Stuff reported:

A distraught Sharon Armstrong says she was duped into smuggling five kilograms of cocaine by an online lover.

“Oh God, I feel so foolish,” she told The Dominion Post from her Argentinian cell yesterday. “You know I’ve worked for the government for 20 years. I’ve just been a silly old lady. Silly, silly, silly and too trusting. I’ve been scammed. This is just so shameful.”

Friends and family say her arrest is out of character and believe Ms Armstrong, 54, is the victim of an online dating scam.

The former deputy chief executive of the Maori Language Commission had been a contractor at Wellington Maori education and language company Haemata since February.

An Argentinian official said she was arrested on April 13 as she was waiting to board British Airways flight BA2444 to London.

The cocaine was found after she had checked in her baggage, the official said. A security scan revealed the cocaine concealed by a false bottom in her suitcase.

For several months, Ms Armstrong had been exchanging emails and chatting on Skype with a man she had met online.

She was due to travel to London to meet him but, at the last minute, her flights were changed to go via Argentina, where the man reportedly asked her to pick up some documents relating to a new job.

Friends and family repeatedly warned Ms Armstrong it could be a scam. But the man had put about $1000 toward the cost of the altered tickets, and she thought he was legitimate. She has not heard from him since her arrest.

Considering her family and friends warned her it was a scam, one would have thought that any request to take someone’s luggage should have been refused – especially from someone you have never met.

I’ve only once taken an item for someone else on a plane, and that was taking a pram to London for a very good friend’s pregnant sister.

The latest update is:

A former top public servant accused of cocaine smuggling in Argentina has defended carrying more than one driver’s licence, saying she is “not a criminal”.

Sharon Armstrong, 54, was arrested by police in a Buenos Aires airport about two weeks ago after 5 kilograms of cocaine was discovered in the false bottom of her suitcase.

Police confiscated personal effects, including an iPhone, passport, Farmers card and Argentinian, Australian and United States cash. Officials said they also found four driver licences.

But Ms Armstrong said yesterday she had three licences – New Zealand, Australian and Cook Islands – with her. The Australian licence was for when she visited family, and the $10 Cook Islands licence had expired.

If they are all in your name it is not that suspicious. However while IIRC the Cooks do require you to get a local licence (earns them revenue), as far as I know one can use a NZ licence in Australia. So it does raise some suspicions.

I don’t know Sharon Armstrong, and hope if she is an innocent dupe she is not punished for her stupidity. But I hope she can provide some proof that she was doing this for love, not payment. The difference is several years jail.

Been meaning to comment on this post by Danyl at Dim Post for a while, as I would hate anyone to think Danyl is actually correct with his assertion than I regularly con and play journalists – something insulting to me as much as to them. First of all let’s take the article which prompted his post – a profile of Grant Robertson in the Herald quoting me saying:

Kiwiblogger and right-wing commentator David Farrar believes Robertson will be at the forefront of a leadership challenge within the next two terms . . .

Now in Danyl’s world, my comments were part of a cunning plot by National to undermine Phil Goff, and not my honest belief. He should have checked the timing of when I made the comments, and what I actually said.

When Phil Goff did his reshuffle in early Feb I said:

The Robertson move is the best part of the reshuffle. Tony Ryall will have a more challenging time with Grant against him. Health is traditionally a strong area for Labour, and the fact they have performed so dismally in this area has to change, for them to be competitive. It also marks the high regard Robertson is held in, to get it in just two years. He is a future Labour Prime Minister in my opinion.

The next day I blogged:

I’ve long said that I think Grant will become Labour Leader, and indeed probably even a Labour Prime Minister.

I don’t think he will be the next leader, but the one after that. He is young enough to be able to wait his time.

So my initial blogs were praising Goff for Robertson’s promotion, and explicitly saying that I do not think he will be the next leader but maybe the one after that.  Several times I have said that I do not think Grant would be a contender until after 2014 election.

It was shortly after that the Herald rang me as they were doing a profile on Grant, and wanted my comments on why I rate him. Now this was in early to mid February – weeks before the Darren Hughes affair occured and before there was any talk at all of a challenge to Goff.

So Danyl has it 100% wrong when he insinuates that my comments were designed to undermine Goff, and that I conned Derek into running them. Goff’s leadership was not an issue when I made my comments and further more I explicitly said that Grant would not be the next leader.

This is unless Danyl thinks I knew in advance that Darren Hughes would go home with an 18 year old who would flee naked from his home, and that Goff would take no action over it, hence creating leadership speculation.

The other thing Danyl doesn’t realise is that far from my praise of Grant being a cunning National Party plot, it generally results in a flurry of angry phone calls and e-mails from National Party people. I am a member of Wellington Central National Party, a former campaign chair for the seat, and a mate of the just selected candidate. Let me assure you that local Nats get very unhappy when I say good things about Grant. And so do a few Nats at 1 Molesworth Street.

Danyl’s fantasy of this all being some cunning plan of the 9th floor is hilarious, if he could tap my phone. I get some seriously pissed off people calling.

The only thing that makes up for the hostility my comments on Grant’s abilities generate for me from Nats, is the knowledge that they probably generate equally hostile comments to Grant from his Labour activists 🙂

So having dealt with the specific, let’s turn to the more general:

Describing DPF as  ‘Kiwiblogger and right-wing commentator’ is an improvement on outlets like TV3 and NewsTalkZB that just describe him as ‘blogger and commentator’ but it does elide his most significant role in the political process namely that he’s THE NATIONAL PARTY POLLSTER. Quoting him in a story about an opposition MP is a little like citing ‘former TVNZ journalist Fran Mold’ or ‘astute political observer Kevin Taylor’. (There is a slight difference, in that they’re directly employed by their parties, while DPF is the director of a company that the National Party contracts.)

I have disclosed on my blog my extensive background with National, and this is pretty well known. But that does not mean I am an uncritical supporter or obliged to say things only helpful to National. I compare it to sports. National is the team I support, and I want my team to win. But that doesn’t mean I won’t criticise the coach, captan and players when they stuff up. And it doesn’t mean I won’t praise other teams when they perform well.

As for the fact that National may have a relationship with Curia. Well off hand I would say that most of the organisations Curia has done work for, I have also criticised at some stage on my blog. Any relationship Curia has with National didn’t stop me doing the post the week before last criticising the Government on use of urgency. That post resulted in numerous critical news stories, and a NZ Herald editorial. I also did around five radio and one TV interview repeating my views.

Yes it is difficult criticising people or organisations you have relationships with. But it is hardly something new to me. In my roles with InternetNZ I had a good working relationship with David Cunliffe who was ICT Minister. And in the last few weeks I’ve actually had a number of meetings with Labour, Green and ACT MPs, where I’ve encouraged them to pressure the Government to make some changes to its telecommunications legislation. Again, it doesn’t always generate undying gratitude from within National.

DPF is the most successful at getting journalists to accept him as an independent and trustworthy commentator, presumably because he’s so genial and likeable and, unassuming.

I don’t believe journalists ask me for comment because I am genial or likeable (and many would dispute that). I assume it it because I give intelligent analysis, and am willing to praise the “other team” and criticise my own team.

Danyl seems to think my blog was invented by National as a cunning social media tool. In fact I’ve been debating politics online since 1996 – because I enjoy it. I did this through Usenet from 1996 to 2003 and then discovered blogs and after gettign addicted to reading them set up my own. This was not done at the request of National, or even with their support, permission or knowledge. I just did it. And in fact in its first year of operations, there was at least one caucus meeting where a number of National MPs complained about things I said on it and asked if the then leadership could stop me blogging.

No one likes to think they’ve been played by the penguin, even though he repeatedly plays many political journalists for suckers on a regular basis.

Again I find this really insulting (apart from Danyl trying to emulate Trevor Mallard with use of an insulting nickname) – to both sides. He presumably think all the journalists except his wife are really stupid, and that I  not only know they are stupid but take advantage of their stupidity to con and play them. That is not how I regard journalists, and Danyl is attributing motives quite maliciously.

It is very very rarely that I will ring a journalist up to push a story – maybe once every six months if even that. And if journalists ring me up, I give them my opinion. Absolutely that is from someone with a pro-National world-view, but that is known.

At the risk of being immodest, I would suggest the reason some journalists do call me and ask for my views and analysis, is because I used to talk candidly to them in the days before blogging. I was never a press secretary but during my eight years in Parliament I had strong relationships with many in the gallery – and I often chatted off the record to them on my take of how things are going. I wouldn’t betray professional confidences, but I would happily admit over a beer that National had terribly fucked up that week. I was rather proud of the fact that when then TVNZ Political Editor Linda Clark retired from the gallery, that I was the only 9th floor staffer to attend her farewell (as she was under a fatwa from the then PM). That was not because I was genial or likeable, but because I would never ever bullshit her and would always talk to her (even if sometimes all I could say is I can’t comment).

This seems a very lengthy and some would say “thou protest too much” response to Danyl’s blog post. And it possibly is. But Danyl is now the most read and I would say powerful left wing blog, so I respond to stuff he says which I wouldn’t on other blogs. Also it is useful to get this out there, so it can be referred to in future.

Tracy Watkins reports:

Don Brash says ACT leader Rodney Hide offered to stand aside for him in the blue-ribbon Epsom seat during a secret meeting over the party leadership.

The revelation comes as the fight for ACT’s leadership turns increasingly personal, with Dr Brash putting aside his 15-year friendship with Mr Hide to challenge for the leadership.

Dr Brash spent the weekend phoning ACT MPs and lobbying for their support, with Dunedin-based MP Hilary Calvert and deputy leader John Boscawen holding the deciding votes in the five-person caucus.

His pitch is likely to include a promise that funders will turn the tap back on if he is leader. …

If his leadership bid is rejected, Dr Brash intends launching a new Right-wing party and says he has the backers and funding to do this.

He rejected suggestions that that would split the Right-wing vote: “If I’m successful, it won’t split the vote on the Right; it will collapse the ACT vote.”

Make me your leader or I will destroy you. I never knew Don came from Chicago!

The Press editorial on the SAS:

Just five days before Anzac Day it was revealed that SAS troops were part of an operation in Afghanistan last August in which nine Taleban fighters were killed. Critics of New Zealand’s deployment there have sought to portray the operation as some sort of “revenge killing” following the death in action of Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell. This suggestion was not only incorrect but was also an affront to the SAS.

Undoubtedly SAS troops would have been angry at O’Donnell’s death but these soldiers are also part of one of the most professional and disciplined military forces in the world, which does not undertake unauthorised revenge or rogue operations.

Their job in Afghanistan is to protect the provincial reconstruction team from insurgents and inevitably this involves military action when intelligence reports indicate the presence of Taleban fighters.

And the operation in August had been mandated by both the Afghan Government and the International Security Assistance Force of Nato.

The real message that should be taken from the SAS raid is that it is a reminder of the valuable work being carried out by New Zealand soldiers in a range of overseas theatres. In doing so, these military personnel continue a proud tradition of this nation consistently punching above its weight in its contributions to war campaigns and peace-keeping operations.

The Press is absolutely right.

The people who called it a revenge killing should be ashamed. The job of the SAS is to stop the Taleban fighters from killing people, and the harsh reality is they do this by killing them. It’s not revenge – it’s war.

Derek Cheng reports:

Former National Party leader Don Brash will seek the backing of the Act board on Saturday for an attempt to oust the leader of the party – which he has yet to even join.

It is understood he will form a new party if his bid for the Act leadership fails.

If I was a member of the ACT Board, I would be asking why are all these National Party members trying to take over ACT.

Don Brash and John Banks are both members of National. The rumoured financial backer is not a member of ACT as far as I know.

It is understood he will form a new party if his bid for the Act leadership fails.

Not exactly a deep devotion to ACT then. I won’t join your party unless you agree in advance to make me leader, and if you don’t I wiill set up my own party.

Can you imagine if ACT get 3% but loses Epsom and a Brash led party gets 4%. That 7% wasted vote helping Phil Goff and Winston Peters form a Government.

Noooo. Someone has put an iPad version of Risk into the Apple application store.

That’s hundreds of hours of time I will never recover.

Sarah Lamont at the Southland Times reports:

Would-be rescuer and Central Otago Mayor Tony Lepper says he cannot understand why the devastated father of a boy killed in Lake Dunstan last week has been charged over the incident.

Auckland man Ashish Macwan, 32, was on an Easter holiday with wife Kinnery, son Aarush and family friends when they stopped for a break at a lay-by near Cromwell on the way to Queenstown on Thursday.

Mr Macwan, who was driving, got out of the Toyota Hiace van to stretch his legs when the vehicle suddenly rolled backwards and plunged into Lake Dunstan. The adults and an 11-year-old escaped but 3-year-old Aarush did not.

The same day police charged him with careless driving causing death. He is due to appear in the Alexandra District Court on Wednesday.

Mr Lepper joined growing calls at the weekend for police to drop the charge.

I have to say that unless there are some facts not yet known, I fail to see the merit in charging the father. If he had been grossly negligent, then it would be understandable, but it appears not to be the case.

John Hartevelt in the Dom Post:

Government departments are about to start disappearing, the head of the public service says.

State Services commissioner Iain Rennie said the structure of the entire public service would be changed within five years.

Excellent. I believe the future is fewer ministries, but they will be sector-wide. In hindsight National got it wrong in the 1990s when they split ministries into smaller agencies, and Labour were on the right track with amalgamations. That way you avoid having duplicate IT systems, HR finance systems systems etc.

My future state sector would be:

1. Ministry of Internal Security – Crown Law, Corrections, SIS, Justice, SFO, Police
2. Ministry for Environment – Environment, EPA, Conservation, Biosecurity
3. Dept of Administrative Affairs – DIA, LINZ, Building & Housing, Customs, Stats
4. Ministry for Economic Development – Labour, MAF, MED, Fisheries, MORST, Transport
5. DPMC – DPMC, SSC
6. Education – Education, ERO, TEC
7. Ministry of External Relations & Security – GCSB, Defence, MFAT,  NZDF
8. Treasury – Treasury
9. Incomes – IRD, WINZ
10. Culture – Culture & Heritage, Nat Lib, Archives, NZ on Air
11. Health – Health
12. Social Policy – Pacific Island Affairs, MSD, CYF, Youth Development, Community Sector, Senior Citizens, Families, Women’s Affairs, TPK
13. Parliament – Parl Serv, Min Serv, Office of Clerk, PCO

This means you could have a cabinet of 12. The Speaker looks after Parliament, and one Minister per major agency. One could have associate ministers outside cabinet who get delegated some of the specialist areas within an overall portfolio.

Arrived in Wanganui at around 2 pm yesterday. Checked into the Siena Motor Lodge which I had booked through WOTIF, due to its good reviews on the Net.

Had a drink at the local with Inventory of Keeping Stock, and then headed to the Red Lion Inn to catch up with Hamish McDouall (Labour’s 2008 and 2011 candidate for Whanganui). 

At the table next to us, was an old classmate from Otago University, who had been at Carrington Hall with me in 1987. She was on the way up North, so like me only in Wanganui for a day. The odds of running into an old friend at a pub in Wanganui, which we both happened to be at for just one day must be pretty damn low.

But the odds got shorter even more. Turns out they were also staying at the Siena Motor Lodge, and in the room next door to mine.

So as they say, it really is a small world after all.

Not PC has some predictions from the original Earth Day in 1970.

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
      • George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
      • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
      • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
      •  ‘Life’ Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
      • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist.

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’
      • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Best of all, Not PC has the story of how one of the Earth Day founders and MC turned his girlfriend into compost!! A true story!

Incidentiaally I’m all for environmental responsibility. I’m just not into hysterical doomsday predictions.

David Fisher reports:

Act leader Rodney Hide’s brand is “toxic” and “people don’t like him”, says the man who wants his job – his old mate Don Brash. …

Brash also raised the stakes for Act by saying he might launch his own party if he doesn’t get Hide’s job.

Phil Goff must be thanking whichever diety he made a virgin sacrifice to, for answering his prayers.

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

The Government took legal advice on breaking its contract to put $36 million towards Team New Zealand’s 2013 America’s Cup campaign.

Acting Economic Development Minister David Carter confirmed the funding on Thursday, which he said promised “the potential to generate significant economic benefits” for the country.

Mr Carter said the Government expected “maximum benefit” from the “significant investment” of taxpayer money in the event.

The Government was contractually obliged to produce the funding because of an agreement signed by the previous Labour-led Government. Legal advice sought by the ministry said the Crown had to honour the agreement.

“If the Crown terminated without cause, the Crown’s liability would be potentially for the full amount outstanding under the agreement, together with damages and costs, if those were sought under court action by Team New Zealand,” Mr Carter said.

Why the hell did Labour sign a contract that guaranteed funding for future bids?

I’m very over the America’s Cup. I loved it when we first challenged, and also when we won it and defended it. But now it is just a competition about who can hire the best Kiwis to win it for various foreigners.

Hopefully the contract Labour signs only forces us to fund the 2013 challenge, and no more after that.

The Southland Times editorial:

It was inevitable, of course. The only real surprise is that it has taken almost three weeks for Labour’s latest attention-grabbing bid to crash and burn.The “Stop asset sales vote Labour” campaign, launched in Auckland on April 4, effectively died of scornful, mocking laughter on Thursday. It should not be lamented, even by the most ardent of Labour supporters.

Except Grant and Trevor who like General Custer keep claiming victory.

So the concept was good. The only parts missing were the skill, finesse and luck.

Whoever came up with the concept of plastering the message on imitation road stop signs should be led away to a disused shed out the back somewhere, put under 24-hour guard and released only after the next general election is over.

Now this is a good way to find out if Labour really think their campaign is a great success. Let’s have the MP or staffer whose idea it was to use imitation road signs put their hand up and identify themselves. If they are not willing to do so, that speaks volume.

Whoever then came up with the idea of selling these signs to the party faithful at $10 a pop should be made to share the shed.

But a desert island, a really remote desert island, should be reserved for the genius who came up with the idea of putting the signs, signs with the same shape and colouring of real road stop signs, along the median strip of a road in the Hutt Valley this week.

That surely would be Trevor.

You’d think that even if someone was a sheep short in the top paddock he or she would realise that slapping big stop signs along a busy road might have caused a few problems for motorists, but no.

Obviously more than one sheep has escaped the paddock.

Tracy Watkins in the Dom Post reports:

Former National leader Don Brash is making a bid for a political comeback as ACT party leader – if it will have him.

Dr Brash confirmed yesterday that if he was offered the ACT leadership he would take it, after previously rejecting behind-the-scenes efforts to woo him back to Parliament either as ACT leader Rodney Hide’s deputy or as co-leader.

Dr Brash said he would not contemplate returning to Parliament under either of those scenarios but would if offered the leadership.

I do hope for Don’s sake, that he is not offered it. I don’t think he’ll find it a pleasant experience, and I don’t think he’ll achieve what he wants to achieve. My thoughts are:

1. Don will not become a Minister, regardless of how ACT polls. John Key declined to offer Don a significant role straight after he replaced him as leader, so I can’t see that he will be of a different mind now. All Don will achieve is a different platform to complain spending is too high (which incidentially I agree with him on). But he won’t actually get to change that.
2. ACT’s internal politics are toxic at the best of times. If Don replaced Rodney as Leader, he’ll inherit all the infighting and bitching. If he thinks the party will unite behind him, he doesn’t realise ACT is very different to National where there is greater discipline and loyalty.
3. Don leading ACT will force John Key more to the centre. in fact Key will come under pressure to rule out more and more policies in advance, as the left will have greater ability to scare-monger on them.
4. Don will be seen as a temporary leader due to his age. No one will thinks he would be leading the party into the 2014 election as he would be 77 by the end of that term. 
5. Don is such a convenient target for the left, that his assuming the leadership will be a significant help to Labour. Problems of morale, activists, union support and even money will be partially solved if he offers himself up as their target. You’ll have Matt McCarten and Chris Trotter both praising Phil Goff as the only man who can save NZ from the spending cuts seen in Ireland and the UK.

The article also says:

There is also speculation that former Auckland mayor John Banks would be keen to stand in Epsom if approached by ACT, suggesting he could be on a Brash ticket. The two men have business ties and speak regularly. Polls have shown that Mr Banks would win Epsom if he stood.

First of all, polls have not shown any such thing.

Secondly I consider John Banks a friend, as I do Don Brash. I certainly think John could still make a contribution to national politics. However I am not sure his brand is that compatible with ACT.

ACT at its heart is a classical liberal party – economically and socially liberal. They have not always kept to that, but many of their key activists are classical liberals. I don’t think John would describe himself as a classical liberal.

There is in fact a nice spot in the political spectrum for a party, which John Banks would be a potential leader of. That is a traditional conservative party – like the Nationals in Australia. Think of it as a party for talkback callers. Now at present NZ first sort of occupies that spot on the spectrum but Winston is of course toxic. But once he is properly buried, then there could well be a role for a conservative party, as well as a classical liberal party.

If I was on the board of ACT, I would not be panicked into anything. They should focus on lifting the party vote and winning Epsom. If going into the election that are polling at 2% or more, then that should give Epsom voters enough of an incentive to vote tactically to ensure John Key remains Prime Minister.

UPDATE: John Banks has said he is definitely not standing.

Grant Robertson and Trevor Mallard are trying to spin that their incompetence on their signs is helpful to them, in terms of publicity.

This might explain why Labour are at 27%. They do not realise that issues of policy are less important to voters than issues of competence. And when Labour has spent the last two months doing nothing  but looking incompetent, you’d think they’d be concerned about the fact that they launch a major campaign without even checking if it is lawful.

They’ve been lashed for their incompetence on left-wing blogs – The Standardand Pundit.

I’m amazed that Labour think such desperate spin works. It just makes them look desperate. It would be like if National had tried to spin that the copyright breach on their CD in 2008 was a good thing, as it got lots of publicity for the CD.

But Labour’s problems don’t end with roads. No matter how many of these signs they print – they cannot erect them – even if they’re not beside a road.

Should I tell you, or force Labour to actually hire a lawyer – or failing that a first year law student even?

Okay I’ll tell. It is because pretty much every Council in NZ (bar one I think) has a rule about erecting ‘Vote’ hoardings more than a couple of months out from an election. 

So Labour is selling signs to its supporters whuch are illegal to put up near roads, and also illegal (at this stage) to put up anywhere in public. It’s more like a PONZI scheme than a campaign.

Felicity Ross at the Taranaki Daily News reports:

New Plymouth Labour Party candidate Andrew Little has been barred from joining party leader Phil Goff when he meets Taranaki’s Winz boss tomorrow.

The refusal is because he is not yet an MP.

Little yesterday slammed the Government for refusing to allow him to meet Work and Income regional commissioner Gloria Campbell, saying it made a mockery of the concept of an independent, neutral public service.

Oh what nonsense. Once Andrew becomes and MP and rolls Phil, he’ll be able to meet senior WINZ staff. But he is just a candidate with the same constitutional status as the candidate for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.

I know the left think the Government exists for them, but WINZ is not there to give Andrew (or any candidate) photo opportunities.

Access was denied by Social Development and Employment Minister Paula Bennett who said Work and Income staff didn’t need the distraction of someone trying to win votes.

“I won’t tolerate politicking when Work and Income staff are so busy and doing such a necessary job, ” Bennett said.

“However, the Leader of the Opposition is an obvious exception and Mr Goff should feel free to visit the New Plymouth regional office if he wishes to attend on his own.”

Maybe Andrew is just mad that he is not yet Opposition Leader?

He said the past Labour government had never prevented anyone of any political stripe from meeting a senior public servant or regional commissioner.

Oh that must be a line from a George Orwell novel. The last Labour Government was ruthless about doing it – in fact off memory they even blocked MPs – not just candidates.

Vernon Small writes in in the Dom Post:

I come to defend Steven Joyce, not to bury him. In the fracas over the Government’s decision to let radio companies pay for their licences over five years, rather than pay $96 million up front, he has taken more than his fair share of unfair criticism.

Oh dear. I expect Vernon will now be pilloried on certain left wing blogs.

Suggestions that Mr Joyce, the communications and information technology minister, had some sort of conflict of interest in helping out the Brent Impey-led company (that Mr Joyce established) survives only till you know that Mr Joyce and Mr Impey are . . . errr . . . not close.

Mr Impey, with Canwest, led a successful “unfriendly takeover” of MediaWorks in 2001- that is, one bitterly opposed by Mr Joyce.

I was unaware of this, and not seen this in any other media. It is a good story that adds new facts to an issue.

The minister initially opposed any deal with the commercial radio sector. To protect himself further, he also sought advice from the Cabinet Office and was told he did not have a conflict of interest. It might have been wiser politically for him to step aside anyway, but that is miles away from any wrongdoing.

Those who have never actually worked in business (like most Labour MPs) have no real idea of what does and does not constitute a conflict of interest. They think that any affiliation or association what-so-ever means you must recuse yourself. This is not so. This would see the Minister of Finance unable to own a home, or the Minister of Agriculture unable to be a farmer.

Of course, it fits Labour’s narrative of a Government pandering to the few not the many, feathering the nest of its rich mates and acting as lobby-fodder for business.

But is Labour saying it wants a hands-off approach to business, whether or not that involves job losses?

WE SHALL never know what would have happened had MediaWorks been denied the payment relief and asked to stump up the full $42m at the end of 2009 – as advertising rates were falling, the economic outlook was bleak and banks were ultra-cautious about lending.

If one or more major media companies had failed, more than 1000 jobs could have been on the line. …

Mr Joyce is also blunt about the political fallout if the Government had said “get stuffed” and one of the big companies had collapsed. Once it was known the Government had rejected a deal at commercial interest rates with all the frequencies held as collateral, ministers would have been pilloried as hard-hearted, far-right, hands-off ideologues.

Is there a single person who doesn’t think Labour wouldn’t have done exactly what Vernon writes above, and lashed the Government for destroying jobs if it had refused the deferred payment scheme, and a major broadcaster collapsed?

Published this week was the “Report of an Inquiry requested by the Minister of Justice on the Publication of Names of Victims in Judicial Decisions on the Judicial Decisions Online Website of the Ministry of Justice“.

It basically finds that the Ministry of Justice staff need to fully read each and every judgement to check if aspects of it should have their names supressed, rather than just rely on the Judges ticking the right box to indicate name suppression applies, which will indicate so by way of a large banner at the top of the judgement.

In 11 cases (out of 1,500) Judges neglected to tick the right box, and hence judgements appeared without victims names supressed.

The main recommendation of John Marshall QC is that Ministry staff no longer rely on whether the banner appears or not, but read the judgements in full as they are legally obliged to make sure the law is complied with even if a Judge has not indicated it to them.

This is probably the right thing to do, but a bit of a pity as it means that the judgements will no longer be able to be processed by a “web monkey” (my term), but by fully qualified lawwyers, which is a bit of a waste of their talents. It would be nice to think one could just rely on Judges getting it right.

Of course one has human error, but I wonder if one could program the technology to alert a Judge if they have not ticked a name supression banner box, based on say a word search of various offences.

Anyway that is not the major foccus of this post. It was this comment by Mr Marshall:

Serious consideration should be given in discussions between the Ministry and the judiciary to changing the default setting on the Judges’ IT system to “N” = Not to publish

I think that would be a very bad steop to take. the default setting should be to publish.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Victims will soon have much more freedom in what they say in impact statements to court, under reforms announced today.

At the moment the victims of violence and other serious offences must ask permission from the judge to read out a statement, before sentencing, saying how a crime has affected them.

They are also banned from mentioning a range of details and a number of victims have been left upset after a judge has censored their words.

Gil Elliott, the father of murder victim Sophie, and Rachel Kitson, mother of slain Christchurch woman Vanessa Pickering, were left distraught when their statements were edited.

It has been outraegous that the criminals get to say whatever they like in court, often blackening the names of their victims, yet the families of the victims get their words censored.

Who cares if the parents of a murder victim, call the killer a scum suckling lowlife, and they hope he burns in hell. So long as they don’t actually advocate ilegal acts they should be allowed to say what they genuinely feel. Forcing them to read out a statement which they did not author, re-victimises them.

This is not a huge change in terms of the courts, but a very important one for victims and their families.