Jordan Williams writes in the Dom Post:

Green MP Holly Walker’s Lobbying Disclosure Bill is being sold to the public with the best of intentions.  But as drafted, it constructs such a barrier between MPs and members of the public that it will take us closer to the American-style lobbying industry the bill’s  supporters are hoping to avoid.

I agree with Jordan on this. Often a perverse consequence of regulation in an area, is that it drives out the “good” and only leaves standing those absolutely determined.

Take electoral finance laws and regulations. The US has the most corrupt political finance system in the OECD, yet it has the most regulated. They cap maximum donations, require every donation to be listed online instantly, and the effect has been that lobby groups set up PACs so they can still donate, while Joe Average is scared off.

The bill makes lobbying activity a criminal offence for all but those preregistered with the auditor-general.  It requires all communications, even informal conversations, to be publicly disclosed with the client’s identity and interests detailed.

The bill is badly drafted.  For example it defines “lobbying activity” so widely that it covers any business writing to an MP.

Further, it covers even the most modest or ancillary advocacy.  An accountant emailing an MP about a tax policy on behalf of a client will be committing a criminal offence unless the accountant is a registered lobbyist.  A fine of up to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for companies can be imposed.  Even a local farm manager complaining to the local MP at the supermarket about emissions policy would be covered.

The bill doesn’t just cover businesses.  The inclusion of voluntary organisations mean a single email sent by a manager on behalf of a local RSA is illegal unless the manager is also registered as a “lobbyist”. 

Some of these flaws can be fixed at select committee. But it is possible some can not be. 20 years ago almost all communications with MPs were face to face meetings in their offices. Today you engage with MPs in person, at airport lounges, at functions, on Twitter, via e-mail, via Facebook etc.

The Greens’ bill risks our open and accessible political system. As Kiwis we’re fortunate in our ability to easily access our elected representatives.  Most MPs run constituency clinics.  It’s not hard to have half an hour of an MP’s time. We are a small country with very accessible MPs.  Why introduce “big city” barriers between the people and their representatives?

Arguing  the bill is good because it pursues “transparency” is naive.  A law that requires prior registration and public disclosure of every communication with an MP for anyone with a financial interest in lobbying a policy will disincentivise even emailing politicians.  That means it’s harder for MPs to get the information and insights they need.

That’s not good for democracy.  If the bill becomes law, policy arguments will soon turn on who is making them instead of the merits.

That is a real risk.

We want our MPs receiving free and frank briefings from those whom proposed laws are likely to impact. Historically, communication with an MP has been privileged for that reason.  The attorney-general has identified the bill as conflicting with the right for freedom of expression.  Unpopular organisations or causes risk being ostracised.

The Greens will incentivise New Zealanders to use fulltime lobbyists.

Because the bill covers even the most minimal advocacy, it will drive more businesses and organisations to use professionals.  We should protect our culture of picking up the phone and calling our MP.

From my point of view and that of my firm, Holly Walker’s bill will be great for business.  It will push Wellington toward Washington.

But as a constitutional lawyer and New Zealander, I believe the bill should be rejected.

I think the bill is well intentioned, and my preference is to amend it rather than reject it. but it will be challenging to find a compromise that doesn’t have the unintended consequences Jordan writes of.

The Dom Post editorial:

The anti-Muslim movie blamed for the wave of violence sweeping across the Muslim world is an appalling piece of propaganda. The work of a convicted conman, it is utterly without merit – artistic, historical or intellectual.

The same might  also be said of the grotesque caricatures published  by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo depicting the prophet Mohammed in a range of demeaning positions. They are offensive, insulting and designed to provoke.

Neither, however, is reason for the murder of innocents, the storming of embassies or the further propagation of hatred. Perhaps the most shocking of all the images seen since United States ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed in an attack linked to the movie was that of a small child at a protest in Sydney holding aloft a sign bearing the words: ”Behead all those who insult the Prophet.”

That is not the Australian way, it is not the Western way and it should not be the way anywhere. As one Australian politician observed: ”Kids of this age should be playing hide and seek, not calling for jihad or beheadings.”

That was so incredibly disturbing. The one good thing from it is that there has been such a backlash against these violent protests in Australia, that the extremists are being marginalised.

Adam Roberts at the Nelson Mail reports:

Nelson children as young as 8 are faking their way into social media sites by using a second date of birth that puts them above the services’ age restrictions, an internet safety expert says.

Nelson-based internet safety and risk assessment consultant John Parsons said he had recently spoken to a number of young pupils at schools around the region, and what he had heard had shocked him.

In a survey of 100 children aged 8, 9 and 10, 66 had admitted to having a Facebook account, with an average of 320 friends.

Mr Parsons said parents were raising a generation of children with two dates of birth.

They had their real one “when they get presents”, and another that they created to gain entry to social networks like Facebook, which requires users to be 13 and over.

Often their stated date of birth on such networks gave them an age in their 20s.

“They have an intimate connection with their fake one as well, they know their age online.

“It’s a strange thing to see 8 and 9-year-olds quote that age back to you quite seamlessly.”

Allowing children to lie their way into social networks did not send the right message, and was akin to teenagers using a fake ID to enter a local bar.

The solution to stopping kids fake their age to use Facebook is to lower the age barrier from 13. That way no fake age needed, and you could have some additional safety and privacy features wrapped around younger users.

One of my mate’s daughters isn’t yet 10 but is 22 on Facebook. She has 105 friends.  More disturbingly she “likes” Southpark – an influence I blame her Father for!

“Sleepy”

A male papango (native NZ scaup). Click for larger, higher res image

[Zenfolio Albums]

Stuff reports:

A teenage immigrant is worried about his family’s safety after learning they will be sent back to Fiji from Taranaki because he stood up to domestic violence.

He and his family join others who have left volatile surroundings only to find they effectively became illegal immigrants because they had no independent visa status. …

Late last year, he woke to find his father beating his mother but instead of cowering in a corner he called police.

His father was arrested and jailed last year, and then deported a few months ago.

The wife was attached to her husband’s work visa and was now fighting a losing battle to remain in New Zealand with her two sons.

Immigration New Zealand turned down his mother’s application for a work visa because a Kiwi can do her job, and the family could be deported as early as the beginning of next year.

Racked with guilt, Nick now wishes he had gone back to bed and said nothing about the incident.

“If I knew this would all happen, I wouldn’t have called the police. I will never call them again.”

The last thing we want to do is discourage people from reporting domestic violence. I hope the immigration authorities show some common sense, or compassion.

   Video and transcripts of this show will be posted on  www.frontpage.co.nz  on Sunday afternoon..

1. Justice Minister Judith Collins on law and order etc.
2. Retiring Serious Fraud Office CEO, Adam Feeley on his wins and losses at the SFO.
3. Monetary policy and the dollar — Don Brash, David Parker and Winston Peters debate Mr Peters Private Members’ Bill to amend the Reserve Bank Act.
4. Colin James on the politics of Ms Collins and the debate over the value of the dollar.
5. The Sunday Media Panel will be Bill Ralston and Newstalk ZB’s Susan Wood

The Herald reports that in August 2008 the share price for RIM was $132.40 and for Apple $176.03. Fairly close.

Today the price for Apple is $701.91 and RIM is $7.25.

So four years ago $100,000 would get you 568 Apple shares or 755 RIM shares.

If you had invested in RIM you would now have $5,475 left – you would have lost 95% of your $100,000.

If you had invested in Apple you would now have $398,744 and would have 299% of your $100,000.

Now it is very sad for all the RIM staff who have lost their jobs, and all the RIM investors who have lost 95% of their investment.

But this is how the market works. Some companies succeed, and some fail. Some people get rich, and some become poorer. Yes, you have massive income and asset inequality.

I’m not surprised by the fall off in value for RIM. Three years ago almost everyone in business had a Blackberry. Now I see one about as often as Haley’s comet. Quite simply Apple produced a much better product, and customers voted with their feet.

This video Whale has done from last night’s news is disturbing.

I’m all for kids getting informed about political issues, but it is obviously the teachers here are just using their kids as weapons. I bet you none of them sat down with their classes and explained the pros and cons of schools having to close or merge because of earthquake damage and/or 3,500 fewer students.

Whale notes:

As the footage shows, teachers were showing kids how to chant, raise their fists in the air, and most worryingly, it even included an 8 year old attacking the Prime Minister. An 8 year old!

One wonders whether any dissent is tolerated by teachers at these schools and how a child who disagreed might get treated. Do you think they had any choice?

Quite sickening really.

Colin Craig has proclaimed:

Colin Craig, Leader of the Conservative Party has responded to yesterday’s vote by the Australian Parliament that overwhelmingly quashed their gay marriage bill.

Mr Craig says “Once again Australia has made the smart decision by refusing to make unnecessary and detrimental changes to the definition of marriage. This is another example of Aussies showing us how to do it, and will further support the trend of New Zealanders leaving for Australia.”

He actually put this in a press release? Wow, does he need a better press secretary.

Lyndon Hood tweeted:

People leaving NZ because they can’t stand the idea of homosexuals marrying each other. Colin Craig says a risk; I say a bonus.

I’m with Lyndon on that one. Personally I doubt a single person will swap countries because of how Australia and NZ voted on same sex marriage. Anyway, Australia will I am sure vote the same way within a decade.

The Labor MPs who voted against include Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan. The vote was 42 in favour and 98 against. 38 Labor MPs voted for it, and 33 voted against or did not vote.

I just took part in a panel and debate/discussion on gender diversity on NZX listed boards. This was at the NZ Initiative’s Miro Summit. Was a very interesting discussion with contributions from some very experienced board directors – both male and female.

It is Chatham House rules, so can’t quote people directly but I can quote my own remarks, which are below:

New Zealand has a reasonably good track record of achievement for women.

Yesterday was the 119^th anniversary of the day women in NZ got the vote, after Governor Lord Glasgow signed the new Electoral Act into law – making NZ the first independent country to do so.

 Some of the arguments against suffrage included “Would the home-loving New Zealand wife be ‘unsexed’ by participation in politics, her grace and softness lost? Would her husband be less than a man to allow her to participate? Would the reform lead to unthinkable role reversals where wives made the speeches and husbands fried the chops?”

Personally I quite like frying chops, and thinks we can agree we have come a long way in 119 years.

 As many of us know we recently had a female Prime Minister (as was her predecessor) a female Governor-General, Speaker, Chief Justice, and CEO of the then largest private sector company.

However that does not mean all is rosy for women of course. We have research showing women get paid less than men on average. I won’t fall into the trap of Alasdair Thompson and repeat his suggestion as to the cause. There are in fact a number of factors behind the average pay difference. One of the most interesting is that there is a pay differential even very early on in a professional career – long before factors should as time off for children comes into play. It seems the reason might be that young men are more aggressive pay negotiators – they will push for more pay, while young women tend to accept whatever the employer offers.

 But to put things in context, the gender pay gap in NZ is the 2^nd lowest in the OECD.

 NZX has just 9% of directors who are women on their top 100 board. The ASX is up to 13% or their top 200. The NZX numbers may improve with their new disclosure rule, but frankly both 9% and 13% are embarrassingly low numbers. To be fair to Australia I understand 25% of new appointments are women following a voluntary gender disclosure rule. NZX of course is implementing a mandatory one. In the US the Fortune 500 companies have 16% female directors.

Now one can take a view, so what. Does it matter if boards are all men, as 57% of NZX100 boards are? Should we be gender-blind when it comes to board members? Personally I think diversity is important on boards – not just gender diversity, but skills diversity and personality diversity also. A board of seven insurance actuaries would be as unbalanced as a board comprised of seven entrepreneurs such as Rod Drury.

But does gender matter? Well there is an old book called men are from Mars and women are from Venus and while that is about relationships, I think it reflects that men and women do often think differently. There are some advertisements that men love and women loathe, and vice-versa.

There is also some empirical research. A study of Fortune 500 companies in the US from the 25% of companies that had the most female board members had 53% higher return on equity than those companies in the bottom 25% in terms of female board members. This is a correlation, not necessarily causative, but still powerful research. It would be very interesting to see someone apply the same research methodology to NZ, and see if the results are the same. Maybe Oliver can add it to his work list!

Some say there are not enough women who have the commercial experience to be directors of NZX companies. Putting aside the fact this can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, I don’t accept this.

For many years now more women than men graduate from university. In 2010 55% of commerce and business graduates were women. 59% of law graduates are women. And overall 64% of all graduates are women. On a separate issue, we need to do something about male education in this country.

I’ve been on a couple of company boards as a non-executive director. All four of my boards chairs have been women, and while these were small organisations, I certainly rate their ability to serve on boards of larger companies if they had the opportunity. One of them in fact has served on almost a dozen central and local government owned company boards with distinction, including major SOEs. She’s a fellow of the Institute of Directors yet until last year I believe she had never been on the board of a NZX listed company. 

 23% of IOD members are women, which means there are roughly 1,300 female directors in New Zealand of whom only 45 are on an NZX100 board. In the state sector 41% of directors are women. So again I don’t accept that the 9% figure is simply because there are not enough suitable women. I note two of our largest law firms are now chaired by women – Russel McVeagh and Minters.

But despite the fact we do have a clear problem, I do not favour mandated quotas for board members, for six reasons. 

1. Philosophical – not the role of the state to tell shareholders who to put on their boards. Companies are entitled to make bad decisions. We already see too much effort from the Government in trying to tell both people and businesses what to do.
2. Slippery Slope – why stop at mandated gender diversity. Race and age could well have arguments made for them as we have few Maori and few young directors. I think age is arguably just as important in terms of having diversity of thought around the board table.
3. If we single out gender as a proxy for diversity, then we may give a false confidence and weaken efforts to improve diversity in other areas.
4. One size doesn’t fit all. While it is unwise for most companies to have all male boards, companies which specialise in, for example, men’s clothing might be fine. Mind you, in my experience most men have women choose their clothes for them, so maybe not the best example.
5. A quota may not lead to more women on boards – just lead to Roseanne Meo being on 20 boards instead of 10!
6. With a quota system, there will be a suspicion that some appointments will be tokenistic, and some female directors will be judged as having succeeded in getting board appointments only because of their gender. That’s unfair to them.

So having identified the problem, and also rejected quotas as a solution, what would I do.

Well I think the problem is the method of recruitment for Directors amongst large NZX100 companies. Most recruitment seems to be done informally amongst those who are known to current Directors, which makes it hard for new Directors to break through.

NGOs and smaller companies often formally advertise for directors, as does the Crown and Local bodies. It is rare you see an NZX company advertise.

Why on earth do large companies still hand pick directors? Imagine if your CEO told you that they are not going to advertise for a COO, but instead appoint someone he or she knows to be well qualified. You’d tell the CEO to pull their head in, and advertise the role. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I think the solution, or a partial solution, is not quotas, but instead just persuading NZX companies to operate open recruitment processes for directors. The new disclosure policy should identify the companies that have all male boards, and it will be very interesting to compare how many of them do open recruitment of directors, compared to those who use the shoulder tapping method.

So in summary I do believe that companies should be allowed to make mistakes, and they should be allowed to have all male boards, but believe the combination of the initiatives by NZX, the IOD, the Govt and more generally the business community will see NZX boards become move diverse over the next five to ten years. But even if they do not, then the Government has no more of a role mandating gender quotas on private company boards, than they do regulating the maximum pressure of shower nozzles.

I should point out that one Director pointed out most NZX companies do do searches for new Directors, rather than just approach someone they know – however they tend not to advertise – rather use specialist recruitment agencies.

The Herald reports:

There are moves underway to clean up the Wellington Sevens, now that it’s an Olympic sport.

The Wellington leg of the international tournament has gained a reputation as being a non-stop party, with dozens of arrests often taking place for drunken behaviour.

General manager Steve Walters says they’ve been surveying the rugby community as to whether they think limiting alcohol, or introducing a ‘dry zone’ for part of the first day, is a good idea.

An alcohol free Sevens – yeah right. All that would happen is no one would buy tickets for the actual games, still dress up in costumes, get drunk in town and watch it on screens at the bars.

If they have an alcohol free zone at the Sevens, they won’t need more than 20 seats or so.

Chris Hipkins blogs:

 Today at midday there’ll be a ballot for members’ bills, with two places available on the Order Paper. A preliminary ballot will be held to determine which of the following bills will be entered in the main ballot:

20. Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill – Hone Harawira
22. Education (Food in Schools) Amendment Bill – David Shearer

In my view, the Clerk’s decision to conduct a preliminary ballot to determine which of these two bills, which have similar aims, goes into the ballot is the wrong one. While the goals of the two bills are similar, the means of achieving them a very different. The test needs to be whether the bills are substantially the same in their ‘content’, not whether they are the same in the outcome they seek to achieve.

For example, if two bills were put up around the transportation of goods from Wellington to Auckland, and one sought to do so via rail and one via road, if we used ‘outcome’ as the criteria for determining whether they were the same, only one bill would go in the ballot, yet clearly the bills are very different in their content. We’ll be relitigating this for sure, but for today at least, only one of these bills will make it into the ballot.

You can see the full list of bills in today’s ballot after the break. I’ll post the results just after midday.

Update: Hone Harawira’s Bill made it into the ballot and the following were drawn:

Conservation Natural Heritage Protection Bill – Jacqui Dean
Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill – Charles Chauvel

Heh, no wonder Labour are annoyed. Imagine if Hone got his bill drawn on what they are trying to make their signature issue.

I wanted to look at both bills, to see if I agree with Hipkins that the bill are different enough to let them both go through. My gut reaction is you trust the Office of the Clerk who have no political motives, but they are not infallible.

But Shearer’s bill is not on the parliamentary website. I don’t know why. Maybe it was only finished this morning. Hone’s bill is here. Hopefully Shearer’s bill will go online at some stage, so we can judge for ourselves.

The Dom Post editorial:

The exact date of Maori arrival in New Zealand is a mystery, although carbon dating and Maori oral tradition point to the 13th century. About one thing, however, there is no doubt. Contrary to the impression created by the bellicose posturing of the Maori king, Maori have not ”always owned the water”.

Scientists estimate New Zealand broke away from the Gondwana supercontinent about 85 million years ago. Give or take a few hundred millennia, that means Maori have inhabited the country for about 0.0009 per cent of the time it has existed as a distinct entity. Rain fell from the skies, coursed down the hills and found its way into rivers, streams and lakes for millions of years before Maori first hauled their canoes up onto beaches, and will continue to do so long after humanity has ceased to exist. Claiming ownership of the water is about as foolish as claiming ownership of the wind, the air or the stars.

Thank you.

That is not to say Maori do not have a spiritual and emotional connection to particular waterways and lakes. They do, as do many non-Maori. Nor is it to deny that Maori may have ”residual proprietary” interests in particular streams, rivers and lakes arising from guarantees contained in the Treaty of Waitangi. The Waitangi Tribunal has ruled they do and Crown lawyers have effectively conceded the point. The argument is over the extent and nature of those interests.

However, to suggest, as King Tuheitia did, that Maori own the water in the same way that someone can be said to own a television set, washing machine or pair of shoes is nonsensical.

Water cannot be owned; water rights can be, but they are a different thing and come with lesser entitlements. Conflating the two antagonises non-Maori, raises Maori expectations to levels that cannot be satisfied and undermines public support for the settlement of historic grievances.

Exactly. The posturing of the King has damaged his own cause – significantly.

The Press reports:

Food addiction should be recognised as a medical condition so obese people can get help to quit, the National Addiction Centre director says.

Almost a third of the population could be addicted to food – yet struggling addicts received no support or funding, unlike people at the other end of the spectrum who receive help for eating disorders such as anorexia, Christchurch-based Professor Doug Sellman said.

He will address an Australasian psychiatry conference in Wellington today on research into food addiction.

The symptoms were similar to those in drug and alcohol addicts, he said.

“Like people with methamphetamine, you don’t get the shaking, but it’s the craving, feeling deprived and really needing it. It’s like they need those particular foods as if their lives depended on it.

I’d be careful about those comparisons. One can live very happily without alcohol or drugs. As far as I know, it is difficult to survive without food.

But I have no doubt that this will be used to demand that the Government regulate food, so eventually you can only buy government approved non-branded food in plain brown paper bags.

From Hansard yesterday:

I think that there is incredible scope for community building projects, which the Green Party would support. That would enable young people—people who feel disenfranchised and feel like they are not part of society—to have activities that do not result in this destructive vandalism of private property, and also cause the ongoing ensuing social impacts that I mentioned before. I think there is great potential there, and I think it would be sad if we wrote-off people who are currently tagging as people who could not become constructive members of society and channel their passion, their bravery, and their willingness to flout the law into something more successful.

Taggers are brave and passionate? Oh dear Julie Anne.

I was a grateful guest of ANZ at the ceremony last night for Valerie Adams. Actually it was for really for the entire Olympic team, and all the medalists – which was nice. Of course Valerie getting her gold medal was the highlight, and we were told it was the first time an Olympic gold medal has ever been presented in NZ. NZOC Patron, Sir Jerry Mateparae did the presentation.

Adams looked fantastic – glowing and proud. The Cloud was packed to the brim, and I think they also had some people outside. After the ceremony, ANZ put on some pretty cool fireworks which included the Olympic rings.

Probably still not quite the same as getting the gold medal at the Olympic stadium, but hopefully this came close for Adams.

Funniest moment of the night for MC John Hawkesby having to pronounce the name of of the Tongan Royal Lupe’oloHalaevalu TupouMoheofo Virginia Rose Tuita daughter of HRH Princess SaloteMafile’sPilolevu Tuita, and then following that with Len Brown whom he thanked for his name 🙂

Meandering Boardwalk, Okarito Lagoon, Westland, New Zealand
Photography By Todd Sisson

Welcome to the  tardiest Wednesday Wallpaper post yet.  It has been a frantic day, blog posts and social media have had to slip down the priority list – I toyed with posting this tomorrow, but couldn’t arrive at any catchy strap-line to tie in with Thursday….

This boardwalk is on the Okarito Trig track.  It must have been constructed during more fiscally ebullient times (read: during Helen’s reign) as it is a magnificent exercise in whimsical form and folly.  I love it. Its meandering form really is beautiful to behold and it is much more fun to walk over than the practical and economically sensible alternative – a straight boardwalk.

The rest of the walk is wonderful too and culminates in some redonkulously good views of the Southern Alps.

You may download the large version from this link:  [free iPad wallpaper] Password = freewallpaper

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd

[www.sisson.co.nz] [blog]

This video is of 13 year old Carly Rose Sonenclar on X Factor. Incredible talent.

An important rule in politics is to attack your opponent and their policies, but never to attack their voters. Mitt Romney broke this rule with his comments on how 47% of Americans will vote for Obama as they don’t pay income tax.

He is not the first major politician to say something at what he thought was a private meeting, and have it bite him. Obama himself in 2008 said that those who don’t support him tend to “cling to their guns or religion”. However his phrasing was not as harmful as Romney’s.

Romney always needed a strong campaign to win. He hasn’t had one and time is running out.

538 has Obama at 75% likely to win. Intrade now has him at 67%, which is a significant increase. For the first time also, the market has the Democrats favoured to retain control of the Senate.

It would be very hard for the Republicans to lose the House, so at this stage the most likely outcome is the status quo.

A good example of the investigative journalism we need more of in NZ. Martin van Beynen at The Press reports:

The construction manager of the deadly Canterbury Television building stole the identity of a professional engineer and faked an engineering degree, an investigation has revealed.

Gerald Shirtcliff, now 67, supervised the construction of the CTV building which was finished in about October 1987. It collapsed on February 22 last year, taking the lives of 115 people, when Christchurch was hit by a 6.3 magnitude earthquake.

The Canterbury earthquakes royal commission has been told of a number of construction defects with the building, although Shirtcliff denies he had much to do with the site.

In evidence to the commission last month he claimed to be a “graduate engineer” and that he had been a supervisor on construction projects in South Africa. Inquiries by The Press, in Christchurch,  suggest these assertions are misleading.

Shirtcliff, who was educated at Rongotai College and left school to work in a Wellington bank, has lived off and on in Australia since about 1970 under the name William Anthony Fisher. …

A month-long investigation by The Press shows Shirtcliff in 1970 stole the identity of an English engineer called William Anthony Fisher, with whom he worked in South Africa in 1968 and 1969. Shirtcliff has lived as William Fisher in Australia for over 25 years, and now resides in Brisbane, driving a late-model Mercedes and enjoying a spacious house and a $200,000 motor launch.

When Shirtcliff left South Africa towards the end of 1969 to settle in Sydney he took on Fisher’s identity including his birthplace, birthdate and his bachelor of engineering from the University of Sheffield.

Shirtcliff then used the real Will Fisher’s BEng to gain entry into a masters programme at the University of New South Wales in 1971 and also to become a member of the Australian Institute of Engineers in 1972. As “Will Fisher” he was awarded a master of engineering science degree in highway engineering in April 1974.

He later worked as an engineer for a Sydney firm, then called MacDonald, Wagner and Priddle (to become Connell Wagner and then Aurecon), before returning to New Zealand in the mid-80s, to work under his Shirtcliff name.

In New Zealand he purported to be a “registered” engineer and at one time a “chartered” engineer.

Shirtcliff used his new identity on company documents and also to try to avoid extradition to New Zealand on the fraud allegations. He spent a week in a Brisbane jail in 2003 before conceding he was actually Gerald Shirtcliff.

A fascinating discovery which would have taken a lot of detective work.

Marty Sharpe at Stuff reports:

A recruitment agency manager says he has lost faith in criminal record checks after a loophole in the law brought him close to employing a child-sex offender.

The loophole means convictions for which name suppression is granted do not appear on a person’s criminal record unless that person requests a full record. It was brought to light this month by The Dominion Post after it revealed that a voluntary organisation in Hawke’s Bay had unknowingly taken on a man convicted of raping his daughter because his conviction was omitted from his criminal record.

In the latest case, the branch manager of a national recruitment agency requested a criminal record check from the Justice Ministry on a job applicant, and was told there was “no information held or able to be released”.

By the time the letter arrived, the applicant had already admitted he had a past conviction for sexually assaulting a minor, and was not offered the job.

The unnamed manager, who has been in the recruitment business for more than a decade, said he called the ministry and was told: “He may have been telling the truth, but we had a suppression order so could not tell you anything.”

“I said, ‘Well hang on, you’ve sent me a ministry document that makes no mention of his serious crime. I could have put him in a position with a cleaning outfit contracted to a school. I can’t see how that’s right.’

“She told me the only person who can overrule the suppression was the judge.

I’m not sure if you need a law change for this, but what may solve this issue is a certificate that does not detail what the convictions are, but states the person has convictions.

Where name suppression was granted to protect the victim (as the offender may have been a relative) should not end up creating further victims.

Stuff reports:

Kiwi director Peter Jackson says he’ll be there to direct it if an idea to film Dr Who in  New Zealand goes ahead.

Matt Smith, the 11th actor to play the time traveller in the hit BBC series, said today he would start a campaign to film an episode in New Zealand with Sir Peter Jackson directing.

”I think it would be an absolutely wonderful place to film Doctor Who,” Smith, on the phone from the UK to promote the latest series of the show, said.

”I’m told it’s glorious. I’m told it’s quite similar to England.

‘Let’s get Peter Jackson to direct one and go and make it in New Zealand. I would love to, I will campaign endlessly to come over and film there,” Smith, who has never been to New Zealand, said.

”There’s clearly a great film industry out there. It’s something I would be very interested in it’s just whether we can persuade the producers to fly us all over.”

The idea is not as far fetched as one of the cult sci-fi series’ plots with Jackson telling the Waikato Times today he was keen to help out.

”I’m a huge Dr Who fan, and I think Matt’s fantastic. Just name a time and place, and I’ll be there!”

What a great idea. I’m equally excited by the possibility of having it filmed in NZ, and having Jackson direct an episode.