliamentarians in the troughing stakes, although if we were to come down to hard on them it would probably be devastating for whore houses up and down the country.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Jesus wept – the politics of envy are alive and well at the left end of the political spectrum.
Or should that be the left end of the political speculum?
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
It isn’t the politics of envy.
It’s the politics of fiscal responsibilty.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
plebe,
Notwithstanding your basic misunderstanding of pretty much everything, but lawyers in NZ don’t wear wigs any more. Haven’t for some time.
notrotsky,
are you serious? If you reduced the travel that the judges do then the government would have to appoint quite a few more judges to live in the smaller centres. If you asked them, I think you would find that most of the judges would support the idea of not having to go on circuit.
EDIT: no, gump, it is envy. The cost of the judges travelling would probably be less than the cost of appointing more judges to cover the gaps if they did not go on circuit.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Dame Sian Elias doesn’t need her current job and we are fortunate to have her sitting in our highest court. She could easily get a far more lucrative position in the private sector. Fiscal responsibility? We’re already getting a bargain.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
I have no issues with the travelling costs of the judiciary…. it is their poor performance in some cases that troubles me. Mind you they are only one component of a large system that seems to be inherently defective and the performance of which falls far short of public expectations much of the time
Regards
Vote:Peter J
Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz
January 12th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
I am no fan of our Chief Justice or the status of the Supreme Court in New Zealand, but I think it is important that as a nation we do not pinch pennies on our highest ranking officials, whether they be the Governor General, or the Prime Minister, or the Speaker of the House, or the Chief Justice. If we do not respect and honour them for their positions, how the hell can we expect anyone else to? I’m not suggesting they swan around like Louis XIV, but really they should get a pass on their spouse’s travel expenses, no matter how much money they are made of.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Local travel by the judiciary is part of their job, as is international travel by the Chief Justice.
However, the CJ’s spouse is beyond irrelevant, and one assumes that he would not be there at taxpayer expense, which he may well not be. Whatever the case, Muldoon’s justification of needing the missus with him to iron his shirts probably doesn’t apply in this case.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
laworder,
It is not their job to satisfy “public expectations”. If people think it is then they have a poor understanding of their role. If you want the law changed talk to a politician.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
notrotsky (7) Says:
January 12th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Read the article and can only conclude that the NZ judiciary are trying to out do …………….
Well, I read your comment and concluded that you are a wanker (where were you when Chris of Afghanistan was touring the world? you tool ) – and I do realise that most here are sharp enough to figure that out for themselves, but sometimes the blatantly obvious needs to be pointed out.
Dave A says it well, a …… petty little country
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
F E Smith said:
EDIT: no, gump, it is envy. The cost of the judges travelling would probably be less than the cost of appointing more judges to cover the gaps if they did not go on circuit.
———————
I have no problem with travelling judges.
The problem is that the judges’ spouses are given a free ride courtesy of the taxpayer.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
So long as the judiciary is open to productivity improvement like the private sector I don’t think people have too much of a problem with some additional expenses.
However you can’t be seen to be spending money on some things and cry about how underfunded the system is on the other. When there is talk of trial backlogs etc, that’s when people get upset.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Seriously, what would Hughs part of the bill be?, business class return air ticket , total. She would stay in a suite so if NZ had to pick up the accomm. tab he would make no difference ,anyway presumably a lot of the accomm. would be comped for these commmonealth things.
He wouldn’t get any allowances and he an afford to buy himself a beer and he is as good a representative for the New Zealand business community as you could get and NZ is getting his skills for free, win win.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Pauleastbay said:
Seriously, what would Hughs part of the bill be?
——————-
We don’t know the amounts because the Chief Justice has declined to release those figures.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
And so The Dominion enters the race to overtake The Herald as the country’s tackiest purveyor of tawdry worthless crap.
Some fool said this:-
“I can’t see any good reason for a spouse of the Chief Justice of the Governor-General attending overseas (or NZ) functions on the taxpayer.”
He’s there to bonk the CJ and keep her relaxed so that she might best represent us. This advice was best exemplified in Greg Norman’s speech at the opening of recent President’s Cup Golf when he advised the wives and girlfriends of the international players “Yours is a special task. You MUST do whatever it takes to keep them relaxed.”
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Weihana, come on tell me you are kidding, Sian Elias is better than what we had when the final appeal was to the law lords ?
Christ having a NZ supreme court is a bloody joke .
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
gump,
spouses and partners do not travel on circuit on the taxpayer. Judges go on circuit so often that their spouses/partners almost always stay home.
Overseas travel is different, but has the same rules as applies to the politicians. But, as DPF said, overseas travel makes up only a very small amount of judges travel costs.
V,
what sort of productivity improvements would you suggest?
EDIT: just so you know, judges are usually the biggest supporters/drivers of efficiency in the Court process. Much to lawyers’ frustration. But I am still interested in where you would suggest improvements.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
The article is a meaningless summer filler that is bordering on a make news type item. Pitiful
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Trouble is Mark,these meaningless summer fillers run in our media January through December
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Pauleastbay
“where were you when Chris of Afghanistan was touring the world? you tool ”
Trolling at RedAlert and The Standard telling them both they and the politicians they supported were a bunch of troughing pricks …… and you ?
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Weihana (1,226) Says:
January 12th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
laworder,
It is not their job to satisfy “public expectations”. If people think it is then they have a poor understanding of their role. If you want the law changed talk to a politician”
I strongly disagree with you. Judges are the servants of the people, paid by the people, and sit in judgement purely to uphold the rights of society and not necessarily what might be enshrined in law. Nothing more, nothing less. They are anwserable to society. It is sad for NZ that the courts are held in such low regard here by its citiznery, and I lay a large portion of the blame squrely at the feet of the judges who frequently fail to live up to the expectations of society. Furthermore, they more or less act with impunity, almost free from of any sanctions. In particular, biased judges who err, need to be answerable. .
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Paul Marsden
Examples of biased Judges please, serious allegation.
Then when was the last time a Judge was involved in a sex scandal, dishonesty issue etc in New Zealand
The last ones I can think of was Bob Hesketh (@ one other) in the 90′s over a $6 accommodation allowance or something and he only resigned because he was a decent man, he would have had no case to answer at an enquiry.
Judges don’t bring in most verdicts its the citizens who do that
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Where shall we have the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association conference this year?
Somewhere central. Somewhere cheap to get to. Somewhere that’s obviously not just a beach trip junket funded by taxpayers around the world.
I don’t care how much the spouse is worth. But not entirely sure why he needs to be there – and why we should be paying for his holiday.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Paul Marsden,
As PaulEB says, examples please.
That is incorrect. They sit on behalf of the sovereign, are paid by the Crown for doing so, and are there to impartially decide on cases brought before them by way of complaint (civil or criminal). They are most certainly to decide according to the law, despite what you say.
No, they are not, and that is a long standing tradition. Many years ago they were answerable to the monarch and could be dismissed at will by that person. Decisions were often biased in favour of the monarch as a result. Your view would remove impartiality and fairness from the Courts, something that we should all resist strongly.
Parliament makes the laws, the judges just implement them. Go back to where the laws are written first.
But, to echo PaulEB again, examples, please.
tristanb,
your complaint would obviously be applied to politicians as much as it is to judges, correct? So the question must be, why have the judge go to the conference in the first place? Surely we can do without it? Or, if we must, we can send them on the cheap.
This isn’t a problem created or perpetuated by the judges, but by government.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
@ annie @ 5.28
“Local travel by the judiciary is part of their job, as is international travel by the Chief Justice.
However, the CJ’s spouse is beyond irrelevant, and one assumes that he would not be there at taxpayer expense, which he may well not be. Whatever the case, Muldoon’s justification of needing the missus with him to iron his shirts probably doesn’t apply in this case.’
So Helen Clark had a reason for her husband Peter Davis to be with her overseas?
Vote:You know something about LAX that we don’t annie?
January 12th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
$18 million for 170 judges over three years is a PITTANCE in comparison to:
The nine year, first class, all expenses paid, round the world, gay fuck tour for two that the Kiwi taxpayer was forced to finance for a minister with only domestic portfolios under the Clark regime.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Wonder how he is doing now, when does the tour end, and how much more do we pay for Chris Carter and husband?
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Paying for Hugh can’t be justified by finger-pointing at past mis-deeds of the tit-sucker brigade.
There is simply no justifcation for accompanying spouses at these fora to be funded by taxpayers. Its work-related. If the desired outcomes for sending a judge there in the first place can’t be achieved by that attendee flying solo, then that rather undermines the justification in sending someone in the first place.
The fact that the spouse’s cost is fuck all in the scheme of things is beside the point. Go solo and you can get on with the biz without fussing about over your spouse or having to waste your time trying to be polite to someone else’s.
Arguments regarding the hugga mugga spouse factor are just self-serving and bullshit to boot.
That’s the end of the matter.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
DVM
What if the invite is to Mr and Mrs Chief Justice?, I know we are nearly a banana republic but stumping up for a plane ride is pretty small beer at the end of the day? Manners are everything surely!
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
And next time the Queen comes here maybe we should tell her to leave the Duke at home. On, and is President Obama happens to visit, clearly we wouldn’t want the First Lady to come either.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Therein lies the crux of the problem. We have a permanent political/bureaucratic/corporate/judicial/professional service provider/consultancy class who have elevated themselves above all reproach – forget the facile Labour/National bullshit . . .
Fatcats at the top, a burgeoning feral underclass at the bottom, and the rest of us in the middle getting fucked over.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
eastbay
The other half declines. Like I said, the other half adds no value to the substantive purpose of the visit. My experience is that the sad-arse justifications for taking the other half tend to spring from a desire to score a free trip for the other half. It adds to the jolly factor and that’s it. In reality, the other half is more likely to get in the way.
If there is an expectation that other halves accompany, then that’s a good signal as to the value of the trip. In that case, read “trip” as “junket”; “manners” as “freebie”.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Following that reasoning, Mrs Key and Lady Mateparae should stay at home when their respective hubbies represent us overseas.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
milky, your fuckwit spots are showing.
Putting aside the fact that we don’t pay Phil’s plane fare, can your tiny little pea brain not grasp the difference between the functional unit that is the head of state and in which Phil plays an integral part by offending all and sundy and providing endless amusement, and , in this instance, a judicial conference attendee who does not rely upon his/her spouse in a functional sense relevant to the occupation. Or do you count Hugh taking Sian a cuppa in bed in the morning as being somehow relevant to her discharging her judicial responsibilities?
But then , you probably do, don’t you? It seems that’s the way that Chris Carter saw things.
What is it about pinkos? Is it just that your wiring is completely fucked? Is that why you can’t function in the real world? I realise that you’re having a bad week with this POA business, but is there actually anything behind your windscreen?
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
DVM
I read representative as representing the Crown, New Zealand etc, in fact the article isn’t clear whether Hugh was paid for to go to that conference, there an inference but its not clear. he may in fact have paid to go on that one.
If it was a royal wedding the GG isn’t going to leave Mrs GG at home , I hope not anyway. Small beer, I’d start worrying about DOC wasting money first
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Pauleastbay
Vote:Small beer exactly. The CJ is officially No.2 in our pecking order. Only the CJ is entitled to take her spouse where the trip is a representational one.
DVM
I’m pretty sure the NZ taxpayer picks up the tab for royals travelling here.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
mikenmild when did being a judge outrank a bloke awarded the VC in precedence ?
Vote:Hmm I wonder if he gets free overseas business class air travel with a partner .
January 12th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
eastbay
Principle is everything. Its not about the money; its about trust and accountability. When you start eroding those margins you get Peters and Carter.
I’ve got no probs with Hugh paying his own way if its work-related. If it is in fact a state role a la Betty/Phil, then no probs with taxpayer funding. But I’m not aware that she fulfilled any such state role in this context. Lady Mateparae possibly, slots into the Phil camp, nothwithstanding that she doesn’t (as far as I am aware) do gigs by herself. Although Cath Tizard flew solo as far as I can recall.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
mikenmild
So fucking what? Were you capable of reading any further than that?
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
The Chief Justice is effectively our 2ic, ie she acts as Administrator of the Government when the G-G is overseas or otherwise absent. Her representational function in travelling overseas though would usually be as the head of the NZ judiciary.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths some people will go to in an attempt to justify the serial troughing of the establishment.
Elias was on a work trip, comparing her to the GG is both irrelevant and insulting. She is a paid public servant and as such should not have the right to abuse her position by taking along her husband.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Time for a cocoa and a lie-down DVM.
Vote:BB – do you consider the G-G’s travel overseas to be ‘work trips’? For heaven’s sake, DPF’s post clearly shows there is a difference between ‘representational’ and other travel and this only applies to the CJ. It really is inconsequential in the scheme of things.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Elias was on a work trip, comparing her to the GG is both irrelevant and insulting. She is a paid public servant and as such should not have the right to abuse her position by taking along her husband.
Agree BB.
It was a works outing.
A taxpayer-funded works outing.
I have to say given the current quality of pontification from the SC vs what issued from the revered and regrettably departed PC all this travel cash isn’t doing a lot of good.
Perhaps it’s because Sian is new but fact is so far the SC is not putting out value for money given what was poured into it. Let’s hope it improves rapidly but frankly since this is the senior judicial body in the country it shouldn’t have needed to iron out any teething problems, that should have been mere de rigeur. Says a lot, really.
By teething problems, it’s not only holiday puff pieces like this it’s the bad poor quality legal decisions they’ve been making plus I understand their highnesses didn’t like the plastic cable outlets scattered round the walls of “their” courtrooms for example so they required special brass plates to be made and installed to cover their eyes from perceiving the horrid spartan utilitarian ugliness the rest of us see without a thought everyday. This is what I’m talking about.
If the govt wants efficiencies in Justice then one really fat plum is how the judges in their various layers require contortions of the organisation in order to pamper their plump bottoms. If the Justice Minister wanted to save heaps, that would be a good place to look.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
mikenmunter
So fucking what? Did Hugh get appointed deputy head.
I can only assume you work in the public trough and are feeling somewhat defensive about the freebies you score.
If someone paid something like $400k – $500k can’t do her job without dragging along hubby along when he doesn’t have any functional responsibility in terms of her role, then she shouldn’t have the job. She doesn’t need him. Unlike you, she actually has a brain.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
I can’t believe people on here condoning or defending the outrageous expenses and perks are the same people saying the Union and their members are greedy – left or right you’re all a pack of hypocrites.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
mikenmild.
“It really is inconsequential in the scheme of things.”
That statement drives me crazy. If we added up all the things those in public life describe as “inconsequential’ it would come to a bloody huge amount.
A million here, four million there, another 1.74 million for something else…all described as “inconsequential’, well I have had enough of the public sector treating my fucking money as it it were their own.
Those in the public sector (and their well connected defenders) use this argument all the time, they have no real appreciation how bloody hard most of us have to work to raise the money these bastards see as theirs.
Vote:I could not give a stuff how important this woman thinks she is, if she wants to take her husband then he or she should bloody well pay for it herself.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
@thedavincimode: Yup – milkmilo is a trougher all right – boasted that he / she sucked north of $70k as a flunkie with sympathies firmly with NZEI / PPTA / PSA.
Quelle surprise…
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
At least this shows that envy isn’t a left/right thing as posters at the top tried to make out (unless Miken is now a righty and Reid, PEB and Big Bruv are suddenly raving lefties). When she is representing us as Chief Justice (rather than just attending a conference/seminar as a member of the judiciary) of course her partner should be paid for if invited.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Hey I don’t care if she takes her housekeeper as well, provided the quality of decision making becomes equal to that which we used to have.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 11:12 pm
FES:
It shows that judges have the human tendency to take something because it’s “free”, even if it’s a high-priced taxpayer-funded holiday in the Caribbean. Am I envious? Maybe of the holiday, but I’d actually feel a bit bad taking it without earning it! (I’d probably still go given the chance!
.)
Yep. Of course you can apply it to politicians. Roger Douglas I’m sure lost ACT many a voter with his “I’m entitled” statement. Most people don’t hate Chris Carter because he’s gay, but because he travelled around Europe courtesy of us. Spouse should pay for spouse’s self.
Who knows what Chief Justice learnt on this conference, and who knows how much she’s helped the country’s interest? I suspect the answer is “very little”.
I agree with big bruv with his dislike of this travel being called “inconsequential”. It’s like saying “shoplifting’s inconsequential”. If I stole a few dollars from my neighbour every day, even a millionaire wouldn’t be calling it “inconsequential”. If it’s wrong it’s wrong.
Vote:January 13th, 2012 at 12:42 am
Pauleastbay said:
Examples of biased Judges please, serious allegation.
Then when was the last time a Judge was involved in a sex scandal, dishonesty issue etc in New Zealand
——————–
You could start with Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson who was forced to resign in 2010 for misleading the other Supreme Court Justices over a conflict of interest.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/justice-bill-wilson-quits-131970
Vote:January 13th, 2012 at 8:08 am
http://www.3news.co.nz/Former-judge-denies-keying-car/tabid/423/articleID/147950/Default.aspx
I guess keying a car is inconsequential too.
Vote:January 13th, 2012 at 8:53 am
I always get confused by this left-right thing.
* Large government with a high number of unelected positions that would not exist in private sector. Is that Left or Right?
* Remuneration based on “expert” evaluation of worth, rather than competitiveness or market forces. L or R?
* Belief that sending such people to meet other such people from overseas will result in benefits to the country, and these intangible benefits do not have to be proven. L/R?
* Handling a world-wide recession by spending more money. L/R?
* Rather than a contract ensuring that judges are competitive and manage (and pay for) their own continuing education, the government acts as overgenerous employer providing travel and other perks with no accountability. L or R?
* Taking money from the taxpayer to give to others with the unproven belief they’ll make better use of the money. Is that left or right?
The only “leftie” thing about the criticism is talking about Mr Fletcher’s wealth. (Which shouldn’t matter.)
Vote:January 13th, 2012 at 9:08 am
The outcome was a not guilty verdict and as I recall, the police case was such a shambles that the defendant obtained a costs award that was significant in the context of the case. I think (not sure) that his defence case was so strong that he gave it to the cops before trial but in their stupidity they proceeded anyway. That might have influenced the costs award.
My understanding that getting costs in defending a criminal prosecution is pretty well unheard of, which would be a pretty good indicator of just how hopeless the police case was. The legal beagles might be able to throw more light on all the gory details.
Vote:January 13th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Getting reasonable costs (rather than some daft scale of, for memory, $113 per half day) is very rare.
Vote:January 13th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
tristanb,
others may disagree, but here is my take on your questions:
* Large government with a high number of unelected positions that would not exist in private sector. Is that Left or Right?
Left
* Remuneration based on “expert” evaluation of worth, rather than competitiveness or market forces. L or R?
Mainly left
* Belief that sending such people to meet other such people from overseas will result in benefits to the country, and these intangible benefits do not have to be proven. L/R?
Neither. That is generally part of trying to progress efficient governance. Believe it or not, but a lot of good ideas can be taken from these conferences.
* Handling a world-wide recession by spending more money. L/R?
Left, left, left. Unfortunately so many ‘conservatives’ also want to do this, but it is very left.
* Rather than a contract ensuring that judges are competitive and manage (and pay for) their own continuing education, the government acts as overgenerous employer providing travel and other perks with no accountability. L or R?
Judges are not a service. They are a responsibility of the sovereign. They do not have the same rationale as government services such as health care. So neither. And not a good example.
* Taking money from the taxpayer to give to others with the unproven belief they’ll make better use of the money. Is that left or right?
Most definitely left.
Vote: