The Herald reports:

The Press Council has issued a rebuke over the publication of sponsored content on Stuff and nzherald.co.nz that masquerades as news stories, noting that this practice is a breach of the professional standards expected of a trusted media and that some of the ‘stories’ published are simply inaccurate.

This is a huge slapdown. First the Press Council is saying they are masquerading advertising as news, and secondly the “sponsored content” is fake.

The Press Council has undertaken consideration of this complaint on the basis that if material is being published in a way that makes it look as if it is genuine news it should, at least, be held to the same standards as news content.

The Council is also alarmed at the way news and advertising content has been mingled together beyond the control of news sites’ editors.

As they should be. Both sites work hard to fool you into clicking on sponsored content.

The decision relates to native advertising material that is dressed up as editorial content and placed at the bottom of each story page. In the ‘stories’ covered in this particular complaint, completely fictional characters – a Levin man, Paraparaumu kid and Christchurch taxi driver – were purported to have made considerable sums from investing in Bitcoin. Viewers were attracted to the material because it was localised to their hometowns and presented as news headlines. On accessing the supposed articles, readers were taken to Bitcoin promotional material.

So the sponsored content is fake, using made up locations to con people.

While the publications argue the content is advertising and they use visual cues to distinguish this paid content from independent news, the Council has ruled those cues fall short of international best practice, as does the mixing of news and advertising. The content is so clearly intended to look like news that the Council decided to accept the complaint and consider its impact on journalism standards in this country. As a result, we are urging the news sites to harden the lines between news and advertising, to ensure transparency and protect the New Zealand media’s hard-won reputation for independent and high quality journalism. Readers deserve nothing less.

Well done the Press Council. NZME’s response:

NZME and the New Zealand Herald, like other publishers across the industry, rely on the revenue that advertising generates to ensure that we can continue to deliver the latest breaking news to its readership from the best journalists in New Zealand. Native advertising, when properly disclosed, helps us to achieve this.

Their argument is that if we con enough people into reading fake sponsored content, then that can fund the real news. And they wonder why trust in media is so low.

Despite our belief that we were complying with international standards, NZME has carefully considered the points of the Press Council and swiftly made changes to the Outbrain widget which appears on the New Zealand Herald digital site. These changes include:

A physical separation of content which is:
• Reticulated within the New Zealand Herald site (such as other, related stories published by the New Zealand Herald), under a header called “Recommended”; and
• External links provided by Outbrain, under a header called “Paid Content” (or similar);
• Any images related to external links will continue to show the external website name immediately below the image. 

Sounds like an improvement.

The full Press Council ruling is here. Some key aspects:

In the Herald, news stories, stories from other news sites and ads are in fact melded together under the ‘Recommended’ banner, as Cropp concedes. Therefore when Cropp asks if the sponsored content is “part of an editorial framework or advertising framework?” the answer can only be: both. ‘Recommended’ as a headline does next to nothing to alert readers to the fact that much of the content below is paid and not independent journalism; quite to the contrary, it implies that the content linked to is somehow special and is endorsed by the Herald. Given that this content is paid and includes either advertising or stories from sites of dubious merit, including the made-up Bitcoin headlines, such an endorsement sends a worrying message to readers.

Stuff does more to assist its readers, separating the ads and paid content from other sites [promoted stories] from its links to its own stories [more from stuff]. It also has a thin border above and below the content, which the Herald does not. Yet it’s disturbing that it still labels the native ad content as “stories”.

So both sites promote these advertisements as stories.

On Frewen’s complaint under Principle 1, the headlines employed on both sites are clearly inaccurate. There is no Levin man, Paraparaumu kid or Christchurch taxi driver. They are figments of an algorithm’s imagination and are deliberately designed to deceive and dress up advertising as news. In fact, the headlines are total fiction.

And the headlines to get you to click on the “stories” are fiction.

Stuff reports:

Along with Cullen, the 10 members are:

* Professor Craig Elliffe, University of Auckland

* Joanne Hodge, former tax partner at Bell Gully

* Kirk Hope, Chief Executive of Business New Zealand

* Nick Malarao, senior partner at Meredith Connell

* Geof Nightingale, partner at PwC New Zealand

* Robin Oliver, former Deputy Commissioner at Inland Revenue

* Hinerangi Raumati, Chair of Parininihi ki Waitotara Inc

* Michelle Redington, Head of Group Taxation and Insurance at Air New Zealand

* Rosenberg, Economist and Director of Policy at the CTU

* Marjan Van Den Belt, Assistant Vice Chancellor (Sustainability) at Victoria University of Wellington

Overall a pretty good group. Oliver and Nightingale are serious hard hitters when it comes to tax. Elliffe and Hodge also got very good backgrounds along with Nick Malarao who has acted for IRD in many civil cases.

Personally I’d just have tax experts on there, and not have anyone from the CTU or BusinessNZ. But Labour is obliged to put union reps on everything, so you then need to balance that with someone from BusinessNZ.

Their terms of reference are severely limited but hopefully they can still come up with some good work on how to improve the tax system (as opposed to how to tax people more).

Politico reports:

A single vote in Newport News, Virginia, is set to give Democrats partial control of the state’s House of Delegates and could help the party pass Medicaid expansion next year.

After a recount conducted Tuesday, Democrat Shelly Simonds had 11,608 votes to Republican incumbent David Yancey’s 11,607 votes in Virginia’s 94th House District. Simonds’ apparent victory — which will head to a judicial panel on Wednesday for certification — means Democrats and Republicans will have an even 50-50 split in the House of Delegates and will have to share power when the Legislature begins its next term in January.

So a single vote in the 94th district led to a tie in the entire legislature. This is why it can be very important for everyone to vote!

John Armstrong writes:

On the evidence so far, Labour is the party that is calling the coalition shots — as it jolly well should be doing given it outnumbers Winston Peters’ party by more than six MPs to one in the current Parliament. 

The latest indication that Labour is very much in charge sprang from Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States would be shifting its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. …

When Peters finally did comment in his capacity as Foreign Minister, he suggested the decision was America’s to make. …

 Many members of [Labour] would already have been concerned with earlier signs of Peters’ pro-Israel leanings and would have been horrified to hear him give what was effectively a tacit endorsement of Trump’s decision.

So what happened?

Stuff reports:

Owners of an Auckland nursery filled with rare palm trees were hoping for a Christmas miracle but have been evicted after they refused to pay their “ridiculous rent”. 

On Tuesday, Oceanic Palms’ founders Brent Hubbard and Harley Haynes were locked out of a property on Arthur St, Onehunga that they lease from KiwiRail after refusing to pay a threefold rent increase from $37,000 to $100,000 instigated in 2015. …

They continued to pay their previous rent after KiwiRail increased the amount in 2015. 

I’m pretty sure you can’t as a tenant unilaterally set your rent at the level you think it should be. No surprise they have been evicted.

The pair said KiwiRail was failing to meet a principle of the State Owned Enterprise Act – to exhibit a sense of social responsibility.

“It’s ridiculous. What business can afford a threefold rent increase over night?

“It is a completely speculative and outrageous valuation they tried to make us pay.”

A sense of social responsibility doesn’t mean subsidising a particular business. And the accusation that the increase was overnight and based on a speculative valuation is in contrast with what the Court of Appeal and High Court found.

This Court of Appeal decision gives the other side of the story, namely:

• The lease in 2010 for $34,300 per annum for five years was explicitly advised by Kiwirail as being a concession below market rates. They said in 2009 that if the lease was renewed in 2015 it would be at market rates
• Both Kiwirail and Oceanic Palms nominated a valuer. The Kiwirail one assessed market rental at $115,000 and the OP one at $75,000.The two valuers conferred and agreed $100,000 would be fair. Now remember this includes the valuation firm OP picked.
• OP simply refused to pay the higher rent and also refused to enter arbitration over it.
• Kiwrail gave notice in late 2015 of termination for unpaid rent.
• OP took Kiwirail to the High Court and lost on all 16 grounds advanced. The Judge did allow them to keep the lease if they entered arbitration but they again refused and appealed to the CoA.
• The CoA found “KiwiRail advised Oceanic Palms that the rent agreed for the initial five-year term of the lease was a concessionary rent. KiwiRail also made it clear, as is recorded in the lease, that the rent would be reviewed to a market rental at the expiration of the initial lease term … It is simply not arguable that KiwiRail acted in bad faith in exercising its right to review the rent to a market rent in accordance with the lease. That is exactly what it said it would do prior to the lease being signed.”
• After losing in the High Court and CoA they appealed to the Supreme Court and was not granted leave to appeal

So reading all this, I’m not convinced Kiwirail are the bad guys here.

Over 1,500 people have voted in the 2017 Kiwiblog Awards. The winners are:

• National MP of the year – Bill English beats Chris Bishop with 69% to 31%.
• Labour MP of the Year – Jacinda Ardern beats Andrew Little by 58% to 42%
• Minor Party MP of the Year – Winston Peters gets a majority of 55% followed by 29% for Julie-Anne Genter and 16% for Metiria Turei
• MP of the Year is picked up by Bill English on 58%, then Jacinda Ardern 27%, Winston Peters 12% and Andrew Little 3%.

The MP of the Year results may reflect the readership of Kiwiblog (but I note Russel Norman won in 2012) but I think it also reflects that Bill English ran a great campaign and it is hard to see what he could have done differently to remain in Government (short of making Winston Prime Minister).

Stuff reports:

Wellington ratepayers are more than $10 million out of pocket after a council insurance stuff-up.

Wellington City Council has footed a bill of about $9.7m after a failed insurance claim for a delayed leaky building liability, and the council now expects it will pay more than $1m in additional costs. …

Proceedings started in September 2011, but the council did not bring the claim to Riskpool’s attention until August 2013.

The High Court agreed with the insurer, that the council had notified it of the claim too late.

So ratepayers are $10 million worse off due to this blunder. If this was the private sector, I’m pretty sure staff who cost the owners of a company $10 million would be looking for another job. But I suspect WCC hasn’t even used a wet bus ticket against those responsible – after all it is our money, not theirs.

Radio NZ reports:

Only 20 percent of Aucklanders have confidence and trust in their council, although this is up slightly on a year ago.

The result of council’s first survey on public perceptions, fuelled criticism of it in the mayoral election campaign last year.

Only 19 percent were then satisfied with its performance, and only 17 percent trusted the council to make the right decision.

“When less than one in five have confidence in Council, that’s a fail,” said then-mayoral candidate Phil Goff.

So Goff has lifted it from 17% to 20%. What does one call that then?

A new report on organisational risks within the council said both measures had risen to 20 percent, well short of the 2019 goal of 50 percent.

At this rate they will make 50% in 2034!

A recent value-for-money assessment of the council group’s Communications and Engagement work found plenty of room for cost-cutting and improvement.

It recommended an immediate 5 percent cut to the group’s $46.5 million spend, and repeating in each of the following two years. Councillors held back on that one.

They couldn’t even cut 5% from their PR budget!

“Diminished (communications and engagement) budget available to spend in FY18 will impact delivery across the work programme,” the report said.

“This represents a significant risk to Trust and Confidence.”

No, no, no. You don’t build trust and confidence by spending more on PR. You do it by spending less, and acting differently.

The Herald reports:

A new climate-change law next year will bind Governments to carbon targets and set it down a path to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – though agriculture looks set for a free ride until at least mid-2019.

And Greenpeace has called on the Government to back up its talk by banning all new mining, oil drilling and fracking consents – which Government officials say would cost the country more than $15 billion in lost revenue.

Targets are meaningless without policies to achieve them. A net zero emissions target is as meaningless as a zero suicide target.

I don’t agree with Greenpeace on banning mining, but they are correct that the Government is not actually doing much to achieve its goals. The reality is that achieving zero net emissions will be incredibly costly and painful. It will involve massive trade offs.

Shaw said the country’s net greenhouse gas emissions were currently about 80,000 mega tonnes a year. It was possible to reduce that to zero through measures such as planting trees, moving towards 100 per cent renewable energy, and electrification of the Government’s vehicle fleet.

That is basically a lie. Also the net is 60,000 not 80,000. You’d hope the Minister would know the difference.

The Government has around 15,000 vehicles which is around 0.4% of the total fleet. Vehicles emit around 13 mT a year of emissions so this would reduce emissions by around 51 kT or around 0.05% of net emissions.

We are already 85% renewable energy. Even if one can make it 100% that would only reduce net emissions by 3 mT for public electricity or 2.5% of net emissions.

This leaves tree planting which the IPCC estimates could globally only sequester 2% of global emissions. Assume the same applies for NZ and basically the three measures Shaw talks about will reduce our net emissions by maybe 5%. That is why I call it an effective lie. The “easy” stuff with few trade offs will make almost no difference to our level of emissions. If the Government was serious they would be banning new petrol cars and mandating a reduction every year in the number of cows in NZ. Those policies of course would be deeply unpopular and spark a huge backlash so instead the Government pretends what it is doing will allow them to meet their goals – and they know it won’t.

But he would not rule out buying carbon credits from overseas to help reach the zero target.

“I can’t predict the future. Our attention and everything we are doing is designed around our domestic emissions profile, so we don’t have to [buy credits from overseas].”

Ardern added that New Zealand would no longer buy “dud” credits from overseas.

We’re not going to buy those nasty dud credits, we’re only going to buy the best quality credits!

Stuff reports:

The Green Party is breaking its long-standing opposition to waka jumping legislation after getting several concessions from Justice Minister Andrew Little.

The Labour-led Government introduced the Election (Integrity) Amendment Bill to Parliament last week, part of a promise made by Labour to NZ First during coalition negotiations.

The Greens have sold their principles out to Winston.

Those concessions include reinstating a provision that means 75 per cent of caucus members have to agree with a party leader’s decision to expel an MP from caucus.

That is a fairly trivial barrier.

Just imagine if such a law had been in place when Muldoon was Prime Minister. Marilyn Waring, Derek Quigley and Mike Minogue would all have been expelled from Parliament by Muldoon.

This allows party leaders to expel MPs who criticise them. It won’t be hard to get 75% of caucus support when a party such as NZ First is basically a personality cult.

It will also have a chilling effect on MPs who sometimes have to disagree with their party on an issue of local importance. If you stand up for your constituents, then wham you may be out of Parliament.

Stuff reports:

Former Opportunities Party (TOP) candidates say the party’s board did not allow any internal criticism of the party.

So who was on the board?

It’s understood a meeting had already taken place to select a new leader on Wednesday, with a handpicked group of candidates who had not criticised the party invited to contest the leadership – and told to keep the meeting secret from those who had. 

These party faithful are understood have been offered two options: one where Morgan properly left the party and lowered his financial contributions, and another where he stepped back from the leadership but remained on the board. The latter option was selected.

A Clayton’s choice. Of course they were never going to vote for the option that left the party with no money.

Co-deputy leader Geoff Simmons was overwhelmingly voted in as a new leader, but subsequently resigned over a conflict with a board member, a candidate who was at the meeting said.

Simmons describes that as a “massive over-simplification” but did not dispute that he was the pick of the meeting, or the conflict with the board.

So which board member?

The three-person board – made up of Morgan and longtime staffers Donna Clifford and Andrew Gawith – is given sweeping powers by the party’s constitution to compile the party list and select electoral candidates.

Gawith has worked with Morgan for 30 years. Clifford is also described as having been involved in almost all of Morgan’s previous ventures so the board was basically Gareth.

Despite this, she argued the problem was less with the members of the board itself and more with the party structure, which gave them complete power.

“For me the substantial problem is at the heart of the constitution. These three people are handpicked by Gareth as long-time confidants of his. I don’t think that structure is viable for a political party going forward.”

“Any political party has to be able to allow for lots of different kinds of of personality to coexist. That was the fundamental problem here, that certain viewpoints were never welcome.”

If you want people to volunteer for a political party, they will want to be able to have some day over who the party operates.

This is Part 5 of my family tree covering the Spiras, my father’s father’s mother’s family.

The first known Spira was Rabbi Kalonymous Spira who lived in Speyer (in Germany) from 1285. Spira was a common name in Jewish Europe.

Juda Spira (officially Haschman Leib Spira) was born in 1755 in Trebic (formerly Trebitsch), South Moravia. This is now part of the Czech Republic. He is my 5^th great-grandfather. His first wife Slawa had five children, the eldest being Veit Spira. Susanna died in 1804 and Juda had a further four children with Rosel before he died in 1820.

Juda lived on Blahoslavova Street. He was a barber (at the time Viet was born) but also a shoemaker and a musician.

Moravia had harsh anti-semitic laws including a Familiant Law which forbade Jews from marrying without permission, in an (unsuccessful) attempt to keep their numbers to around 5,000. A new licence would only be granted when someone with one died, and they were restricted to eldest sons. The law was in place from 1726 to 1849.

A similar law required the Germanification of first names, hence Haschman had to become Juda.

Veit Spira, my 4^th great-grandfather was born in 1774 in Trebic. He married Esther Gruenberger in 1799 and had six children with her. He died relatively young aged 44 in 1819.

Jacob Spira, the 2^nd son of Veit was born in 1805 in Trebic. He is my 3^rd great-grandfather. Jacob married Mariany (Sara) Prinz in 1849.  They had eight children. In 1868 they moved in Vienna and lived on Mariahilferstrasse. Jacob was a barley dealer and later a spodium maker. Spodium was a charcoal made from bone used in medicine. In Vienna he was a second hand goods dealer (a trodler) and later a merchant of a store. He died in 1876.

Philipp, Jacob’s oldest son, was born in 1837 in Trebic and is my 2^nd great-grandfather. He was born out of wedlock as Jacob was not given permission to marry until 1849. So he was Philipp Prinz until he was 12 years old. Philipp married Rosalie Weinwurm in 1862 and moved to Vienna in 1865. They lived on Niemergasse and had nine children.

Philipp was also a trodler initially and in 1895 he opened an antiques store, the 2^nd oldest one in Vienna. It was called Ph. Spira Antiques and located at Weihburggasse 20 . His grandson, Kurt, reopened the store after WWII and operated it for many years. Philipp died in 1919 aged 82.

One of Philipp’s sons, Fritz Spira (my 2^nd great-uncle) was a theatre and movie star in Germany, Austria and Poland. He was born in 1873 and started his theatre career in 1899 and did 60 silent movies from 1910 to 1935. He was killed in 1943 in the Ruma concentration camp. His wife Lotte Andersen was also an actress appearing in 70 films.

Fritz and Lotte had two daughters – Camilla and Steffie, who were also both actresses. Camilla appeared in 68 films from 1924 to 1986. She died in 1997 aged 91. Steffie (my 1^st cousin twice removed) was born in 1908 and joined the Communist Party of Germany in 1929. She fled the Nazis (being a Jew and a communist was a very bad combination) and ended up in Mexico. She returned to East Germany in 1947 and appeared in many film and television productions in East Germany.

She was the final speaker at the Alexanderplatz demonstration on 4 November 1989 where she called for the East German Government to step down. It was the first ever privately organised demonstration in East Germany’s history and 1.5 million people attended. Five days later the Berlin Wall came down. She died in 1995.

Philipp’s 2^nd oldest daughter Gisela is my great-grandmother. She was born in 1870 in Vienna and married Markus Feuer, my great-grandfather in 1895. They had three children – my grandfather Frederick (Fritz), and my great-aunts Hedwig (Hedi) and Margarete (Greta).

Gisela lived on Wipplingerstrasse in Vienna. On the 15^th of February 1941 she was transported to Opole, Poland. Her prisoner number was No 93.  She was taken to the Majdanek or Lublin concentration camp and died there along with around 80,000 others.

Gisela was one of 70 members of the Spira family killed in the Holocaust. Around 140 survived including her son, my grandfather, who came to New Zealand.

Thanks to Art Spira in Canada for much useful information on the Spiras, through his book Making Us Proud: The Story of the Spira Family

The High Court has struck out seven causes of action that Kim Dotcom brought in a judicial review.

Each of them was ruled to be an abuse of process. An eight cause (uncontested) will be heard in February 2018.

I’m not sure how many more months or years it will take for the court action to be concluded and then the final decision on extradition to be made by the Minister of Justice.

But this is now Andrew Little, so it will be interesting to see if Dotcom now starts attacking Labour as a way to undermine Little’s decision. He manufactured evidence of a conspiracy between John Key and Hollywood. He can’t try and play that card anymore.

In December 2016 I did my normal 20 predictions for the forthcoming year.  In 2016 I scored myself 14/20. How did 2017 go?

Voting is now open for the 2017 Kiwiblog Awards.

The contest for National MP of the Year is between Bill English for a superb election campaign and Chris Bishop for winning Hutt South.

The contest for Labour MP of the Year is between Andrew Little for resigning when it was the right thing to do and Jacinda Ardern for replacing him and increasing their vote 12%.

For Minor Party of the Year the three most common nominations were Metiria Turei for almost killing the Greens (if a rightie) or helping being about a left Government (if a leftie), Winston Peters (for getting to decide the Government) and Julie-Anne Genter (for her environmental focus within the Greens).

MP of the Year is a four way choice between the Queenmaker Peters, the Queen Ardern, the spurned Prince English or the deposed King Little.

Create your own user feedback survey

CASE NO: 2639

ADJUDICATION BY THE NEW ZEALAND PRESS COUNCIL ON THE COMPLAINT OF TANYA TOAILOA AGAINST KIWIBLOG

FINDING: NOT UPHELD WITH DISSENT 8:1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED BEFORE DECEMBER 18, 2017

Overview

On 8 November 2017 the online commentary site Kiwiblog published a contribution by David Garrett headed “Guest Post: Pasifika is Bollocks”. The post was made after the recent Tongan/Samoan rugby match and the associated public disturbances including fighting between Tongans and Samoans, as reported in the media.  Among other points made, the guest post stated “Samoans and Tongans hate each other with a vengeance”. It also claimed the recent events described above disproved the implications of the term “Pasifika”, i.e. that underneath cultural differences, Pacific Islands people are all one big happy family.

The Complaint

Tanya Toailoa says the guest post is inflammatory, racist and irresponsible. She notes that assertions made by the piece are factually wrong i.e. that all Samoans and Tongans hate each other; and that they all are aware of historical reasons for Tongan/Samoan enmity. She does not accept that the article is acceptable, is fair comment or ‘just an opinion’. She wants the article removed from the site. The complainant cites two Press Council Principles: Comment and Fact; Discrimination and Diversity.

The Response

David Farrar, editor of Kiwiblog, says that from time to time he publishes guest posts offering a variety of points of view. This does not mean he, as editor, agrees with all the opinions expressed, as in this case.

He responds that in relation to Principle 4, Mr Garrett’s article is clearly an opinion piece, and that no reasonable person could regard his assertions as factual. Principle 7 provides that race is a legitimate subject for discussion where relevant, and the context of the piece was extensive media coverage of Tongan/Samoan disturbances.

Mr Farrar says his offer of a right of reply to the complainant was the appropriate response to the complaint; and believes agreeing to the complainant’s request for removal of the article would have a chilling effect on the ability of publications to allow strong opinions to be expressed.

Discussion and Decision

A search of the Internet reveals that there are traditional stories of past Tongan and Samoan rivalry, and unverified accounts of recent incidents, including some involving rugby matches. Apart from that is hard to find a basis for Mr Garrett’s surprising claim that Tongans and Samoans hate each other. In fact he contradicts himself by noting “you would never know it at pan-pacific gatherings – at least until cocktail hour”. Mr Garrett’s guest post is unpleasant, grossly exaggerated and provocative for many readers and possibly intended to be so. It is not surprising that many people commented online about the guest post, both positively and negatively.

Sporting events worldwide can provide an emotional environment where racial prejudices are revealed and unruly behaviour occurs. The Press Council believes the media are entitled to report these occurrences, and commentators to express their opinions. The complainant certainly has a legitimate contrary opinion to Mr Garrett. She has been given the opportunity to express that in a balancing Kiwiblog opinion piece, but has to date not taken that up.

On Principle 4, Comment and Fact, the Council believes the article is an opinion piece and marked as such by the heading “Guest Post”. The contentious statements in the guest post are assertions, and we accept the editor’s submission that they are clearly Mr Garrett’s opinions. The facts of the historical basis and recent history of Tongan/Samoan rivalry are publicly (although perhaps not widely) known and do not appear to be contested.

The Press Council Principle 7 notes that issues of race are legitimate subjects for discussion where relevant.  In this case Samoan/Tongan sporting rivalry was an essential part of the news story sparking the opinion piece. Given this context, we consider that dealing with the Tongan/Samoan issue in an opinion piece could not be considered gratuitous emphasis on race.

The complaint is not upheld, with one member Hank Schouten dissenting from this decision.

Press Council members considering this complaint were Sir John Hansen, Liz Brown, Jo Cribb, Tiumalu Peter Fa’afiu, John Roughan, Hank Schouten, Marie Shroff, Christina Tay and Tim Watkin.

An interesting Court of Appeal case on the roles of lawyers appointed to assist defendants who choose to represent themselves.

Ten years ago there were fewer than 10 such cases a year where a lawyer was appointed as an amici (friend of the court) and in 2015/16 there were over 140.

The Court of Appeal decision should reverse this trend. They found:

• We expect that standby counsel appointments should be exceptional. A defendant’s decision to self-represent must be respected and in ordinary cases a fair trial should be possible without standby counsel.
• Rarely if ever should a defendant’s former counsel be appointed amicus
• Former counsel should not normally be appointed standby counsel either.

It seems there has been a pattern where a defendant sacks his counsel just before a trail starts in an attempt to delay the trial. They know the former counsel will probably end up being appointed their standby counsel to help them, so little reason not to.

This ruling should discourage that. If you sack your lawyers and choose to represent yourself, you will be on your own unless you are found to be incompetent of being able to represent yourself. Incompetent is not the same as merely being inferior to a lawyer.

HDPA writes:

Five days to go. If you are counting down to the Christmas break, spare a thought for the Government.

It has been slogging its guts out for weeks, but it hasn’t paid off.

Slogging its guts out? They have had so few bills to pass they started filibustering their own bills to try and cover up!

Which is a surprise, because the last two new Governments — John Key’s and Helen Clark’s — had much bigger jumps in support after their first election wins.

Labour went up 2% while the previous Governments got 11% bounces in the polls.

The stuff that was going wrong was the past few weeks’ constant trickle of little mistakes: Kelvin Davis floundering as Acting PM, Shane Jones surprising the actual PM with his Work for the Dole idea, Stuart Nash messing up his first speech on his first Government bill in Parliament, Chris Hipkins messing up his first vote in Parliament. It’s a lot of oops in a short time.

Will Kelvin ever be allowed to be Acting PM again?

Then there are a billion trees to plant, 100,000 kids to lift out of poverty and 100,000 houses to build. No pressure. Those are a lot of very precise goals that will be held like tape measures against the outcomes.

They are already 1,431 houses behind and 14.3 million trees behind!

Winston Peters announced:

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has announced that Mr Ross Ardern will be the next Administrator of Tokelau. …

“Mr Ardern’s experience as a High Commissioner, his extensive understanding of the Pacific, and distinguished career with New Zealand Police make him an ideal candidate for this role and I have no doubt he will make a major contribution to the relationship between New Zealand and Tokelau,” Mr Peters says.

Mr Ardern is currently New Zealand’s High Commissioner in Niue and has previously served as Niue’s Police Commissioner and as New Zealand’s Police Liaison Officer for the Pacific based in Samoa. He is expected to take up the role of Administrator in early 2018 and will be based in Auckland.

This is a very good appointment. Ross Ardern has served the public well for many decades and is well qualified for this role. The fact his daughter is Prime Minister should not disqualify him for such appointments.