Kiwiblog

On Monday 20 September I blogged my views on the Wellington City Council elections.

Around 12 days later on 1 October, Eastern Ward Councillr Rob Goulden sent the following complaint to the WCC Returning Officer:

This email is in relation to information I sent to the Electoral Officer as a candidate profile.

My profile was sent for WCC to circulate on its website to the media, as general information as to who was standing, and for publication in the Candidates handbook.

I did not and have not given permission for my information to be published on the Kiwiblog website.

I am also required by the Electoral Act to authorise such publication. I have given no such authorisation to the Mr David Farrar the author and owner of the Kiwiblog website.

I believe his publication under the banner of Local Government Election 2010 on his website is a breach of the act. He tells people how to vote in numerical order, and whom they should vote for.

I do not see this as any different from circulating a leaflet doing the same thing, which was the subject of a recent complaint in Tawa.

I wish information about me to be removed from his website.

Can you please consider this matter as a formal complaint?

The first I knew of this complaint was today.

I should point out at this stage that in my blog post, I did not actually advocate a vote for or against Rob Goulden. I did endorse Simon “Swampy” Marsh and Amanda Nicolle for two of the three spots and said:

The three current Councillors are all quite well known. I’d keep at least one of them on – so people should also support their preferred incumbent.

Ironically several people wanted me to explicitly state that Rob should be ranked in an unwinnable spot. But because of some shared history I declined to do so, and did not state any preferences amongst the three incumbent Councillors. I won’t be as generous in future.

I also provided links to the official candidate supplied statements on the WCC site, allowing readers to make up their own minds on who to support.

Anyway back to the complaint, the Returning Officer responded the same day:

I acknowledge receipt of your complaint and, as required by section 138 of the Local Electoral Act 2001, your complaint will be referred to the Police for their investigation and appropriate action.

Oh what fun. I’ve been under Police investigation without knowing about it. The Police responded quickly:

Police response on Kiwiblog complaint

The Police very sensibly can tell the difference between an advertisement and a hyperlink.

Anyway I found out about all this today when Rob e-mailed me and said:

Please see the attached. I hope you will comply forthwith and remove my information from your website.

Now I am under no legal obligation to remove the link – it is to a public elections site. And I am bemused why Rob didn’t just e-mail me directly in the first place. But just so Rob doesn’t lose any more sleep about this, I have removed the hyperlink.

But perhaps I should replace that hyperlink, with another one. This hyperlink is to the WCC Watch Blog, specifically (by coincidence) to a blog post they did today on Cr Goulden.

UPDATE: A further e-mail from Cr Goulden:

I sent you an email tonight with the Police and Electoral Officers response attached.

I made a complaint to the Electoral Officer because that is the process I am required to follow.

You published my material without permission, which is why you have been asked to remove it.

For the record in 2007, you also published on your website defamatory material about me. You were told  to remove and you subsequently did.

I note already a defamatory remark made in response to your latest post.

I am not going to be as lenient as I was last time and intend to do something about you and your posts.

I will give you until the morning to remove them and no longer.

I have responded:

I am disappointed you have not learnt anything from this.  Polite requests go down better than threats and complaints.

You have not specified which of the comments you feel is defamatory. If you do so, I will consider your request.

I will continue to blog updates.

The Herald reports:

Four of the nine people standing for four seats in the Otara-Papatoetoe subdivision are Indian – Labour candidates Daljit Singh and Sukhdev Singh Hundal, and Citizens and Ratepayers candidates Avtar Hans and Narinder Kumar Singla.

Mr Gutry said candidates and campaign staff would be contacted as part of the inquiry. Yesterday, none of the four Indian candidates said they had been contacted by the police.

Daljit Singh yesterday said he knew of people who believed that because there was one Super City, they could vote anywhere.

People who may have unintentionally enrolled were being told to correct the matter with the Electoral Enrolment Centre, he said.

Unintentionally enrolled? Is this what it is about? Let us see what TV3 report:

Manjit Kaur and her husband Avtar have been living in Pukekohe for 10 years, so imagine their surprise when police turned up asking why she’d enrolled in the South Auckland suburb of Papatoetoe.

“We never lived at that address, and that handwriting was not belonging to us, ’cause we had not filled that form,” says Mr Kaur.

Ms Kaur signs her name in English, yet the police had a form with her date of birth and a signature in Punjabi.

Now this makes the alleged crimes even more serious. It is one thing to tell people to enrol at an address they don’t live at. That is bad enough. But to actually forge their signature on an enrolment form and re-enrol them against their wishes is even more serious.

Quite a mystery over who could have done this.

“We’ve executed a number of search warrants within the Papatoetoe area, residential and commercial properties,” says Det Insp Mark Gutry.

One of the properties searched was the real estate office where Labour candidate Daljit Singh works. He said today police had not contacted him.

“What we’re doing at present is investigating the enrolments,” says Mr Gutry. “As part of that process we are going to end up speaking to candidates right throughout the Papatoetoe area.”

Another address visited was Indo Spice World, where coincidentally today a support vehicle for Mr Singh was parked at his office next door.

What an absolute coincidence.

The Police announce:

A number of search warrants have been executed on residential and business addresses in Auckland’s Papatoetoe ward over the last two days as part of the police inquiry into electoral roll enrolment irregularities.

Detective Inspector Mark Gutry, crime manager, Counties Manukau Police, said the search warrants were executed at “properties of interest” to the inquiry which follows a complaint from the Electoral Enrolment Centre.

Up to 40 officers are involved in this latest phase of the inquiry.  People at the addresses or associated with them have been very helpful.   Candidates and campaign staff will also be contacted for information as part of the inquiry.

The Registrar of Electors last week removed 306 enrolments after establishing that people did not live at addresses stated on enrolment forms.

“Police are very aware of the electorate interest in this inquiry and we are working to complete it as thoroughly and quickly as possible,” Detective Inspector Gutry said.

“It’s too early to say what the outcome of our investigation will be.  Elections and the right to vote are part of New Zealand’s democratic process.  If people do have concerns about irregularities in the Papatoetoe ward then it’s important they have the confidence to speak up and get in touch with us.”

Well done NZ Police. 40 officers is a very serious commitment. Hopefully they will get a result quickly, as this could affect the election. If a candidate (or party) is found to be involved, then people should know this before they vote.

The SST reported former Detective Inspector Harry Quinn:

Quinn, who also helped set up the national organised crime unit and was involved in numerous cannabis eradication operations, says he took flak within police for writing a report recommending a relaxation of cannabis enforcement, which would have involved issuing warnings to adult social users. …

Quinn told the Sunday Star-Times cannabis law did not need to be changed – but the way police enforced it did. They should rigorously prosecute anyone caught dealing drugs near schools or to youth, and anyone caught with cannabis in a vehicle, but go easy on adult recreational users, he said.

“If someone who is 40 years old is sharing a joint with their 42-year-old neighbour, they should simply tell them to put it out. Why we are wasting time prosecuting adults for the use of cannabis? I’m buggered if I know.”

I’m buggered if I know also.

He said the Misuse of Drugs Act clearly differentiated between those dealing to young people and adult recreational users.

Police ignored it completely and dealt with all offenders in the cannabis realm exactly the same. I think that was a tactical mistake.”

He said there were worse drugs to worry about. “The big guns in the police should be pointed at the drugs which affect people’s lives and can kill people – that’s not cannabis.”

Quinn said senior police needed to take another look at the law and issue guidelines to all officers “so it permeates all through.

“It’s not a soft approach, it’s just a different way of dealing with the problem.”

Sounds sensible.

The HoS reports:

A drug dealing 12-year-old took a kilogram of cannabis to sell to his mates at an intermediate school.

The kid with the stash, worth about $7000, was busted when his friends at Auckland’s Manurewa Intermediate were caught smoking some of the cannabis.

The 12-year-old had been given the drugs by a family member to sell at school.

I hope that family member is now in jail.

Labour’s education spokesman, Trevor Mallard, said police and Child, Youth and Family (CYF) should be told of every drugs case in primary and intermediate schools.

“The sharing of this information could well help the kid in the long run. It might be that CYF and police decide to do nothing but they should have that information.

“That’s something that the minister should look at.”

But Education Minister Anne Tolley indicated on Friday that was unlikely. “This issue should be of concern to everyone – parents, communities, boards of trustees and teachers,” she said.

“Boards manage schools and develop their own policies – and most would notify the police or CYF in the event of a drugs issue. That’s a commonsense approach – and schools shouldn’t need the Government to tell them that.”

I’m basically with Trevor on this one. If we are talking kids not yet at secondary school, then I think there must be mandatory notification. This is too important to leave to school discretion. Sure you don’t want schools having to report every 17 year old who is caught with some pot, but hell if a kid is into drugs at age 10 or 12, then they are at serious risk of a life of dysfunctionality.

The Herald reports:

Police Minister Judith Collins has urged Gisborne police and media to sit down and work out a solution to a dispute in over local law enforcement’s decision to stop giving reporters details of crimes in the area.

Media groups have criticised a move to restrict information on crime available to journalists and the public in Gisborne,

But police boss Inspector Sam Aberahama says the move is intended to make the community feel safer.

So Inspector Plod think his job is to make the community feel safer by concealing news on crime from the news media and the public.

Can I make the radical suggestion that the community would feel safer if the Police prevented crime from occurring, rather than merely preventing the reporting of said crime.

UPDATE: I am informed the original story didn’t cover the salient fact of exactly what change the Police have made. They are still releasing news to the media, they just no longer have a journalist attend their daily staff briefing – a practice that was unique to Gisborne. While I still think the comments of the Inspector are stupid and deserve clobbering, I do think it is reasonable to not have media present at staff meetings.

The Herald reports:

One in 10 licensed premises sold alcohol to 15-year-olds in a sting in the Auckland City police district.

Three boys and three girls were instructed not to dress to look older or wear make-up when they entered 162 businesses armed with $20 cash and no ID.

Seventeen outlets were busted breaking the law and will be referred to the Liquor Licensing Authority for suspension or cancellation of their licences.

Excellent – there is no excuse for serving 15 year olds. You are meant to ask for ID if they look under 25 (in some outlets under 30).

Before one even considers changes to the purchase age, the current purchase age should be enforced.

Mr Loye said police ran stings such as last week’s throughout the country every few months.

That’s the problem. Why only every few months? I’d have a dedicated team that does this pretty much every week. If you did that, I reckon within six months you’d have 100% compliance.

If the Police can find the time to lobby almost every individual MP on their desired alcohol law changes, then they should find the time to enforce the current laws properly.

Likewise in another story:

Teenage forgers have sold dozens of fake driver’s licences for up to $60 each in a sophisticated operation that has astounded police.

Two 17-year-olds in Hamilton face charges over their part in a forged licence ring.

Their arrests on Friday and Monday follow a similar Hamilton bust two years ago when 10 teenagers appeared in court over altering or using forged documents to enter bars or buy cigarettes.

City tactical co-ordinator Senior Sergeant Greg Dunn said the operation was “of a degree not encountered in the Waikato before” and an array of computers, laminators, scanners and printers had been seized.

Again congrats to Police for taking action. But why only one bust? A huge number of under 18 year olds have fake IDs. If you don’t crack down on them, then the purchase age becomes meaningless.

Like most NZers, my thoughts last night were with the two shot police officers. It is horrific when unarmed police are fired upon, and thank God their wounds were not fatal, unlike Gage the police dog.

I think there is a case that all police cars should have fire arms in their boots, so officers can use them in self defence at least. That would require much more intensive fire arms training for police officers though. It looks like this may occur.

However it is worth noting that it is possible harm could have been minimised in this case with the use of tasers. The Herald reported:

The officers felt comfortable enough to leave their Tasers in the car as they went door-knocking.

The person they were looking for could not be found. Instead, they discovered – thanks to a strong whiff of cannabis – a nearby house being used to grow marijuana.

They used their powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act to carry out a search without a warrant.

One of the men at the house was arrested but a second man grabbed a firearm.

It is easy to criticise from the luxury of one’s own home, but on the basis of the report, it may have been prudent to have kept their tasers on them – especially once the call out changed into a drugs bust.

Once the offender is actually armed, you don’t want to try to battle a firearm with a taser. However it is possible they may have been able to taser him as he was going for the firearm.

Regardless the responsibility for what happened rests of course with the man who did the shooting, and frankly I think he should be in prison for life – even though the officers did not die. There should be a very clear message about the consequences if you open fire on police officers.The maximum sentence is 14 years, which isn’t enough in my opinion.

The Taranaki Daily News reports:

An Eltham man escaped a drink-driving conviction yesterday by arguing police had not given him a phone book to call a lawyer. …

The judge found in favour of George Oliver’s contention in the Hawera District Court that police may not have done enough to contact his lawyer of choice.

Prominent lawyer Peter Brosnahan, well-known for success in this field, claimed a Stratford policeman lied to cover up a lack of process in the case.

At the Stratford police station on January 6, Oliver, 74, blew a breath test reading of 537mgs.

He had earlier specifically asked for Mr Brosnahan but neither he or constable Shaun Darth knew his phone number.

The contentious point was whether or not Mr Darth then offered Oliver a phone directory to contact him.

“Have you ever heard of 018?,” Mr Brosnahan asked.

“No,” Mr Darth said.

Mr Brosnahan: “You said you’ve never heard of 018 Telecom service?”

Mr Darth: “That’s correct.”

I find that incredible.

During cross-examination Mr Darth admitted he had created the job sheet, in which he said he had offered a phone book, months after the arrest.

Oh dear, oh dear. That is not good.

Judge E. Blaikie dismissed the case.

“I’m not saying there had been untruths told by the constable but there are some factors in his evidence that have left me unable to determine the factual situation beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said.

The Judge is being diplomatic I’d say.

The Herald reports:

Yesterday a 24-year-old Pacific Island woman, who did not want to be named, told the Herald she had been pressured into giving a sample at Auckland Central police station earlier this month.

She was driving in Grey Lynn without a licence and was stopped by police, and then taken to the station.

“An officer wanted me to give a DNA sample. I told him I didn’t want to do it, but he told me if I wanted to go home quickly, then I would have to give the DNA,” she said.

“He said all the officers were doing it and were trying to get everyone to do it in case I was raped or murdered, so they could identify my body. I felt violated and like I had no rights, like I was forced to do it and they could have done anything to me if I didn’t do it.”

The woman, who is facing a charge for driving while forbidden, said she did not remember the names of the officers, but she would discuss laying a complaint with her lawyer.

This allegation should be investigated. The Police file will reveal the names of the officers.

Merilyn McAuslin told the Herald her son was under duress when he gave a DNA sample in 2005, when he was 17 and in high school.

He was out with friends, one of whom graffitied a building, and their car number plate was reported.

When he went to the Newmarket police station with his mother, he was intimidated by an officer to identify the person who had done the graffiti.

He started to have a panic attack and was taken outside for some air and water. Mrs McAuslin said within a couple of minutes, a female police officer said a driving charge against her son would be dropped if he gave a DNA sample. “She got the DNA in a real moment of weakness for us.”

This case is five years old. I have some doubts over this, as the mother uses the terms”intimidation” in regards to her son revealing who did the graffiti. And why stay quiet for five years?

However the first case happened just this month, and people arrested for driving without a licence shouldn’t be coerced into giving DNA samples.

But there are two sides to every story – the Police can request samples. Where it becomes improper is if they attach consequences to a refusal to voluntarily comply – that turns it into coercion.

Kate Newton from the Dom Post reports:

The Government is hinting at tougher penalties for fleeing drivers – a day after the seventh fatal police chase since December.

Police Minister Judith Collins will meet Police Commissioner Howard Broad today to discuss police recommendations for vehicle pursuits, after two separate reviews.

The meeting comes after Troy Peter MacKay, 22, died in Christchurch yesterday when his car hit a tree during a pursuit.

Officers had spotted him weaving dangerously through traffic at speed. He died on the way to hospital. Two female passengers had moderate injuries.

He was the seventh person to die in a police pursuit since December.

There is a difficult balancing act in deciding whether to pursue. If you reward people for fleeing the Police by not following them, then you encourage more people to flee, and the victims of their crimes don’t get justice.

If you pursue someone at dangerous speeds, then the chances of innocent victims being caught up in a smash are enhanced.

I would generally support increased penalties for the offence of fleeing in a vehicle from Police. Maybe even automatic jail time, so that there is an incentive not to take off just to avoid a cannabis charge or a dic.

One other solution is to have more use of Police helicopters – but they are damn expensive, and our narrow roads can make it difficult.

Judith Collins has announced:

Viv Rickard has been appointed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Resource Management), Police Minister Judith Collins announced today.

Deputy Commissioner Rickard (Te Arawa, Ngati Porou and Ngati Whare) was previously Assistant Commissioner, National Operations at Police National Headquarters in Wellington.

The Governor-General makes the appointment on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The appointment is for a five-year term which begins today.

“Deputy Commissioner Rickard is a hugely respected Police officer who brings 25 years’ experience, including nine years on the Police Executive, to this important role,” Ms Collins said.

My understanding is that this appointment will be well received by police officers.

Rickard also becomes the first Maori New Zealander to reach the rank of Deputy Commissioner in the Police.

The Dom Post reports:

Speeding motorists used to driving 10kmh over the maximum speed limit will not get away with it this weekend, as police trial a zero tolerance policy to cut road deaths.

Police say New Zealand’s 10 per cent tolerance zone is higher than other countries, and cutting it could help change the attitudes of motorists who claim lives.

How many road deaths are caused by people driving at 56 km/hr in a 50 zone? Or 106 kmhr on a multi-lane motorway?

This is naked revenue gathering, which will see thousands of people fined for driving just over the speed limit, unaware that the tolerance has been lowered.

I supported a lowered tolerance around school buses and crossings. There t makes sense. Hell I tend to slow down to 30 km/hr around a school bus or crossing.

But a blanket lowering of the tolerance is about meeting ticket and/or revenue quotas.

The Automobile Association predicts the move will anger motorists unaware of the change, or driving with inaccurate speedometers.However, as another life was lost on our roads yesterday, national road policing manager Superintendent Paula Rose said police needed new weapons to change driver behaviour. “There can be no excuses. We are killing our people and we want it to stop.”

Bullshit. Road safety policy is a balance between safety and convenience. If the only focus was the road toll, then we would simply have a law requiring all vehicles to be fitted with a device that limits the maximum speed to 30 km/hr.

What I want to hear from the Police is the research they have done to conclude that lowering the threshold (which has been in place for around 30+ years) will be effective.

AA motoring affairs manager Mike Noon agreed that roads had to be made safer, but said the tolerance existed to allow for speedometer error, which could occur when motorists changed their tyres.

Speedometers were not checked during warrant tests and it would be difficult for motorists to measure such small speed differences.

To keep within the zone, they could end up spending more time on the wrong side of the road while passing, so police would need to enforce the change carefully, Mr Noon said.

The Police don’t eve use discretion any more for people passing slow moving traffic, even though it is basically impossible to do it legally. If a vehicle is driving at 90 km/hr, you will need two kms of clear road to safely pass them without exceeding 100 km/hr.

I am dismayed that once again changes are being made to road safety enforcement, that is not backed up by research showing this is a problem area. The Government is going for the easy targets, not the effective ones.

First they banned cellphones in cars, despite the research showing other distractions cause more accidents.

Secondly they seem highly likely to lower the blood alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05 despite the research showing only one death from drivers aged over 25 with a blood level between 0.05 and 0.08.

And now they have decided that the real problems out there are the motorists going 5 km/hr hour over the posted speed limit, who must be fined and demerited. Despite the fact I can guarantee you the number of accidents caused by people driving 5 km/hr over the speed limit on straight roads is minimal.

And what is the bet that if these measures don’t work, we will be told then even more measures are needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or perhaps Robin Bain did it?

Or the burglar who killed the Lundys.

As TV One reported last night, the crime stats out today are pretty ugly for violent crimes – the category that most people care about, along with sexual crimes.

As one can see, the trend since 2004 has not abated at all. The Government will be hoping that the 2010 statistics are not as bad, as by then people will be more expectant that law changes would have had an impact.

The sexual crimes rate has dropped a tiny bit, but had been pretty constant anyway.

The Police have also published a new report – on culpable deaths. It will be annual. Some key stats for 2009:

• 88 culpable deaths, being 65 murders and 23 manslaughters
• 66% of victims were male
• 14% of victims (12 of them) were aged under five. A terrible figure.
• 56% of victims are aged under 30
• 50% of the victims were Maori
• 34% of victims had a relationship to their killer
• 75% of female victims were killed by a family member or partner
• 1 parent was killed by their child
• 13 children were killed by their parent/s (including step)
• 17 people were killed by their partner
• 50% of deaths involved a weapon -
• 68% were killed in a dwelling,
• 25% were killed on a road or in a public place

The Herald talks about respect for the Police:

Mr O’Connor’s approach is even more problematic. He says a lack of guilty verdicts in the District Court had shown society and criminals that insulting the police is acceptable. It has also made the police reluctant to charge people for low-level offending using the legal provisions. “Cases show that it’s something police are expected to put up with, but it shouldn’t be,” says Mr O’Connor. His response is essentially a zero-tolerance policy that would see people shouting obscenities at the police convicted for insulting behaviour.

This raises several problems. The first is that the courts are merely reflecting societal mores in their approach to such offending. Obscenities do not have the same impact as they did, say, 30 years ago. Nor are the police alone in feeling that respect for their authority has dwindled. The teaching profession, for example, suffers from the same ailment. When it applies a zero tolerance approach, it means large-scale suspensions and expulsions.

That is as misguided as a policy that would burden overloaded courts further with low-level offences against the police for little gain. Zero tolerance does not work because its inflexibility leaves no room to deal with an out-of-character indiscretion or suchlike. Its approach to minor misdeeds is also far more likely to create a climate of fear than engender respect.

I think there is some linkage between the fact that people can now call the Police c**ts to their face, and that some of those people then also go on to assault them.

The Press focuses on irrigation:

The selection of two irrigation schemes among the four winners of a competition to find projects with a long-term potential capacity to make a significant contribution to the Canterbury economy demonstrates the significance of the appropriate use of its water resource to the region.

The fact that both schemes are extremely contentious shows also how arguments over the use of the resource are unlikely to be quickly resolved.

But if the judges are right, that these schemes are among a handful in Canterbury with the capacity to generate $100 million of revenue for Canterbury within five years and $1 billion or more in revenue within 10 years, it is obviously very important that the decisions that are reached on these projects are the right ones.

There is precious little else on the economic horizon with such potential.

I should get more excited about water issues in Canterbury as I know they are important, but frankly I don’t.

The Dominion Post looks at science funding:

In short, the Government appears to have heeded OECD criticism in 2007 that the public science system was unduly fragmented, as well as Sir Peter’s advice.

Science might be finally emerging from the shadows, its non-sexy status having long been reinforced by an often scientifically ignorant public, suspicious of the work many scientists do – take, for example, widespread distrust of genetic engineering, despite the public good it might do.

Thus, science is so often in the headlines for the wrong reasons.

Not last week, though. Then, two Wellington scientists were awarded the inaugural Prime Minister’s Science Prize for their research into the multimillion-dollar field of high-temperature superconductivity.

Both work for Industrial Research.Its chief, Shaun Coffey, says public-sector investment in the scientists’ endeavour has not only been repaid in terms of their work’s contribution to the economy, it has also positioned New Zealand “at the forefront of a new industry that is set to revolutionise the way electricity is used and distributed”. He knows the challenges ahead, however.

All eyes will be on the budget, as it has been made clear this is one of the few areas to get extra funding:

The ODT looks at the proposed tertiary education reforms:

Recent Cabinet decisions relating to funding for higher education and research suggest the Government is serious about its objective of raising knowledge standards and building a solid base for public and economic benefits from progress in science.

These are not easy decisions to make from a political perspective, since if they deliver hoped-for benefits they will do so only in the longer term.

There are few votes in such policies and it is to the Government’s credit that it is not afraid to embrace long-term goals for the greater good. …

The Government is in effect offering financial incentives for institutions tied to the improving educational performance of their students, which suggests that institutions with an aspirational goal of excellence, such as Otago university, can only benefit.

NZPA report:

Police have failed to find the source of the leaked Don Brash emails.

A police review of the investigation, involving almost 200 interviews, into the publication of the leaked emails from the then-leader of the National Party has been completed and the source of the emails could not be established. …

Almost 200 interviews were conducted with parliamentary employees, including I&T, security, messengers, cleaners and contractors, along with a number of other people, to corroborate information gathered in the original investigation.

Although no suspect leads were identified, the interviews did provide evidence of unsatisfactory security on the third floor both in terms of access to the floor and offices and to individual computers. These afforded opportunities for access to a range of documents, both hard copy and electronic.

We may never know the truth. I did ask Nicky Hager, when I last saw him, to consider revealing who did it and how, after that person/s has died, as he has a duty to history to reveal.

The Police have noted there was unsatisfactory security on the third floor. I believe the most likely way it happened was someone who does not work on the third floor, got in there and swiped the e-mails. It would have taken around two minutes to stick a flash drive in a PC and copy the Outlook file over.

The Herald reports:

Police have charged a former Government minister with abusing his ex-MP perk of taxpayer-subsidised flights.

Roger McClay is to appear in the Auckland District Court next Friday to face 56 charges of obtaining or using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage.

Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty would not confirm the criminal charges, citing sections of the Official Information Act that protect a person’s right to a fair trial and privacy.

Umm. What nonsense is this. If criminal charges have been laid, they are not a private matter. We have an open justice system. If Roger McClay does not have name suppression (which seems obvious) then the charges should be public.

The Herald has the background to the charges. I don’t know at this stage whether the charges are disputed or not – I imagine we will find out on Friday.

Homepaddock blogs on her stolen laptop:

Top marks to the police officer at Christchurch airport who was dealing with the case of my stolen laptop – he’s got it back.

The saga began early last month when I was careless. I put my laptop and case down while paying for parking, picked up the case when I’d finished and walked off without picking up the laptop too. When I realised what I’d done a few minutes later I returned to the pay machine to find the lap top had gone.

I reported it to a police officer who went through video footage in which he saw a bloke pick up the laptop and walk off with it. The information on how much he’d paid for parking enabled the officer to work out when he’d entered the car park so he trawled through the video from the entrance and got the car’s registration number.

He traced the driver from that to an ex-girlfriend’s address and then to two former employers but the trail went cold from there. However, he persevered, found the bloke, got him to return to the airport where he admitted he’d taken the laptop and still had it.

Now I am really impressed the officer went to such lengths, to recover one item. And some good logical thinking also. He:

1. searched the video footage of the area where the laptop was taken
2. Got the parking machine records to tell how much the offender had paid for parking
3. Deduced the likely time he entered the carpark
4. Pulled up the video from the car park entrance
5. Got the car registration number
6. Traced the car to an ex-girlfriend
7. Traced him from there to two ex-employers
8. And finally traced the offender down

I suspect many a copy may have given up, or said not much could be done. Great to see such dedication and perseverance.

Ele is also seeking feedback on whether or not the offender should be just given a warning, or charged and then given diversion.

I think it is better to have him charged, in case he offends again.

The NZ Herald reviews the tsunami alerts:

Civil Defence has done better this time. On Sunday morning, the organisation did not seem asleep on the job, as it did on the morning of the Samoan earthquake last year.

This time, the organisation could have been quicker to issue a tsunami alert on Saturday night. An hour after Chile was shaken by the magnitude 8.8 earthquake, Civil Defence was discounting the risk of tidal waves, but by midnight it was warning otherwise.

From sensors in the sea we learn the magnitude of a wave and the projected direction and distance it will travel. These are low and long volumes of water and their modest height is no indication of their destructive potential. Doubtless their coastal impact, or lack of it, depends partly on the contours of the seabed and shore that they strike, but surely more could be predicted from mid-ocean.

Why, for example, did the Chilean tsunami arrive with more force on the coast of Japan, twice as far from the epicentre as New Zealand? Plainly nowhere around the vast Pacific is immune to the wash from offshore earthquakes on its fiery perimeter.

A lot of people mistake the size of a tsunami for not being destructive. Anything that travels at 800 km/hr can be lethal – even if only 50 cm tall.

The Dom Post discusses respect for the law:

However, the growth in the number of attacks on police must be checked. In 2000, some 216 officers were attacked in the line of duty. Last year the number was 412.

When officers such as Mr Connolly attend a domestic dispute, respond to an emergency call, or step in to break up a fight, they are acting on behalf of the community. If the job becomes too dangerous, honourable, conscientious individuals will decide it is not worth the risk.

The community has to find some way to instil in the young a greater respect for the law and those who enforce it. Otherwise we will all be worse off. As Mr O’Connor has said: “An assault on police officers is more than an assault on the individual, it’s an assault on the security of society.” Parents of the lawless should bear that in mind.

And The Press also talks tsunamis:

After a powerful earthquake struck near Samoa in late September last year, and raised fears that a tsunami might hit coastal regions of New Zealand, the response of Civil Defence authorities was roundly criticised. A subsequent report found that the Ministry of Civil Defence had underperformed, especially with respect to its public information management responsibilities.

This report, and the public criticism, appear to have had a salutary effect, as shown by the far more efficient Civil Defence response during the weekend to the threat of a tsunami after the devastating Chilean earthquake. But this improved performance does not mean that there are no lessons to be learned from the latest tsunami scare.

I agree Civil Defence had much better communications this time.

And the ODT also talks tsunamis:

National civil defence alerted media, and by 7am Radio New Zealand National, as one example, was broadcasting nationwide alerts and warnings, and newspapers, such as the Otago Daily Times, had posted information on their websites.

The coordination between authorities and media outlets was much improved on that of a mere five months ago in the aftermath of the Samoan earthquake and the subsequent devastating tsunami.

So all around the consensus is an improved response.

The Herald says RNZ savings are not worth it:

Radio NZ’s budget last year was just $38.2 million, of which $34.2 million was public money. That points to the swingeing nature of the Government’s programme. While it is reasonable that all state-funded bodies should tighten their belts, it seems excessive to be waving a big stick at organisations where the potential savings are trifling.

The same penchant was, however, evident in last year’s Budget. Most controversially, cuts were made to adult night school programmes.

Again, the savings seemed hardly worth the trouble. Community education takes just 0.6 per cent of the tertiary education allocation, and the canned programmes provided value for money, if only because they gave hands-on instruction at schools that would, otherwise, not have been in use.

The Herald may be right that politically it might not be smart to take a lot of political heat, for relatively small fiscal savings. However I think it is more complex than that. If the Govt goes soft on one or two state agencies, then it is harder to keep fiscal discipline with the rest of them. State sector CEOs will find ways to live within means if they think everyone is doing so. But if you start giving into media campaigns for more funding, it incentivises other agencies to do the same. And then you end up having to borrow even more than $240 million a week.

The Press talks protecting police:

In response to the weekend violence the Government is considering introducing extra penalties for offenders who assault police officers, as is the case in Western Australia. Such a move might not deter drugged or drunken offenders from attacking officers, however.

Yet, it is still worth considering, as it would reinforce the special position the police have in our society to uphold the rule of law. It would also acknowledge the real, every-day risks faced by officers as they perform their duties.

If the Government did move to strengthen penalties it would have to be determined whether the new law would apply to off-duty officers who intervened in an incident. But because the public expects off-duty officers to respond to crimes they come across, and they would not be wearing anti-stab vests, they too should have the protection of such a law.

I favour increased penalties for assaults on Police. The Police get assaulted, basically on our behalf. They deal with the criminals and risk their lives often doing so.

The Dom Post flicks at Wellington parking wardens:

Of all the low-down, mean, sneaky tricks … While football fans were cheering the Wellington Phoenix to a nail-biting victory at Westpac Stadium on Sunday evening, parking wardens were ticketing the vehicles of 61 fans who had exceeded the maximum parking time outside the ground – because the match went into extra time, then a penalty shootout.

To its credit, Wellington City Council has waived the tickets, which threatened to turn the Phoenix’s triumph into a public relations disaster. But coming on top of other recent instances of over-zealous ticketing, the incident suggests something is amiss with parking operations. Proposals to install Big Brother-style parking surveillance cameras in Courtenay Place add weight to the theory.

The purpose of parking restrictions should be to ensure that as many people as possible can park in city and suburban streets, do their business and be on their way. It should not be to fatten the coffers of Tenix, the private company which manages Wellington parking, Parkwise, the Armourguard subsidiary to which Tenix contracts ticketing, or the council itself.

Hear hear. The incentives are all about revenue maximization, not giving parkers a fair go.

And the ODT looks at water woes in Canterbury:

Seldom has a local authority received such a slating as that just given to Canterbury’s regional council, Environment Canterbury (ECan), by a Government review panel.

The panel says the gap between what ECan does and what it should do is enormous and unprecedented. …

Yet some argue no change is needed.

The Dom Post reports:

The Taser is saving lives, and many criminals are simply surrendering at the sight of it, police say.

Nine people were shot with a Taser in its first year of use and some incidents were so violent, the offender could have been shot with a firearm, if the stun gun had not been available. …

Police incident reports issued to The Dominion Post reveal the extreme violence faced by police during the Taser incidents last year.

One man had just allegedly killed a man and was raging at neighbours with an axe. Another had stabbed himself with a samurai sword and was brandishing it at officers, a third attacked officers with a wheel brace and screwdriver, and another had stabbed a taxi driver in the head and fled in his stolen taxi.

In the Johnsonville case, a mentally ill man was tasered as he lunged at police with a hunting knife after a two-hour standoff.

Wellington area commander Inspector Pete Cowan said: “Potentially it was a case where a person could have been shot. It was a very, very good example of where … the Taser saved the offender’s life and potentially other members of the public and police.”

If the opponents of the taser had their way, then there would probably be some additional corpses. Offenders who are brandishing axes and swords would probably have been shot in the past.

But the opponents have done some good:

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said: “Perversely, the misinformation given out by the anti-Taser group has probably worked in the police and the public’s favour. People think the consequences of the Taser are worse than in reality they’re likely to be.”

Bring on the national roll-out.

In the SST, a story from Nicky Hager had the headline:

NZ’s cyber spies win new powers

Like many, I wondered what law change had been quietly passed into law in late 2009, without us noticing.

NEW CYBER-MONITORING measures have been quietly introduced giving police and Security Intelligence Service (SIS) officers the power to monitor all aspects of someone’s online life.

The measures are the largest expansion of police and SIS surveillance capabilities for decades, and mean that all mobile calls and texts, email, internet surfing and online shopping, chatting and social networking can be monitored anywhere in New Zealand.

Oh my God. When did this happen? Actually back in 2004. Not exactly new.

And it is not giving the SIS and Police the power to monitor themselves – it gave them the power to get a warrant to get a telco or ISP intercept communications – just as they have had the power for many decades to get a warrant to have phone calls intercepted.

Now this doesn’t mean I necessarily support the 2004 law change. I’ve blogged a series of articles highlighting draconian provisions in the Search and Surveillance Bill before Parliament. Nicky’s article would have been more useful however in 2004, than in 2010.

Police and SIS must still obtain an interception warrant naming a person or place they want to monitor but, compared to the phone taps of the past, a single warrant now covers phone, email and all internet activity. It can even monitor a person’s location by detecting their mobile phone; all of this occurring almost instantaneously.

Police say in the year to June 2009, there were 68 interception warrant applications granted and 157 people prosecuted as a result of those interceptions.

What would be interesting is the details of those 68 warrants – were they for all Internet activity, or just some?

The measures are the consequence of a law, the 2004 Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act, which gave internet and network companies until last year to install devices allowing automated access to internet and cellphone data.

Telecom, Vodafone and TelstraClear had earlier 2005 deadlines, and new cellphone provider 2degrees installed the interception equipment before launching last year.

So these “new” powers have actually been in place for four to five years, for 95% of the Internet population.

In an associated article, Hager says:

Not long ago, police and Security Intelligence Service (SIS) interception meant tapping your landline phone or bugging your kitchen. Now, under a new surveillance regime ushered in by the 2004 Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act, a basic interception warrant also allows them access to all your emails, internet browsing, online shopping or dating, calls, texts and location for mobile phones, and much more – all delivered almost instantaneously to the surveillance agencies.

To catch other sorts of communications, including people using overseas-based email or other services, all the local communications networks are wired up as well, to monitor messages en route overseas.

Interception equipment built permanently into every segment of the country’s communications architecture will provide the sort of pervasive spying capability we normally associate with police states.

Now Hager is right in that all telcos and ISPs have to have the capability to intercept all Internet communications by a user, if presented with a warrant. However what is not made clear in the article is that the ISPs themselves do the intercepting, and forward the data onto the appropriate authority. The article almost implies that the Police/SIS/GCSB can merely push a switch remotely, and hey presto your data flows to them.

The law gave network companies five years to install the intercept capabilities and the five years was up last year. Many network companies dragged their feet about installing the new surveillance equipment, despite government subsidy of the cost. After four years of inactivity, a consultant with police and SIS ties attended the NZ Network Operators Group conference in Dunedin last year to read them the riot act.

Dean Pemberton, who had previously set up and run “lawful interception” equipment at TelstraClear, told the roomful of network specialists what “the agencies” expected from them and said the agencies expected them to install devices that could intercept data and forward it to the agencies “on a minute by minute basis”. If companies didn’t have this gear in place, they risked a $500,000 fine and “should get a lawyer”, he said.

This part of the article is rather misleading, and I can speak from first hand knowledge as I was at that conference when Dean spoke.

The first thing people should understand is that Dean is what I call an alpha geek He is one of the guys who built the Internet in New Zealand and he attends and presents almost every year without fail to the NZNOG Conference.

In 2008 he spoke of his experiences with the Interception Act requirements, and what you had to do to comply. I doubt a single person in the room saw this as Dean “laying down the law”, let alone the implication he was speaking on behalf of the SIS or Police. Dean was doing what he normally does – sharing his experiences with the technical community.

There’s some good research in Nicky’s article about how the FBI were a prime mover in the request for NZ to have the interception capability, and it is true many NZers will be unaware of the interception capability. However the article would have been a lot more useful in 2004 when the law was being considered, or in 2005 when the big telcos implemented it.

Next I await a story about how the Post Office has been given new powers to intercept and read postcards

The DP editorial:

The shooting of 28-year-old Constable Jeremy Snow, predictably, has led to renewed calls for the police to be routinely armed. Those calls should be resisted. …

Many, notably Police Association president Greg O’Connor, believe those events mean that it is time to give police easier access to firearms.

I think the DP is simplifying the issue. I ended up discussing this with Greg O’Connor on The Panel, and Greg is not calling for all officers on patrol to be armed. What he did advocate is that generally all police cars should have arms in their boots, so they can be accessed quickly if needed.

Sadly there is probably nothing that could have stopped Constable Snow from being shot. The scum who did it opened fire with no warning.

However his two colleagues had to go in unarmed, to tend to his wounds. They saved his life. If they had access to arms in their car, they would have been safer in doing so.

Of course more access to firearms, means more training is needed.

There are other steps that should be tried before the question of routinely arming police is considered. The Taser, which is still being introduced, has the potential to provide police with a non-fatal alternative to firearms. Mr Broad has also talked of armed response vehicles with small teams of specially trained officers permanently on standby, but able to carry out routine frontline duties until they are needed.

The taser is a good choice if the offender is not armed with a gun themselves. But it is suicidal to go against an offender with a gun with a taser.

The concept of armed response vehicles on standby is laudable, but there are times when the five to ten minutes it will take to get there, will be too long.

Whale Oil has blogged the court summons he has received from the Police alleging breach of name suppression law.

He is due in court on the 5th of January. If he pleads not guilty, then it might be held over for hearing at a later date. He is seeking pro bono lawyers.

The Police have charged him over a post which they allege identifies the “musician” and for a post which they allege identifies the sportsman. In the latter case, they also allege his post identified the alleged victim.

The two charges of breaching a name suppression order are under s140(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.  The maximum fine is $1,000 per offence, but this can be for every day the breach continues (if proven).

The charge of identifying the alleged victim is under s139(1), but also has a maximum fine of $1,000.

So even if Whale is found guilty, it would just be a fine at this stage. If it later turned into an issue of contempt of court, then a jailed whale would be a possibility