Kiwiblog

Judith Collins has announced:

Justice Minister Judith Collins today announced the appointment of Dr Jackie Blue as the Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) Commissioner.

“I congratulate Dr Blue on her appointment as EEO Commissioner for the Human Rights Commission,” Ms Collins says.

“The EEO Commissioner has an important role to play in championing EEO principles, issues and practices in New Zealand as well as appreciating their relationship to social, economic and labour market trends.

“Dr Blue is committed to human rights and equity issues and is currently the Chair of three cross-party groups in Parliament. I’m confident she will be a very capable Commissioner.”

Dr Blue will be leaving Parliament to take up her new position. She will assume office on 4 June 2013.

Congratulations to Jackie on her appointment. I was very critical of the appointment of former National MP Brian Neeson to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, so I will criticise political appointments that lack merit. but this is not one of those cases.

Jackie has a good track record at working with MPs from all parties, and will do well in the role I am sure.

Her departure from Parliament will of course create a list vacancy. The next candidate on National’s list is former MP Paul Quinn. Media have previously reported he does not desire or intend to return to Parliament. If he declines the spot, then Wellington Central candidate Paul Foster-Bell will become a List MP.

If Tim Groser does become WTO Director-General, then the next on the list is broadcaster Claudette Hauiti.

Andrew Geddis blogs on the criminal mistreatment issue. He sums up the proposal:

A prisoner is in jail serving their punishment – doing the time for their crime. Whilst in jail, they are mistreated … in a way that breaches the rights guaranteed to all New Zealanders under legislation. They then get monetary compensation (only after all other means of remedying the situation have failed). That compensation first pays any debt they owe to any person they may have harmed through their crime – assuming there is such a debt in place.

And then the Government takes back the rest of the compensation and uses it to bolster the account it uses to pay for the support of victims of all crime.

So, in essence, the Government is proposing to fund a system of helping crime victims with money that it pays to prisoners after mistreating them whilst they are in its custody. And it will take that compensation away no matter how grievous the rights breach the prisoner has suffered, and irrespective of whether the crime that put the person in prison caused any individual any loss at all.

He states:

But to go from those propositions to a solution that prisoners have no right to receive compensation for harms caused to them by the State, but instead must pay it over to help society meet its obligations to crime victims, is to in effect say that prisoners are not people. And that is wrong.

That is why I’m pleasantly surprised to see Judith Collins essentially agree with me and announce that she won’t be following through with Simon Power’s proposal, but rather moving to make permanent the existing claims system. …

Quite right. So credit where credit is due – my first words of 2013 are praise for Judith Collins.

Judith’s opponents sometimes try to paint her as one-dimensional, but if you look at her overall track record in both Police and Justice, I believe it is in fact quite sophisticated  in balancing up the various rights and responsibilities of those involved in the justice system.

I called yesterday for more focus on the substance of the Bain issue – mainly whether or not Fisher’s criticisms of Binnie’s report are justified and substantial, and wanted to hear from legal experts rather than those with a vested interest.

Was pleased to have commenters discover or point out that no less than three law professors have actually commented publicly on this issue. And it appears they have all concluded that they agree with Fisher’s critique. Let’s go through them all.

First, there is this video on TVNZ with Otago University Law School Dean Mark Henaghan. Definitely worth viewing.

Then the ODT report:

Having read both reports, Prof Henaghan said a main issue of concern with Justice Binnie’s report was whether it relied on the onus of Mr Bain proving his innocence, rather than the Crown proving his guilt.

”In this case, it is not a criminal trial. If you are asking for compensation the onus is on you to prove you deserve it and that was one thing Robert Fisher was worried most about in respect of Justice Binnie’s report.”

He thought Dr Fisher’s recommendation to have a revised report drafted and opened for feedback from all involved was sensible, and anyone preparing such a report could at least benefit from Justice Binnie’s ”thorough” compiling of data.

Tapu Misa reported:

The Otago University law professor, Kevin Dawkins, told Radio New Zealand last week that he agreed with Robert Fisher’s criticism that Binnie failed to consider circumstantial evidence and the way we in New Zealand approach it.

Professor Dawkins said Binnie’s dismissal of individual pieces of evidence was problematic and “corroborates the Minister of Justice’s conclusion that the finding in the report is not supported by robust reasoning and analysis”.

He also agreed that Binnie incorrectly imposed the burden on the Crown to prove Bain wasn’t innocent, when the onus of proof should have lain with David Bain.

Also ZB reported Dawkins:

Otago University Law Professor Kevin Dawkins says there’s an ongoing concern in the Fisher review, that Justice Binnie was more inclined to believe David Bain’s version of events, than the Crown’s.

“I think there were parts of Justice Binnie’s report which indicate an inclination to find David Bain innocent on the balance of probabilities.”

Kevin Dawkins says Ian Binnie may have been confirmed in his view by the verdict of the jury in David Bain’s retrial, but that point isn’t relevant in this inquiry.

And finally we have Andrew Geddis. He has blogged extensively on this at Pundit. he is very critical of Judith Collins over not giving Bain’s camp a copy of Binnie’s report, and the way Fisher was commissioned. However he also gets into the substance of Fisher’s criticisms and his main conclusion:

I think Fisher’s core criticism of Binnie’s approach to the physical evidence is right.

And in detail:

But how and why Binnie thought this footprint evidence (put together with the timing issue, and the no blood in the shoe point) was stronger than the combinedevidence that pointed towards David Bain’s guilt we’ll never know – all we know is that he says he considered the matter and came to that conclusion.

And that is a problem, because it is only in the overall “thickness vs sharpness” analysis that you can reach an overall assessment on the balance of probabilities of whether David Bain is innocent. So I think Fisher is absolutely correct in this aspect of his criticisms: even if Binnie really did do what he says he did (and remember, an absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence), we needed to see him doing it in order to be fully satisfied about his conclusions.

So, yes – for all the problems that I have with the way Fisher’s review of Binnie’s report was commissioned and framed, Collins was right to conclude from it that Binnie’s report is not a safe basis for concluding that David Bain is innocent. Having read that report, and Fisher’s critique, and Binnie’s response, that is the conclusion I myself have come to.

So there seem to be three options going forward:

1. Pay Bain compensation, despite the documented inadequacies of the Binnie report.
2. Do not pay Bain compensation, on the basis that the Binnie report has failed to make the case that he is innocent.
3. Ask someone to do another report on Bain’s likely innocence, and make a decision on compensation based on that.

I don’t think anyone expects (1) will occur. Nor should it occur.

I think (2) would be rather unfair to David Bain. It is not his fault that Binnie’s report was sub-standard. He shouldn’t lose his chance for compensation because of it.

So inevitable we need another report. As some have noted it can use as a starting point, the evidence collated by Binnie.

But who should do it? You have a double challenge. First to identify someone acceptable, and secondly to convince them to do it – considering the toxicity of the environment around this now.

Geddis blogged:

So maybe the only way through this is to give the job to more than one person. As my Boss at the Otago Law Faculty, Mark Heneghan, has suggested, “at least with a panel of judges they can reality-check each other and make sure they are not being influenced by one thing.” And as I make it a policy to never disagree with my boss, I’m going to suggest that this is a brilliant idea from a fair-minded, highly intelligent and devastatingly good-looking man.

The idea of a panel is not a bad one.  Maybe two NZ Judges or QCs who have had nothing to do with the case, and one Australian?

If you have a sole reviewer, and they reach a different conclusion to Binnie, then the Bain camp will criticise that as having hand picked a favourable reviewer. But if you have a panel, it is much harder to criticise it – and it worth recalling appellate benches are always panels.

Of course a reviewer or review panel may come to the same conclusion as Binnie – and that is fine, so long as their report correctly sets out why, and the tests they applied.

3 News Political Editor Patrick Gower blogs:

It ‘Twas the year of the ball-breaker: and therefore Judith Collins is my politician of the year.

No doubt this will make plenty of people angry, because “Crusher” has her enemies not just on the Left, but on the Right.

But the fact that she is now widely recognised as a front-runner for National’s leadership shows just how big a year Collins had.

She simply smashed her way through the year – nearly everyone who came up against Collins came off second-best.

Gower looks at the other contenders:

Greens co-leader Russel Norman’s been cited by most of the commentariat as politician of the year. He had a great year, rising as defacto leader of the Opposition and was a superb economic communicator, even putting himself up as a future Finance Minister.

But Rusty came off second-best when he came up against himself. Yes, that moment of madness when Norman thought getting a laser printer to copy off some New Zealand $20 notes could pay for the Christchurch rebuild and solve New Zealand’s economic woes. It is frankly impossible to name someone who suggests printing money as politician of the year.

It is good to see a journalist actually cite policy issues in appraising an MPs performance, rather than purely how they handle the media etc. We need more focus on policies.

That takes me to Collins – she did not come off second-best, even when hit with the full-on wave of destruction that was the ACC Bronwyn Pullar scandal.

It wiped out Nick Smith as a Minister. It swept so far it even briefly touched Key – nobody seemed immune.

But Collins wiped out the chairman John Judge, and board members Rob Campbell, John McCliskie and Murray Hilder. Chief Executive Ralph Stewart freaked out and jumped.

Heads rolled.

Collins never looked entirely safe throughout – it was “harum scarum” stuff by her.

Collins was under extraordinary pressure. It seemed she had mishandled it – that there were things that would come back at her. They haven’t – yet. How she managed that, I don’t know.

Labour’s Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little tried to take her on over it. They lost – in the courts no less, when Collins did them for defamation. Collins put a hit on Mallard – that should not be under-estimated as a political hit. Collins beat up Mallard.

By the time the ACC report came out, Collins had it under control. The heads had rolled – this in a country where heads never roll.

In a scandal to hurt so many, for Collins to come out virtually unscathed shows considerable political skill. And maybe some luck.

Not much luck I’d say.

Next year there must be more policy and less politics from Collins – she must sort out ACC to really prove her mettle.

But this year Collins made a move.

She survived and managed the ACC mega-scandal. She put Bain’s Compensation claim in a choker-hold.

She got her way time and time again.

She has cemented herself as a potential future leader of the National Party.

And not once did she come off second-best. It was ball-breaking stuff, it wasn’t always pretty, but it worked – and Collins is my politician of the year.

A ballsy call.

The reports are out. Not online yet. Now on Scoop. The summary from Robert Fisher includes:

•  Justice Binnie went beyond his mandate. He did not have authority to express any conclusion on the question of whether there were extraordinary circumstances such that compensation would be in interests of Justice. Nor was he invited to make any recommendation as to whether compensation should be paid.
• In assessing innocence, Binnie J made fundamental errors of principle.
• In assessing misconduct by authorities, Binnie J has also made fundamental errors of principle
• Correct principles should now be applied to the evidence afresh. That is not saying a fresh assessment would produce a different outcome. It is possible that it would vindicate Binnie Js conclusions
• Binnie J criticised named individuals without giving them adequate opportunity to respond.
• Instead of assessing each piece of evidence to see whether it increased or reduced the likelihood of innocence, and if so by how much, Binnie J discarded any item that was not individually proved on the balance of probabilities.
• Instead of considering the cumulative effect of all relevant items of evidence, he arrived at a provisional conclusion of innocence based on one item (luminol footprints) followed by a serial testing of that conclusion against others in turn.
• Instead of requiring David Bain to satisfy him on the balance of probabilities throughout the enquiry, he imposed an onus on the Crown wherever the Crown suggested a factual possibility inconsistent with innocence
• He appeared to regard the jury acquittal as something that was relevant to the question whether David Bain had proved his innocence
• He appeared to accept David’s version of events without question except where it directly conflicted with other witnesses
• His decision to disregard any item of evidence that did not prove a subsidiary fact on the balance of probability was contrary to the law of NZ and to a proper understanding of the probability theory.
• Discarded were evidence of blood stains on David’s clothing, broken glasses, David’s fingerprints on the rifle, arguable shielding of part of the rifle, Robin’s motive, Robin’s mental stability, David’s post-event admissions, factors consistent with suicide, David’s admission that he heard Laniet gurgling, David’s gloves, and knowledge of the trigger key.
• The way in which Binnie J approached the cumulative significance of the evidence in its totality seriously skewed the exercise towards an innocence outcome which is contrary to the law of evidence in NZ when dealing with circumstantial evidence.
• Logic and experience suggest that if a suspect has lied in denying his responsibility for the crime itself, he will scarcely shrink from lying about the details. For the purpose of drawing inferences from surrounding facts, most decision-makers will prefer sources other than the suspect.

This poses a real challenge to the Government. Do they make a decision on the basis of the Binnie report, or do they now commission a new report? I am firmly of the view that  if the Binnie report had not had the issues detailed above, then the Government would follows its recommendations (even if some Ministers have different private views). Not following a recommendation is politically damaging. But unless Dr Fisher is incorrect in his peer review, it is hard to have confidence in the conclusions.

Also a must read is this article by Martin van Beynen of The Press, who actually sat through the entire second trial. His summary:

1. How did the cadaverous Robin fight off son Stephen in a fierce fight and sustain no injuries?

2. Why did he put on David Bain’s gloves to execute his family when he was going to spare David, not implicate him, and commit suicide?

3. Why did he change into fresh clothes between killing his family and taking his own life? He took the soiled clothes and put them neatly in the washing basket.

4. Why were none of Robin Bain’s fingerprints on the rifle, especially since he must have clasped it tightly to kill himself in the very odd way he chose?

5. Why did he wait until David Bain was just about bouncing through the door before writing his suicide note and killing himself?

6. If he was supposed to put on fresh clothes and cleaned himself up after the killings, how come he still had spots of blood on his hands?

7. Why would he kill with a full bladder and after an undisturbed night?

8. Why did he follow his normal routine – set his alarm, get the paper from the gate – if he was so disturbed he had decided to kill the family?

9. How come it was David who was scaring the family before the killings by threatening behaviour with his rifle?

On the basis of these points, compensation for David Bain would be a travesty.

Binnie has responded to the Fisher report, which is at the link above. Somewhat amusingly it also seems he sent an e-mail to  the Minister this morning in ALL CAPS.

What I will be interested to hear, are opinions from lawyers who have some expertise in this area, who are not connected to the case. Do they think Fisher’s concerns are correct?

The Press editorial:

Collins’ announcement explaining why she had sought the review was candid, even sharp, but in the circumstances reasonable. The fact that she has had Binnie’s report since September had raised expectations that the matter would be put before the Cabinet and a decision announced before Christmas. It has also become well known, and has not been denied, that the report is favourable to Bain. The reasons for the delay needed to be explained and Collins did so in a characteristically forthright style.

It is worth noting that Collins did not seek publicity. It was in response to media inquiries that her statement was released as to why she sought a peer review. The announcement of Fisher was not made public, but inevitably leaked out.

Binnie’s report, she said, appeared to contain “assumptions based on incorrect facts, . . . showed a misunderstanding of New Zealand law . . . and lacked a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions”. Binnie, perhaps unused from his lengthy term on Canada’s highest court to such direct comment, was stung by Collins’ remarks into responding. It was an unwise move.

By convention, judges never comment on their decisions once they are delivered. The decisions are taken to contain all the facts and reasoning required to be able to speak for themselves. Binnie is no longer a judge, of course, but in this procedure he is acting as one. Once he had delivered his report to Collins in September the function for which he was hired was over and he should have remained aloof from anything that ensued, whatever it was. It is unseemly and undignified of him to get into the mud and the dust of the political arena in the way he has done.

I think his response was a massive mistake. If he has confidence in his report, he should let that speak for itself.

If nothing else, it raises misgivings about his judgment. Fourteen long paragraphs in response to a terse couple of sentences from the minister looks weirdly disproportionate. In addition, questionable statements Binnie makes, particularly concerning the alleged views of the Privy Council on Bain’s guilt or innocence, look faulty enough to suggest that Collins’ doubts about the report are well-founded.

Again, I agree.

Collins said yesterday she was considering releasing the report along with the review of it this week. She says that both should be released together. While that would be ideal, she should go ahead and release Binnie’s report (both the original and the two subsequent versions that Binnie has given her unsolicited) whether the review is ready or not. The tumult is not going to die down, and rumour and surmise will fill the vacuum if she delays.

I understand there is a reasonable chance both the Binnie report/s and the Fisher report will be released tomorrow.

Also of note is this exchange in question time:

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: What are the specific “assumptions” based on “incorrect facts” demonstrating some “misunderstanding of New Zealand law” that she alleges are contained in the report of Justice Binnie concerning the application by Mr Bain for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) : I stated in my media release that “My concerns are broadly that the report appeared to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts, and showed a misunderstanding of New Zealand law.” Prior to giving examples, I need to give just a little bit of context to this. I can advise the House that an independent peer review of the first Binnie advice is being done by the Hon Robert Fisher QC, and I am considering the public request made by Mr Bain’s supporters to release both these reports—or advice to me—before Cabinet has made its decision. One of the things I am considering is whether or not it is going to be in Mr Bain’s interests or in the interests of justice to do so. But in relation to the examples sought, there are many. I will give the House two of those. The first is relying on incorrect understanding of what has been given in evidence. In this case, Justice Binnie asserts that a named scientist testified at the first trial that he had chemically enhanced the prints and later sought to resile from this. The reference to chemical enhancement was an error on a label attached to a fingerprint, and this was explained as such by the named scientist at the retrial. A second example is in relation to assumptions as to the correctness of submissions on the law. Justice Binnie appears to have assumed to be correct Mr Karam’s submission that the adverse inferences should be drawn against the Crown case on the basis of evidence that is no longer available. This is incompatible with the onus of proof being on Mr Bain in this particular case, because this is, in fact, a request for Cabinet to use its discretion, and that is very clearly wrong.

Again, the reports will be interesting.

Ian Binnie has responded to the statement from Judith Collins about concerns with his report. What strikes me as fascinating is how passionately pro-Bain he is. He complains that David Bain has not yet been given a copy of his report, for example.

He also cites the Privy Council judgement at length, but of course that was a decision there were grounds for a retrial. That was not a decision that on balance of probabilities Robin Bain was the killer.

A commenter makes the point:

Binnies statement, reproduced above, is the best evidence so far supporting Judith Collins stance. In it, he quite clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the law and the facts.

In paragraph 4 he states that the decision of the Privy Council that there had been a miscarriage of justice was reinforced by the verdict in the 2009 retrial. I am astounded that he would make such a statement.

The acquittal did not reinforce the conclusion of the Privy Council. The Privy Council was at pains to say that it did not have an opinion as to whether Bain was guilty or not. In NZ, the term miscarriage of justice refers to the process, not the outcome. You can have a trial which is found to have been a miscarriage of justice, but which still reaches the right result.

Binnie has demonstrated in his statement that he does not understand the meaning of the term miscarriage of justice, nor doe he understand the PC decision. He has also demonstrated a failure to understand the 2009 jury’s verdict. His statement quite clearly demonstrates a belief that the not guilty verdict equates to a finding of innocence.

Then in paragraph 5 he states that “all of the “external” judges who have looked at the record of the case have rejected the arguments of the Solicitor General and the Crown Law Office regarding David Bain’s guilt”. Again a mistake that goes to the very heart of his integrity.

The PC made no judgement on David Bain’s guilt. Their judgement states “In closing, the Board wishes to emphasise, as it hopes is clear, that its decision imports no view whatever on the proper outcome of a retrial”

Collins doesn’t have to release the report now. Binnie, by his own statements, has vindicated everything she has said about the report.

Another commenter (who is a lawyer) also says:

I have read Binnie’s statement which shows a scary misapprehension of events. The PC did not make any comment about guilt or innocence. It refused to go into that arena. It dealt with admissibility of evidence. The jury did not find him innocent. It found that the Crown had failed to prove guilt beyound reasonable doubt. I gather that he refused to hear from one of the jurors who expressed concern about jury misconduct. He cannot do that and, in the same breath, conclude that the jury found him innocent. I have no wonder why Collins is getting a second opinion.

Also worth reading this post by Andrew Geddis at Pundit.

ZB reports:

Judith Collins is blunt in explaining why she wants a second opinion on the report on compensation for David Bain.

She says the retired Canadian judge’s report appears to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts, and shows a misunderstanding of New Zealand law.

The Justice Minister has asked for a peer review into the report by Justice Ian Binnie.

Judith Collins says the report lacks a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions.

Since she told him she wasn’t happy, Justice Binnie has provided her with two revised versions of his report.

The minister says seeking a second opinion was not a decision she made lightly, but justice needs to be done, and a proper process undertaken.

It will be fascinating to see the original report, the revised reports and the peer review report. I’m hoping they will all be released.

Michael Forbes at Stuff reports:

Justice Minister Judith Collins says it is important that Kiwis retain the right to be idiots and make fools of themselves.

Ms Collins made the comment during her speech at a NetSafe conference in Wellington today, where she reinforced the her view that a hard line should be taken on cyber-bullying and harassment.

In doing so, she pointed to reports out of Britain this week where a woman was found guilty by a jury of racially abusing her New Zealand-born neighbour by calling her a “stupid fat Australian” during a drunken tirade.

Ms Collins said that while the Government was considering a range of initiatives and law changes to stamp out cyber-bullying, she did not want to see people’s freedom of speech restricted to that extent.

“I don’t think that’s something we want to see in New Zealand. I do think it’s important to retain the right to be idiots and to make fools of ourselves,” she said.

“But when it goes too far, particularly the sort of bullying that ends with young people committing suicide, that’s where we need to be very-much focused.”

There definitely is a case for some law changes. But we do need to be aware that the proposed Communications Tribunal with proposed powers to order material to be taken down does pose significant free speech issues – and it is important we get the balance right.

In August, the Law Commission released its report on harmful digital communications, which recommended a new electronic communications offence for those aged 14 and over and the establishment of a Communications Tribunal to enforce apologies, take-down and cease-and-desist orders, and unmask anonymous offenders.

Brian Edwards has a blog post on anonymous bloggers. He says:

More contemptible by far than the anonymous correspondent is the anonymous blogger, particularly in a democracy like New Zealand where freedom of speech is limited only by the laws of defamation.  Such lack of spine contrasts starkly with the courage of those anonymous bloggers and pamphleteers who are the advocates of freedom and democracy in totalitarian societies.

The irony is that those who blog under their actual names tend to be much better and effective for it. When you know that your words will be linked to you, you tend to take greater care in what you say.

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports;

ACC Minister Judith Collins’ defamation action against Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little has been settled following a hearing in the High Court at Auckland today. …

In a statement today following their meeting, the three parliamentarians said they agreed “the leak of the email Ms Boag sent to the minister and forwarded on her instructions as the responsible minister to the chairman and chief executive of ACC raised an issue of serious public concern, and that Messrs Mallard and Little were entitled to question who was responsible for that leak”.

“The parties continue to differ over whether the comments made by Messrs Mallard and Little respectively on Radio NZ implied the minister falsely assured the House that neither she nor her office was responsible for the leak.

“Messrs Mallard and Little have confirmed to Ms Collins that was not their intention and wish to make that clear publicly that in the event such meaning was taken they regret it.”

In the statement, the three politicians said they would make no further comment.

If Mallard and Little had said that a few months ago they could have saved themselves a lot of money.

Asher Emanuel of Salient has an extended interview with Judith Collins. It is an interesting read. A couple of extracts:

A: I’ve read that you were once a staunch Labour supporter—

J: Oh, well that’s what happens when you grow up in a family that is [chuckles]. Everyone’s allowed to be stupid once, I always say!

A: On Labour, you once said that it’s a group of people “who think that policy papers can change the world”—

J: They do. Actions speak louder than words.

A: How would you characterise the difference?

J: They think that having a strategy paper [...] followed by a work plan paper, followed by a consultation document should take up about three years of government and then they can say that they’ve done something. [...] It’s a bit like those people who say things like ‘one day I’m going to run a marathon’, and then never actually put their running shoes on to go and start. I guess I’m someone who feels very aware, Asher, that I have a certain amount of time on earth, I have a certain amount of time and I don’t believe I get to come back here to earth, so—not a buddhist. [...] And I am absolutely aware that every single minute has to count.

I think you could apply that to the health system. Labour had dozens of strategies, goals, targets and objectives. Tony Ryall came in and set six or seven clear national goals for the health sector, and we’ve seen some real tangible and important improvements.

A: How does your gender affect you media portrayal?

J: Well, there’s no point moaning about it, because you won’t get anywhere with it, but women politicians are quite clearly judged on an extra set of characteristics than our male counterparts. Our clothes are criticised, or sometimes ever MARKED. Hair, weight, age; all these things are up for grabs, and to the extent that our male colleagues don’t get the same sort of scrutiny. However, that is also an opportunity for us to actually show ourselves as different from what is the norm, and so every difficulty or every problem is actually an opportunity.

A: You’ve said before that you’re “pro-women” rather than describing yourself as a feminist.

J: I’ve never had a problem with saying that I am actually someone who is pro-women, and the trouble with the label feminist, is that it’s used in a derogatory way by many. It’s also used [in] a celebratory way by many. [...] Far too often—and not just in Parliament, in business and particularly around boards—we have far too few women. Or the women that some of the men feel comfortable with are the women who play supportive roles. Well… I’m not a supportive role player. Unless it’s part of the team—I’m very happy to be part of the team. But I’m not a handmaiden. And I think that some men, who feel threatened by that, that that’s a bit of a shame, because they hold back the best people, and they spend their time worrying about someone being threatening.

;

Gaynz.com reports:

[S]peaking briefly to GayNZ.com Daily News yesterday afternoon as she left Auckland’s Aotea Centre after helping open a Human Rights Commission conference encouraging diversity and ‘a fair go for all,’ Collins said of marriage equality: “I’ve got no problem with it.”

On enabling same-sex couples to legally adopt children she responded: “I’ve got no particular problem with that either.”

It’s great Judith is supporting allowing same sex couples to marry, if they want to.

It is likely the first reading on the bill will be Wednesday 29 August. However unclear if it will complete the two hour debate that night.

People may be surprised at how certain MPs vote.

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

ACC Minister Judith Collins wants the state insurer to start sacking staff who breach a new “zero tolerance” policy on privacy breaches.

A furious Ms Collins has revealed her astonishment at the failure of ACC to include privacy among nine of its “top priorities”.

“I’m not going to sit back and let one of the most important government entities [that] we have let people down time and time again around things such as privacy.

“They have to act in the way that I expect them to act. When I go around the branches, most of the people there absolutely understand it.

“But, actually, a few are letting them down and when we have things like the audit and risk committee having nine priorities for the year and not one of them [being] privacy, how can that be acceptable given everything else that’s going on?”

Ms Collins’ comments come as figures from ACC show 11 staff members have been reprimanded over “serious misconduct” since 2010.

The breaches involved: theft; fraud against ACC or a claimant; serious misuse of ACC property, including information and systems; dishonesty; disobeying a lawful and reasonable instruction from a manager; and any act that had the potential to bring ACC into disrepute.

Nine staff were sacked as a result of the breaches and two were given final written warnings.

Ms Collins said while the serious misconduct cases were “a shame”, she was pleased they were taken seriously and not covered up. “I think that they need to be – and they are now – taking on a culture of zero tolerance to privacy breaches, in particular,” she said.

Police had a “zero tolerance” approach to staff accessing private details about people without good reason.

“People lose their jobs over it, and that’s something that I think ACC needs to have, which is that we have people’s very personal information, we should treat it with respect and should understand it’s a very privileged position.”

d

Stuff reports:

ACC Minister Judith Collins begins court action against Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little for defamation today.

The High Court list for Auckland yesterday named Judith Anne Collins v Trevor Colin Mallard and Another for first call before Justice Geoffrey Venning.

Collins has accused the two MPs of defaming her in relation to a leaked email from former National Party president Michelle Boag.

Boag had emailed Collins about a case involving ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar, who blew the whistle on ACC inadvertently releasing her details about thousands of ACC claimants.

Defamation cases often take some time to come to court with both sides jockeying to set the terms of the case.

Today’s hearing is a face-to-face conference for lawyers to plot out the case’s timetable and sort out how it is going to be run.

Both sides have retained senior and experienced counsel with Collins being represented by Queen’s Counsel Julian Myles and Mallard and Little represented by Wellington lawyer John Tizard.

Collins is not seeking damages – just a declaration that the statements made were untrue and defamed her, and of course her costs.

UPDATE: The application by Mallard and Little for a stay of proceedings until the report of the Privacy Commissioner is done was declined by the Judge. The settlement hearing is in November (the report is due in September anyway, but could of course be delayed) and the trial in February 2013.

Judith Collins has stated she is paying for her own expenses in the defamation suit against Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little. She had the option of applying for taxpayer funding, but chose not to.

Has anyone confirmed whether or not the taxpayer is funding the legal costs for Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little? It would certainly be within the rules, for them to be funded  out of David Shearer’s parliamentary budget – but have they chosen to do so?

If they lose, and have to pay Collins’ legal expenses (she is not seeking damages, just a declaration and costs) will that also be funded by the taxpayer?

The Herald reports:

 ACC bosses laid a police complaint alleging blackmail by claimant Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag after being pressured by their minister Judith Collins, Labour MP Andrew Little says.

In a general debate at Parliament this afternoon Mr Little claimed that during a meeting between ACC Ralph Stewart, chairman John Judge and Ms Collins in Auckland the day after a massive privacy breach at ACC was revealed, Ms Collins told the two men to “go after Michelle Boag”.

“She urged and pressured and pressed the chief executive and chairman of the board to make a complaint to the police and that’s what they did”.

It seems Andrew has learnt one lesson. He has refused to repeat this claim outside the House, so is hiding behind parliamentary privilege.

If he had been able to produce even one shred of evidence for his previous claims about the Minister, then one might give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue. But we’re all still waiting for his proof.

Anyone can get up in the House and claim anything about another MP. They have a legally privileged right to do so. but it is an abuse of that right if you do not have some proof for your assertions.

Stuff reports:

Cabinet minister Judith Collins should be the next scalp in the ”ACC crisis”, Labour’s Andrew Little says.

Chief executive Ralph Stewart quit this morning following a boardroom clean out which has claimed chair John Judge, deputy John McCliskie and another director Rob Campbell.

That is either silliness by Andrew Little, or him trying to get escape the consequences of the defamation suit over his earlier remarks.

The Opposition has called for the Chair and CEO to go. That is exactly what has happened. They should be thanking the Minister for actually taking action to fix ACC’s culture.

Collins has been the Minister since December 2011. The Board and CEO all pre-date her.

Andrew may not like the fact that the Minister is suing him. His call for her to resign has no basis in substance.

I think it shows that Little is more concerned about utu against the Minister for suing him, rather than genuinely wanting change at ACC.

UPDATE: Stuff reports:

However, Green party MP Kevin Hague said Collins must stay on the job.

The “sick entitlement culture” in the House was the “big picture issue.”

“The minister who presided over that, Nick Smith; the hatchet man that he appointed, John Judge; and now Ralph Stewart – [their departures] were necessary steps to begin the process of refreshing the organisation.

“Now, in terms of Collins’ culpability around that – she wasn’t the minister that required all those changes. She has actually dealt to Judge, although I would have preferred a more explicit sacking.

“She’s clearly said ACC’s privacy sackings are unacceptable and must change and that’s actually a pretty good start. She may be the minister to do all this.”

I think this shows the stark differences between Greens and Labour. Kevin Hague actually cares about the people who have had a bad experience with ACC. He want to improve things – not just to score political points. This is in stark contrast to Labour’s Little who sees ACC purely as a political issue to help Labour gain their rightful place governing the masses.

I’ve never had a problem congratulating Labour Ministers when they do something right. Little seems incapable of doing the same with Collins.

Judith Collins has announced:

ACC Minister Judith Collins today announced that Ms Paula Rebstock will be Acting Chair on the ACC Board until a new Board Chair is appointed.

To complete the financial year for ACC it has been agreed that Mr Judge will remain as Chair until 30 June 2012.

Mr Judge takes up the role of Chair of the ANZ National Bank on 23 June 2012.

Ms Collins says Mr Judge’s new role is a significant appointment and will require even more of his time than his current role as a director.

“I would like to thank Mr Judge for the contribution he has made during his time as Chair of the Board.

“I particularly acknowledge the role he has played in returning ACC to financial health.

“I believe privacy and information security is now the number one priority for ACC and it must refocus on rebuilding public trust and confidence.”

It is obvious that the Chair’s resignation is not just about his new job as Chair of ANZ National Bank. It is good to see the Minister not accepting the status quo as acceptable. And to be fair to John Judge, he did play a major role in restoring ACC to financial health.

ACC has a tough job at the best of times. There definitely are a number of people who try tot rort the system. We’ve seen some of them prosecuted in the courts, and their numbers are not insignificant. As an employer who pays many thousands in ACC levies, I do want ACC to be vigilant and not a soft touch.

However that doesn’t mean treating every long-term claimant as a rorter or faker, and especially not interfering with independent medical assessments, and also not using language such as we saw on 60 minutes. It is obvious there are parts of ACC that has a culture problem, and they also have serious privacy issues.

The focus on rebuilding public trust and confidence is the right one.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Justice Minister Judith Collins is not seeking damages, but wants the court to declare she was defamed and to award her costs in her case against two Labour MPs.

This is a very smart move. It means that Mallard and Little can’t claim she is seeking to make money out of her lawsuit – she just want their (alleged) lies to be found to be false and defamatory. They had the choice of withdrawing their comments at no cost early on, or doing it at a later stage by which time there will be considerable costs (but not damages) attached to it.

Canterbury University law Professor Ursula Cheer said it was unusual not to seek damages.

“The most common remedies sought are an apology and damages.”

The provisions allowing a declaration had hardly ever been taken up, but they were a symbolic way to clear your reputation.

That was the point of including them in the law.

One could say that no one believes anything Trevor says anyway, so there was no point in taking proceedings. but it is possible there are some acolytes out there who do take his talk of anonymous e-mails proving his allegations, as literally true.

Collins has filed her claim in the High Court at Auckland despite the MPs being based in Wellington and the alleged defamatory comments being made in Wellington. As justice minister, Collins knew Auckland had the longest waiting list for civil hearings, Little said.

Umm Judith is an Auckland MP, and lives there most of the time. Where the comments were made has little bearing as they were broadcast on national radio. It seems pretty clear the ones trying to delay the case and Little and Mallard with their unsuccessful attempts to avoid being served.

Again, I look forward to their statements of defence. I hope Trevor especially refers to the anonymous e-mail he seems to be relying on, as I am sure the Judge will find that definitely constitutes proof.

At 9.32 am Trevor Mallard tweeted:

Naenae office clinics ‪#inplainview‬

Then just 11 minutes later he tweeted:

This is the woman who gave false name and address when making an appointment at my office she served Collins papers.

Now that was efficient service!

The photo is of a fairly elderly woman, hardly the thugs we were promised.

As for using a false name and address, well that is presumably because Trevor had made very clear that he would run out the back door if someone turned up saying they are here to serve the legal papers on him. When you refuse to co-operate with having legal documents served on you – then of course they have to respond in kind.

Would have been much easier if Andrew and Trevor had just supplied an address for service, as 99% of people do in court proceedings.

Anyway we look forward to seeing their statement of defence filed within 30 days.

Radio NZ reports:

Labour MP Andrew Little is critical of the way he was served papers on behalf of ACC Minister Judith Collins who is suing him and fellow MP Trevor Mallard.

Mr Little says a man emerged from the darkness on Monday night, shone a torch in his eyes and served him the papers as he got out of a taxi at his house.

Mr Little says the way the papers were served is typical of Judith Collins’ approach.

It is very hard to have sympathy for Andrew when he of course could have done what 99% of people do when a lawyer asks for an address for service – supply one. But if you’re going to go all macho and boast about how you will not co-operate, then don’t think you can take the moral high ground that you get served getting out of a taxi.

Incidentally the server rather than being a thug, had a nice sense of humour as it seems his words were “You’re served Mr Little, but no fries with that I’m afraid”.

He now has 25 days to file a statement of defence, but says he does not believe Ms Collins intends the matter to go to trial.

I’m pretty sure Andrew also said he never expects Judith to file in court.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Labour’s MP Trevor Mallard says he’ll be driving an unmarked car to avoid having papers served on him, as he and fellow MP Andrew Little laugh off defamation proceedings against them by ACC Minister Judith Collins.

If they were really laughing about it, they’d be keen to have their day in court. The poor duo in fact seem very anxious not to end up in court before the election having to detail the proof for their claims.

Trevor is already reporting to unmarked cars. Will he go further and start wearing a disguise? Will he refuse to turn up to electorate clinics, in an attempt to delay his day in court? His constituents may not be too happy with an MP that might shirk his duties so he can remain in hiding.

Mallard said he hadn’t defamed Collins and he had a good understanding of defamation law.

He has faced several legal threats but has only been sued for defamation once, by former NZ First MP Tuku Morgan.

This is what you call a partial truth. Someone should ask how often has he had to settle out of court or do an apology? I think he had to do three just to Rosemary Bradford.

Prime Minister John Key said the Labour MPs ”could run but can’t hide”.

Heh.

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

Justice Minister Judith Collins has initiated High Court defamation action against Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little but the two Labour MPs remain defiant, saying the case is unlikely to make it into the courthouse.

They also said they didn’t think she would file in court, so their track record on this is not good. I thought Trevor and Andrew would welcome the chance to prove in court that what they said is true.

Mr Mallard late yesterday confirmed he’d received a letter from Ms Collins’ lawyers Morrison Kent informing him proceedings had been filed and asking him to co-operate in allowing papers to be served on him.

“I see no reason to co-operate in what is clearly a vexatious action.”

Oh dear, this means that Trevor is going to play hide from the lawyers, rather than man up. Expect several weeks of Trevor cowering in Parliament where he can’t be served.

UPDATE: Little is also refusing to accept service. I think both men are idiots. The average Joe Public think the sort of people who avoid court documents being served on them are gang members and criminals. Little rather hysterically says:

Labour MP Andrew Little says ACC Minister Judith Collins will have to hire ”thuggish characters” to serve defamation proceedings against him and fellow Labour MP Trevor Mallard after the pair refused to cooperate with demands from her lawyer.

I’ve got the perfect person for the job. He has had to collect debts off gang members and the like, so this should be easy fodder for him – Whale Oil!

Just give the papers to Cam, and a travel allowance and I’m sure he’ll have them served within a few days.

Stuff reports:

ACC Minister Judith Collins has promised to quit if she or her office is found to have leaked an email at the centre of a spat over an ACC claimant as the auditor-general launches an investigation into governance at the state insurer.

So will Mallard and Little resign if their allegations it was Collins are found to be untrue?

Mr Little, along with Green MP Kevin Hague, earlier asked Auditor-General Lyn Provost to look into aspects of ACC’s governance that would not be examined by the investigations already under way by the privacy commissioner and being considered by the police.

Ms Provost said yesterday she would hold an inquiry examining aspects of ACC’s governance.

“The inquiry will examine how ACC manages a range of risks at the board level of the organisation. It will also examine how any matters relating to ACC claimant Ms Pullar that came to the attention of the board or individual board members were dealt with,” she said.

As well as this inquiry, Ms Provost intended to develop an audit proposal on ACC’s general operations, with a focus on its case management.

I’m pleased the Auditor-General is investigating.

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

ACC Minister Judith Collins will continue defamation action against two Labour MPs and Radio NZ – but she will not use taxpayer cash to fund it.

Collins this afternoon said the alleged defamation against her last week had occurred in relation to her carrying out duties as Minister for ACC.

She wrote to Labour MPs Andrew Little and Trevor Mallard threatening legal action, but they had not responded.

“Even though I am fully entitled to do so, I have not asked Cabinet for funding,” Collins said.

“I trust that Mr Mallard and Mr Little are prepared to fund their own defence.”

Both MPs have indicated they would pay for their own defence in any legal proceedings.

Collins said Radio NZ had responded to her letter last week but they too still faced legal action.

“There would be no cost and no case to answer if Mr Mallard, Mr Little and Radio New Zealand told the truth and presented their evidence,” Collins said.

If there was any evidence I suspect we would have seen it by now.

A very smart decision not to obtain crown funding. All the focus would have gone onto that issue, rather than the merits of the case.

Also in such tight fiscal times, the Government would face questions about how it can afford to fund a lawsuit, but not xxxxx.