Celebrity Endorsements

Why does it matter what a few celebrities, sports people and professional curmudgeons think about our national status?

Bob Jones, Peta Mathias, CK Stead and Rob Hamill are among the prominent New Zealanders who have come out in support of Green MP Keith Locke's bill for a referendum on the monarchy.

Do they have some insight into our national identity that we lack?

But let's not beat about the bush. It doesn't really matter what these folk think. There's only one opinion that matters.

So why didn't they ask Jason Gunn?

When Animals Attack, Part 58

The Herald (On Sunday) has been creating news again.

The Herald and other media organisations have been hounding Bailey Junior Kurariki since he was released from prison, delighting in his every failure, all the time ensuring the mother of his victim Micheel Choy is on speed-dial, ready to give that damning quote.

And now this:

The country's youngest convicted killer is the subject of a new police complaint, accused of indecently assaulting two female journalists.

He is fresh from a one-month prison sentence after admitting wilfully damaging a television camera - the latest in a string of offences including assault.

Bailey Junior Kurariki was released from prison in May 2008 after being convicted of the manslaughter of pizza delivery man Michael Choy in 2002.

He was set strict conditions by the Parole Board after being released four months early, but police and the Department of Corrections have not been able to stop his repeated offending.

The new indecent assault claims follow a visit by two female Herald on Sunday journalists to Bailey Junior Kurariki's Auckland home on Thursday.

The employees, who the newspaper has chosen not to name, said the 20-year-old behaved in an erratic and distressing manner during the interview.

Statements record Kurariki exposed himself to the women, masturbated in front of them and groped them before they could escape the house.

Without for a moment wishing to excuse Kurariki's allegedly appalling behaviour, some tough questions need to be asked:

1. Given Kurariki's history (which includes violence towards women), why send two women to his house?
2. Whose decision was it to send the two women? Was it the reporter's decision? The editor's?
3. Should the news media be paying Rita Croskery for the inconvenience of always being on standby to give quotes about the killer of her son?
4. If you poke a stick at a wild animal numerous times and then get into its cage, should you be surprised when it turns on you?

Mr Power - Please Bring Back Trial By Duel

NZ History Online reports on this day in 1844:

William Brewer, a Wellington lawyer, died on 4 March 1844 as a result of wounds received in a duel with another lawyer, H. Ross, on 26 February. The duel was the result of a quarrel that had arisen from a case in the Wellington County Court.

When the two men faced off in Sydney Street, Brewer fired into the air but 'received Mr. Ross' ball in the groin'. According to the New Zealand Gazette and Wellington Spectator, Brewer was ‘immediately conveyed to a friend's house. During the first few days it was hoped that his life was safe, but appearances afterwards became unfavourable, and on Monday last, about six in the evening Mr. Brewer breathed his last.’

A Coroner's Inquest was convened. Although there were several witnesses to the duel, the inquest concluded that the evidence did not prove by whom the wound was inflicted. The survivor of a duel could be charged with murder, which may explain why the witnesses were not entirely forthcoming in the evidence they gave. Or perhaps it was a case of ‘what happens on the duelling field stays on the duelling field.’ The New Zealand Gazette and Wellington Spectator of 9 March used the outcome of this inquest to condemn the ‘barbarous custom’ of duelling and call for it to be banned.

Brewer was no stranger to duelling. In 1840 he had ‘threatened to call out the next man’ who associated him with a certain ‘young lady’. John Kelly, a surveyor, was that man and in the duel that took place on Oneroa Beach at Kororareka, part of his wig was shot away by Brewer.

I've often had disagreements with other lawyers. But it never entered my mind to shoot them.  

So why don't we use duels to resolve legal disagreements more often?

No Change To Financial Disclosure Rules

The decision by the Government not to require large non-issuer companies to file financial statements at the Companies Office comes as no great surprise.

The Financial Reporting Act 1993 requires most companies to prepare financial statements, except for certain non-active entities. In most cases these financial statements are not filed and so are not made public. But some companies must file audited financial statements with the Companies Office. These statements can be accessed online by anyone without charge.

At the moment the only companies that must file financial statements are “issuers” (entities such as finance companies, unit trusts and listed companies), and certain large companies where 25% of more of their shareholding is controlled by overseas interests.

One of the arguments in favour of requiring large companies to disclose their financial affairs is that their failures harm others: employees, creditors and customers. It is argued that financial transparency would benefit these “stakeholders”.

But the counterargument is that businesses should be entitled to a degree of privacy and confidentiality in the way they operate their affairs. The requirement to disclose may also unfairly assist competitors, many of whom will have no disclosure requirements.

It would seem that privacy proponents have won the argument, as was always likely to be the case. National is perceived as being more friendly to business-owners, and most business owners would prefer their financial affairs were kept out of the spotlight.

It will be interesting to see what changes Simon Power proposes in other areas of financial reporting. Some of the financial reporting requirements imposed on smaller companies, such as the obligation to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice, are costly and arguably unnecessary.

The Herald On The New Copyright Bill

This story on copyright is (to put it politely) not as accurate as it could be:

Anyone caught breaching copyright by downloading films and music from the internet will face large penalties and could even be disconnected by their internet service under new legislation.

No, that's completely inaccurate. Anyone caught infringing must first be given three notices before any action can be taken. So that's two free infringements. And while the penalty is a maximum of $15,000, in most cases the amount awarded to the copyright owner will be low. The Cabinet paper that preceded the new copyright bill stressed the need not to impose excessively punitive penalties.

A three-strikes system will hand out formal warnings to offenders, and further illegal downloads could prompt copyright owners to apply for up to $15,000 compensation from the user.

The copyright owner could also ask the relevant internet service provider to cut off the customer's internet connection for up to six months.

The ban could happen only after a copyright owner, such as a media company, applies for a district court order for the internet service provider to suspend the user's internet access.

Those last two paragraphs don't work well together. The court can order that the customer's connection be terminated. But the ISP would still be entitled to disconnect the user under its own terms and conditions. Although I suspect most won't terminate, other than for the most flagrant infringements.

Dozens of bloggers throughout the country are planning to take their blogs down on Monday morning in an "internet blackout" protest against the bill. Similar protests a year ago led John Key's government to stall the previous Labour government's attempt to update copyright law.

Well that's news. I've not seen anything on any blogs about a blackout. Mind you, there are literally thousands of blogs out there.
 
But why the blackout? The bill is about as good as opponents of copyright can hope to get, because there has to be some penalty for repeatedly infringing copyright. The warning system appears to balance the rights of all main stakeholders in this matter: copyright owners, ISPs and internet users. 
 
And the provisions regarding disconnection of internet accounts have been so watered down that few people will find themselves being disconnected, other than serious and repeated infringers.
 
Some details of the system may need refining, and people will have the opportunity to raise issues during the select committee process. I really cannot see the Government giving up on this bill, so opponents should work to improve the proposed system via the parliamentary process. 
 
So I will not be blacking this site out on Monday. Not that I would know how.

New File Sharing Bill, Confidentiality and ACTA

The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill was introduced into Parliament on Tuesday.

You can read the text of the bill here (though a warning: you'll probably get lost amidst the procedural morass that is sections 122C to 122I).

The bill introduces a three-notice system to deal with illegal file sharing. I posted on this previously when the Cabinet paper the bill is based on was released. The bill largely reflects the content of that Cabinet paper, but with a few changes and with some more detail in a couple of areas. It doesn't deal with some of the important issues ISPs and rights owners will want answered, such as how much ISPs will be entitled to charge rights owners, and what the infringement penalties will be.

The bill includes detailed provisions about how infringement proceedings will be held.  In effectively banning lawyers from Copyright Tribunal proceedings the legislators are clearly trying to accommodate those who raised concerns about the ability of alleged infringers to defend themselves.

The law is due to come into force on 1 October, but must first pass through the select committee process. I expect some of the procedural details will be further refined once all the various interest groups have had a say.

******

I was trawling through Te Webz looking for articles about royalty reporting (I do a lot of IP licensing work), when I stumbled across this delightful article by Frank Quirk of the band Too Much Joy (no, I’d never heard of them either). It raises some interesting questions about how the major labels treat their talent.

I don't do too much work with music copyright (because, sadly, most NZ musicians are too poor to afford lawyers), so it was certainly interesting to read one man's experiences of the royalty accounting methods of a big label. I wonder if this is how musicians in NZ get treated.

So, while I can play more than three chords on the guitar, I think I'll stick to my day job.

******

On IP Watchdog, Gene Quinn examines why many companies simply refuse to evaluate inventions submitted to them, other than on a non-confidential basis.

In my experience this applies generally to large companies that have significant ongoing R&D programmes. Few NZ corporates would flatly refuse to sign a confidentiality agreement, because we simply don't have that many large innovative corporates doing significant volumes of R&D.

The trouble with accepting any idea that comes through you door is that, if you're already developing something similar and you sign a confidentiality agreement, you may find it hard to then exploit the invention you independently developed. Because it may look to some as if you simply pinched the idea off the person who came knocking at your door.

When I act for an inventor who is about to talk to someone about their invention I always advise them to get a confidentiality agreement signed, unless their patent application has already been published. But the reality is that some people just won't sign confidentiality agreements.

So if your invention is protectable your best option is to at least file a provisional patent application before disclosing the invention. It's not always ideal, especially if your idea is at an early stage and if you want to refine your invention further before filing a complete specification 12 months later - but it's often a better option than not talking to someone who may potentially be your best prospect for a deal.

Here is another trap. If you have something patentable but haven't got a patent application in, and if you then talk to someone about licensing or selling your invention, you may lose the ability to patent your invention altogether. That applies even if you are talking under the terms of a confidentiality agreement.

If your invention is valuable, it is always best to talk to an IP professional before disclosing details of it to anyone.

******

ACTA negotiations continue to bubble away, though nobody other than a select few officials appears to know what is going on.

But leaked documents have revealed that Round 8 of the ACTA negotiations is to be held in Wellington, between 12-16 April.

If you're in the capital at that time, look out for a lot of American gentlemen wearing power suits and dark shades.

Questions

Is Phil Heatley the only honest man left in politics? Resigning over nothing because it was the honourable thing to do? Contrast his conduct with that of Bill English.

Or is there something smellier in all of this?

And could TV3's Duncan Garner please make up his mind? On 3 News he said Heatley's career was in tatters, then about two minutes later said his career was in the balance. Which is it?

Mediate This

And this is newsworthy - how exactly?

Two Tribes

I have decided to steer clear of the two main blogsites, The Standard and Kiwiblog, for a couple of days.

The level of debate on both sites over the last day or so has reached an all time low. Yesterday David Farrar launched a quite vicious and mostly* unwarranted attack on "Eddie", the anonymous blogger on The Standard whose post on Murray McCully embarrassed the Foreign Minister. Farrar was wrong to claim Eddie's story was a beat-up, because the media thought it was newsworthy, and McCully himself is now desperately trying to get rid of the shares he got caught with.

Then Lynn on The Standard launched a full scale assault on Farrar, calling him an idiot and a hypocrite.

The comments sections of each blog post are truly awful.

This is childish name-calling at its worst, and will no doubt reinforce the negative view each tribe has of the other.

People, can't we all just get along?

* The use of the "corruption" tag on Eddie's article was unwarranted and inappropriate.

DPF Secretly Loves Labour

David Farrar will try any trickery to get his readers to believe Labour are the devil incarnate.

Unfortunately, sometimes his arguments blow up in his face. Like this post:

Labour are campaigning against the GST increase (yet being careful not to promise to reverse it), saying it will hit households hard. Well Stats NZ have calculated that the impact of GST going to 15% will be a one off increase of 2.0% in the CPI.

Now let’s see how that compares to the CPI increases under the last two Government’s.

In December 1990 the CPI was 731 and in December 1999 it hit 837. That was an increase of 14.5% over nine years – an average of 1.5% a year,

From December 1999 to December 2008 the CPI went from 837 to 1072 – an increase of 28.1%, and an average of 2.8% a year.

The difference between inflation under Labour and under National is around 14% – or seven times greater than the one off 2% increase caused by a GST increase.

Now if one takes just food prices, it is even worse. The food price index increased only 9.9% under nine years of National. Under nine years of Labour it shot up a massive 37.1%.

So if you hear a Labour MP talking about the impact increased prices will have on families, remind them of the 37% increase in food prices and the 28% increase in all prices that occurred under Labour.

[the bold font is DPF's addition, not mine]

Very good, David. So Labour's to blame for high inflation. And what is the main cause of high inflation?

Answer - economic growth. For several years (until the recession hit - wait, was the global downturn Labour's fault too?), the economy was in danger of overheating. This in turn led to inflationary pressure, and led the Reserve Bank Governor to raise interest rates.

So if Labour is to blame for inflation, it must also be responsible for the economic growth that caused it.

And if National is responsible for the low inflation of the '90s, it must likewise be responsible for the tepid growth of our economy during that time.

So David Farrar has effectively argued that Labour is the party of economic growth.

Farrar is a shameless National Party propagandist - his site ignores the bad news stories, and focuses on attacking Labour. But some of his attack posts are sounding increasingly desperate And if you fire off enough wild shots, eventually you're bound to have a misfire.

The Standard Catches McCully Out

The Standard today picked up Murray McCully on a potential conflict of interest.

The Standard can now reveal that Murray McCully has shares in a company that stands to benefit directly from National’s mining policy. As a member of Cabinet deciding this policy McCully has a significant conflict of interest.

The company that McCully has a stake in, according to the MPs’ Register of Pecuniary Interests, is Widespread Portfolios (almost sounds like a front company for a Bond villain, eh?). Far from being “widespread”, its investments are exclusively in mining and oil. These include New Zealand-based mining operations.

Its subsidiary Widespread Energy is a petroleum and phosphates company. It owns prospecting permits over land north of Lake Brunner in the South Island and large areas of the seabed. Widespread Energy and Widespread Portfolios have jointly applied for a permit to prospect for phosphate on the Chatham Rise. The phosphates are found around hydrothermal vents – unique and fragile ecosystems that we are barely beginning to understand. They are the basis of some of our most important fisheries.

Mining will annihilate these ecosystems. As of June last year, McCully’s companies were lobbying Crown Minerals to develop “suitable” rules for undersea mining

It's a shame that, while technically McCully was putting himself in a position where he could be conflicted, no real conflict exists. I say a shame because I have no great love for the man, and would have enjoyed watching his disgrace.

McCully told Checkpoint tonight he was trying to get rid of the shares, but they're so worthless he can't find a buyer. He said their value was $31.63. Apparently there has been no cabinet discussion on conservation mining yet, so no technical conflict has arisen.

Still, it's a bad look when a minister gets tripped up like this. There are growing signs that members of this Government are being careless about their personal affairs. Last year it was Bill English. This year we've had John Key's uranium shares, Heatley's and Brownlee's credit cards, and now McCully. With the possible exception of English, these appear to be acts of simple carelessness. But they suggest Key and his ministers are not particularly disciplined in their personal affairs.

Good on The Standard for exposing the carelessness though.

Justice Ministry Attacks Three Strikes Law

The Herald reports that the Justice Ministry has slammed the proposed three-strikes law in a memo to the Government.

Its analysis is damning.

The Justice Ministry warned the Government against changing its three strikes violent crime policy saying it risked breaching New Zealand's Bill of Rights and international obligations, went against the Government's own policy on the drivers of crime and impacted on judicial powers.

It also said some juries might not convict criminals, concerned by the unfair consequences if they did, and that the group worst affected would be Maori.

The memo also states that the proposed three strikes law may discourage guilty pleas, result in more trials, and increase the number of people in prison. We already have one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world. Do we really think adding to our prison population is the answer?

So the proposed law will:

• possibly breach the Bill of Rights 
• possibly breach New Zealand’s international obligations
• go against government policy in other areas 
• adversely affect the powers of judges 
• possibly lead to juries acquitting guilty offenders
• adversely affect Maori
• probably increase the prison population beyond its already bloated number
• possibly lead to longer and more criminal trials, so cost the taxpayer more.

And never mind that it probably won’t actually make our streets safer. Because if tougher sentences work, where’s the evidence for it?

Even Simon Power, whose aversion to evidence is famous, won’t back this turkey. He’s left Judith Collins to push this through.

Just another example of great thinking by our intellectually bereft Government.

News Flash - Crackdown On Crime Works!

Police commanders have reported an overnight drop in the number of violent offences being committed. And they are putting the drop down to recent announcements by the Government that it intends to get tough on crime.

Prime Minister John Key recently announced plans for tougher sentences against offenders who attack police. And Police Minister Judith Collins has also spoken of the need to rebuilt respect and fear for the law.

It is believed that these signals, together with moves to introduce a three-strikes system for serious offending, are putting the gangs out of business.

“It was like a switch just got flicked,” said Waitakere Deputy District Commander Barry Maddox. “Only a couple of days ago we had more violent crime than we knew what to do with, and a gang problem that was escalating out of control. Today? Nothing, other than a callout to help an old lady get her cat out of a tree.”

Commander Maddox would not be drawn on the exact reason for the overnight drop, but said that the announcement by John Key had sent a chill through the entire criminal community.

Most gang leaders spoken to were reluctant to comment on the proposed new sentencing laws. However, one senior Mongrel Mob member who wanted to be known only as “Knuckles”, said it was the end of the road for the gangs.

“Mate, we didn’t think this day would come. We’d been dissing the pigs for years, showing no respect, thinking they would never push back.”

Knuckles began to weep as he spoke. “Now it’s all over. The penalties are just too much. The prospect of a strike offence for assaulting a policeman is intolerable to me, and I will not countenance such a terrible fate. Oh, the tragedy of it all! I think I have just bludgeoned my last woman! Woe! I shall have to move on and find an honest living.”

Knuckles said he would now look to retrain. “I’ve always been handy with the old knife, and the fists are pretty useful too. But now it’s all changed, and that’s game’s behind me. I might take up aromatherapy.”

Another gang member spoken to echoed the same sentiments.

“I went down for manslaughter and did ten in the slammer,” said the man, who would only talk under conditions of anonymity. “Got into a fight and tore the man’s face half off. Blood everywhere. But punching a policeman? No way. That’s just wrong! You think I’m an idiot? I’m quitting."

Opposition leader Phil Goff has been left struggling to explain the overnight transformation of the gangs from unruly criminal thugs to model citizens. “Labour’s been saying for years that tougher sentences are a waste of time. We’ve always said that you need to look at the causes of crime, like poverty, unemployment, and poor education. We’ve always maintained that having a fair and just society, where we all look after each other, is the best way to defeat the gangs.

“We have always derided those on the Right who think that locking people up and throwing away the key is the answer to these complex social issues.

“It looks like we were hopelessly wrong. We should have listened to the Sensible Sentencing Trust.”

Labour's Back - But Has Anyone Noticed?

If you follow politics you will have noticed that the left have been in a buoyant mood over the last couple of weeks.

Contrast this with 2009. The dominant memes last year were despair and denial. Labour's supporters continued to express anger and incredulity that anyone could be taken in by John Key's vacuous smile, and Phil Goff's patchy performance last year would have disappointed many.

So what has changed? Certainly the hope has returned. Various ministers have made twits of themselves in the House, lulled into traps set by wily Labour campaigners such as Mallard and King. And John Key has, for once, been widely criticised in sections of the media for a lack of ambition and vision.

But does any of this make a difference? Despite Key's lacklustre performance and the disastrous efforts of ministers such as Anne Tolley, and despite potentially unpopular policies like conservation-estate mining and GST increases being floated, this government is as popular as ever. Labour has barely made a dent in National's popularity, if recent polls are to be believed.

It is tempting for those of us who don't particularly like this government to crow over the Parliamentary footage of Anne Tolley and Paula Bennett being made to look like fools. But the number of people politically engaged enough to know or care that National is getting a flogging in the House is small. 

So, again, does any of this make a difference? Possibly. If politics is war, then Parliamentary debates are where the trench warfare takes place. For those who get their news by reading the paper or watching the telly, it probably makes little difference who is saying what in the House. So being able to terrorise ministers in the House doesn't pay immediate dividends in terms of votes - but it does energise the faithful and give confidence to an Opposition. And Labour has regained some of its old confidence.

But the ever-smiling Key is still a long way away from being in trouble. He has a solid core that will vote National irrespective of what his government does, so he only needs to hold sufficient middle ground to retain the votes of those who shifted from Labour last election. Many of them will likely return to Labour when they realise the change promised by Key either didn't happen, or happened in a way they did not expect. But this may not be until after the next election.

So, while Labour's supporters will be encouraged by its performance this year, it may not yet be time to start celebrating the demise of National.

Do We Need To Review Personal Grievance Laws?

The Dom Post today says the Government is reviewing our current personal grievance laws. There is supposedly plenty of anecdotal evidence showing how hard the rules are to follow, and how difficult it is for businesses to get rid of bad employees. People think this is so in part because our biggest newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, has a pro-employer bias, and frequently runs articles about greedy employees taking their bosses to the cleaners.

So is there a problem? I have heard many employment lawyers say it is quite easy for a business to get rid of a bad employee, provided the correct procedure is followed. Many instances of unjustified dismissal arise because an employer has simply fired someone on the spot, without going through the appropriate warning procedure, or has failed to give the employee the opportunity to have a say on the conduct at issue.

It's always popular to blame the lawyers too. From the Dom Post article:

Business NZ chief executive Phil O'Reilly said businesses had complained for years that the system was too bureaucratic and seemed to "emphasise form over substance".

They were also concerned about "ambulance-chasing lawyers" that lodged claims with no real justification to pressure employers.

Lawyers in this country don't actually chase ambulances, because our ACC system precludes people from suing for personal injury. So the pejorative term "ambulance-chasing lawyers" isn't helpful. And we should expect the head of a business lobby group to be in favour of making it harder for employees to sue. He'd be doing a rubbish job for his team if he said "actually, the laws are fine as they are". because employment laws have to balance the rights of workers with the rights of employers. Each side wants its own way, and the legislature has to find a politically acceptable middle ground.

I'm not against a review in principle, because things can always be improved. But I wonder what the real motivation behind this review is. When the justification for the review is anecdotal evidence that employers find it hard to live with the rules, you have to wonder. If there is in fact no major problem, then this is pure politics. And, National is not exactly the party of the workers, so it's not hard to see whose vote they are after.

Thankfully this is just a review. John Key's government is not very good at actually doing anything, so nothing may come of this.

Pots Throwing Stones At Kettles In Glass Houses

Last week a well-known broadcaster was critical of the planned stage-managed Tiger Woods apology:

It's going to be selected invitees only, surrounded by good friends and family for this announcement tomorrow morning. Which has everyone expecting this is going to simply to be a pre-orchestrated, pre-read statement and he is not going to front up to the questions.

So has his management team got this wrong? Is this the right way to go? Because remember, as soon as Tiger goes to golf tournaments the same paparazzi, the same tabloid reporters, are going to turn up to those tournaments until Tiger answers the questions that I guess the salacious side of the world wants answers to.

The broadcaster was Tony Veitch, the man who you may recall assaulted his partner and then later held a press conference where he read a prepared statement and answered no questions.

Veitch's mea culpa never sounded particularly convincing. And he can't be struggling too much with the enormity of what he did, because he appears to have forgotten that not so long ago he was the man reading the pre-prepared apology.

Re-hiring Veitch was always a huge risk for Radio Sport. I wonder how they are feeling about it now.

Hopkins The Climate Change Denier - Not So Clever After All

Jim Hopkins is by far the worst Herald columnist. Not just because of what he writes about, but because of the way he writes. He delights in word plays and bad puns, and no doubt thinks he's a jolly clever chap. After all, anyone who wears red-rimmed glasses must be a hoot. If only what he wrote was remotely readable.

When I say he's the worst, I confirm I took into consideration the aged Garth George. Garth may be the ultimate curmudgeon, and you could well imagine if you were a child he'd be the grumpy old man chasing you off his lawn with a stick, but Garth George at least writes well. The same cannot be said of Hopkins.

And if you manage to survive the avalanche of alliteration and wade through the morass of puns, what do you get for your troubles? This week another done of climate change denial.

Because Hopkins is such a clever chap, he ought to know more than the scientists, rights?

The most compelling proof Hopkins is delusional is his claim that the media has ignored "evidence" climate change data has been falsified.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, there is only silence; a cruel weapon in private and even more inexplicable in public, particularly when it is the fourth estate's response to an extraordinary story.

Silence being the literally hundreds of newspaper articles over the last few months? In fact, chances are if you read anything in a newspaper on climate change, it's probably about those damned leaked emails and "falsified" data.

And if there is only silence in the media, how is it that Hopkins' article has been published? (though pray to God it had not been)

The vast majority of climate scientists continue to tell us we are responsible for global warming.

So shall we take the experts' word for it, or should we instead listen to a guy in red-rimmed glasses who admits to reading the Daily Mail?

Suing For Plagiarism? I Don't Think So

Here's an interesting case:

Harry Potter author JK Rowling has called for a plagiarism case against her to be dismissed, describing it as "unfounded" and "absurd".

I'll say. For starters you can't sue someone for plagiarism, because, however much a literary crime it may seem, it just isn't legally actionable.

Copyright infringement, however, is a different story. I've no doubt that copyright infringement is behind the case being taken against Rowling and her publisher.

In June, the estate of Adrian Jacobs issued proceedings at London's High Court against Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, claiming that Rowling copied substantial parts of The Adventures of Willy the Wizard - No 1 Livid Land written by Jacobs in 1987.

It said the plot of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire copied elements of the plot of Willy the Wizard, including a wizard contest, and that the Potter series borrowed the idea of wizards travelling on trains.

I hope for the plaintiff's sake that they have more than that.  Even if they can prove Rowling borrowed the same plot elements after reading Jacobs' book (and that may be hard to prove if the book in question is an obscure one), that would probably not amount to infringement if those elements are simply "the wizards travel by train" or "there is a wizard contest".

I don't know enough about the claim to know whether it's as dumb as that. Even if it is it would be hard to find a dumber copyright case than that brought in 2006 by the authors of the bestselling “non-fiction” book Holy Blood Holy Grail, Michael Baigent (a New Zealander) and Richard Leigh, against Dan Brown, famous author of the novel The Da Vinci Code.

I wrote about this case in October:

They claimed Brown’s book took themes from the earlier work in a way that amounted to an infringement of their copyright.

Despite the obstacles (i.e. the somewhat obvious problem that their claim was laughable and legally without merit), Baigent and Leigh decided to spend literally millions of pounds in an attempt to punish the author of the very book that had propelled their own work back into the bestseller lists. This article, written by one of my colleagues about the case and trial court judgment, is a good summary of the issues, and it explains why Baigent and Leigh failed so miserably.

And then when the trial court judge smacked them down, they appealed (unsuccessfully, of course) and got hit with an enormous costs award.

Fools. Greedy fools.

Is this another example of greed getting in the way of good sense? Maybe the executors of the Jacobs estate think Rowling will pay them to go away. But what choice does Rowling have but to fight this all the way? If she settles her literary reputation will be destroyed.

Australia Promises Action On Whaling - We Do Nothing

Stuff reports that the Australian government has issued an ultimatum to Japan: stop whaling in the Southern Ocean or face a legal fight.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has set Japan a November deadline to stop Southern Ocean whaling, or face an international legal challenge to its yearly cull, launched by his government.

Australia preferred to find a diplomatic solution to its standoff with Tokyo over the annual whale cull near Antarctica, Rudd said, but was serious about a threat made two years ago to challenge the hunt in an international court.

"If that fails, then we will initiate court action before the commencement of the whaling season in November 2010. That's the bottom line and we're very clear to the Japanese, that's what we intend to do," he told Australian television on Friday. 

And the New Zealand response?

Nothing. According to 3 News, we weren't asked to be involved in the action, so presumably won't be. 

You may recall that in January John Key announced plans had been drawn up to end commercial whaling. What happened to that plan? Did Key tell Kevin Rudd he had it sorted? I assume not, otherwise Rudd would not have had to make his announcement. And the Key plan obviously isn't the same as the Rudd plan, because apparently we're not involved in the Rudd plan and our people don't seem to know anything about it.

Key's government appears to have little interest in saving whales. Key is more than happy to court publicity when it comes to saving kittens and puppies. But because saving whales risks the ire of the Japanese, he won't go there.

And his Foreign Minister would appear to be strongly against the anti-whaling protesters. Remember that in January Murray McCully criticised the protesters. He also said the following about a boat collision between a whaling and a protest vessel:

If people are determined to break the law and determined to kill other people on the high seas, then it is not the responsibility of the New Zealand Government or any other Government to send armed vessels down there or something of that sort to stop them.

cCully appears happy to let all parties share the blame for the collision. That despite the fact that for a fibreglass vessel like the New Zealand registered Ady Gil to deliberately ram a steel one in such a hostile environment would be almost suicidal. 

I can understand why we might be reluctant to risk all-out diplomatic war with a large trading nation. But our neighbours in Australia are prepared to take the fight to Japan. So why are we being so timid?

And why did Key talk about a diplomatic solution and then apparently do nothing?

Wouldn't it be nice if Key and Rudd actually talked to each other?

Our PM appears to lack vision, and prefers instead to muddle along. If he has strong principles it's difficult to discern what they are. Remember, he is the man who struggled to recall exactly what he thought about the 1981 Springbok tour. 

So it may be too much to ask our Prime Minister to display leadership on this issue.

Next Week On Radio New Zealand National

The Highlights

Monday: On Morning Report, Sean and Geoff get down with the cast of Survivor Christchurch, the fantastic new TV3 reality show. And they ask the star of the show about rumours of the on-screen romance between him and teammate Jennifer. And don’t miss the latest instalment of Ten Worst Dates, bought to you by Nivea skincare.

Tuesday: Jim Mora will be pumping out some heavy beats, popping tabs, and spinning a crate of vinyl to keep you moving through the afternoon. 

Wednesday: Bryan Crump opens up the phone lines. Have something important you want to say? Or just want to ramble aimlessly about the price of milk and young people? Call us!

Thursday: Today is no-repeat Thursday. So sit back and relax while we play all the hits of the 60s, 70s, 80s and more 80s, knowing that while you’ve heard them too many times already, you won’t hear them twice today.

Friday: We’re giving away 100 copies of Lady Gaga’s new album. Call to win when you hear her song.

Saturday: Kim Hill catches us up with all the gossip. Brad and Angelina, Tom and Katie, Kim has all the dirt!

Sunday: Chris Laidlaw makes the draw for our fabulous Hollywood prize package. You could be flying with a friend to see the world premier of the film, The Secret Sausage, based on the latest Dan Brown book.

Faith No More - Updated

They are playing tonight at Vector, and I'm going.

ROCK AND ROLL!

Update 1: They kicked bottom, as they say in the US. Bigtime.

Update 2: I've now had time to think about the gig. Mike Patton is certainly a strange fellow. He delighted in teasing and goading the audience throughout the night, and he lost his rag at one gentleman in the crowd towards the end of the night - why I don't know. With Patton you don't know how much is real and how much is part of the strange game he seems to enjoy playing on stage.

Patton also has the most amazing vocal range. I can't think of anyone in the rock music game to match it.

The rendition of the awful late 70's easy listening song Reunited was hilarious.

But the music was superb. The band was loud and the bass was thumping.

I've read a few comments on this review of the concert. The most frequent criticism being expressed is that the set was too short - 90 minutes. It could have been longer, but then with the intense energy FNM play their music with, you can understand the 90 minute duration. I would have liked more, but was not unhappy.

The warm-up act, Eagles of Death Metal, were average. No better than a tight, pub band, and the songs all sounded like each other.

Why Kill Radio NZ?

Try as Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman might to dance around the issue, imposing a funding freeze on Radio NZ is a cut in real terms. It's a cut in the same way that if you work the same job for five years and don't get a pay rise in that time, you're much worse off. Inflation has eaten away at the value of your wage.

It's interesting how little money the Government is prepared to make available to Radio NZ, when it is happy to throw money at Team New Zealand, the Rugby World Cup and other pet projects.

John Key probably isn't a National Radio kind of guy - I'd pick he's probably more of a Radio Hauraki listener. But commercial radio is largely a brain-free zone, which is why we need Radio NZ. As patchy as the content of Radio NZ National can sometimes be, its coverage of news and current affairs is probably the best of any media organisation in this country. Morning Report and Checkpoint are always top notch.

So what's behind this? Simple ignorance? Does Steven Joyce (a commercial radio man) now see a chance to kill off his nemesis? Or is it something even more sinister? Perhaps having a broadcaster that is not afraid to ask hard questions on serious issues (rather than getting excited over what uranium shares John Key owns), doesn't suit this government.

No Logo?

My Supercity logo and strapline

There's an awful lot going on with the Supercity that we ought to be concerned about. I confess to finding the whole topic largely tedious - a fait accompli that we will be stuck with for years to come. But the scale of the change coming, and the speed with which things are changing, ought to concern me.

Of all the things we probably ought to be critical of, this probably isn't it.

The Auckland Transition Agency is looking to all Aucklanders to create a distinctive design, despite the failure of the Queens Wharf public competition to find an inspirational idea for the waterfront.

Executive chairman Mark Ford said the logo should be designed and owned by Aucklanders, and everyone - including professional designers - was invited to take part.

The news of a log competition has led to predicable outrage. Various self-important persons were on the radio this morning expressing horror that the logo is a needless distraction and that there are more important things to be done.

Well, sure, there are more important things than a logo. But what kind of joke would the city, my city, be without some sort of instantly-identifiable logo?

A logo is a brand that identifies who you are and what you are about. That brand needs to be a strong one if we want to attract tourists and give the diverse Auckland region a sense of unity.

It would be an act of astounding negligence if the Auckland Transition Agency were not looking at a logo.

Wednesday And Nothing Much Doing

I feel I ought to post something tonight, though no particular theme is dominating my thoughts. So here's a mix of topics and random thoughts.

******

On Salon.com, Garrison Keillor has written an amusing satire on the Tea Party movement. Well worth a read.

Elsewhere on Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald contrasts the willingness of other countries to deal openly with terror suspects with the cowardice displayed by US authorities.

******

On Red Alert, Trevor Mallard blogs gleefully about the wonderfully awful performance of Anne Tolley in the House today. His post includes a transcript of the entire train wreck. You wonder how long the PM will put up with this hopelessly underperforming minister.

Is Terminator Tolley about to be terminated herself?

******

David Farrar is a favourite target of the Left. And I've also been known to have the odd crack. This post on the Standard raises questions about whether Farrar has a conflict of interest between his allegiances to National and his polling company activities.

Farrar is so open about those allegiances it's hard to see that this story has any legs.

The Standard comments thread runs to over 150 comments, though if you take out the contributions of the four or five main protagonists, there aren't many comments left. I don't generally mind the Standard - it's not as nasty as Kiwiblog, but sometimes it can seem a bit like an echo chamber. I can't generally write anything on Kiwiblog without being subject to vitriolic personal abuse. And I'm relatively moderate.

******

And this is an example of why Kiwiblog can be so awful. Farrar pretends to be disapproving, but knows the issue of lesbians adopting children will be like raw meat to the barking mad Kiwiblog commentariat.

******

And because I could not help myself:

UraniumGate

After John Key's Tranzrail shares debacle, you'd think he would learn.

Apparently not.

Holding shares in a uranium company isn't a good look. If Key were a private citizen most of us wouldn't give two hoots what shares he owned. But he's the leader of a country with a strong anti-nuclear policy.

One day we may grow up enough as a nation to have a sensible debate about the role of nuclear energy. But we're not there yet, because both parties have committed to our anti-nuclear policies (though with the Nats it's pretty obvious they consider it a millstone around their necks). And if there's one thing that will get you blackballed from just about every political party in this country (other than the ones you'd die before joining), it's talking nuclear.

So what the hell was Key doing owning shares in an outfit mining uranium? How could he could be so foolish?

Nazis Welcome Hanson

The BNP extends its traditional welcome to another meeting guest (from TimesOnline)

Here's an update on a story I posted yesterday about Pauline Hanson's decision to emigrate to the UK.

The British Nazi National Party is prepared to welcome Hanson with open arms. Presumably the same arms its thugs used to drag a Times reporter out of a recent meeting.

The BNP is aggressively anti-immigrant - unless you are an immigrant who is also aggressively anti-immigrant.

Choice? What Choice?

If you have ever wondered what those Government working groups get up to during their meetings, I think I now know.

A working group of MPs from National, ACT and the Maori Party has asked that parents of the 20 per cent worst performing and five per cent best performing students be given greater choice about how and where the child is educated and taking their Government funding with them.

They get their crack-pipes out and light up.

The report lays out various options that could be considered where a student identified as low or high achieving could use a "learning broker mentor" to help form a learning plan.

A broker? A broker is what you use to arrange your insurance. Or to buy and sell your uranium shares. Why would the working group use the word “broker” to describe this role, unless it was a deliberate attempt to commoditise the education system?

Unless of course they were all stoned to the bone.

But if they weren’t all off their heads, that leaves only one other interpretation. They are attempting to screw over those at the bottom of the heap. That’s to be expected of ACT, and National is always inclined to favour those with the dosh. But it is an indictment on the Maori Party, many of whose supporters are at the bottom.

Choice sounds like a wonderful thing, doesn’t it? However, read the fine print, because there’s a catch. If you’re at the bottom 20%, how much choice do you really have? Under this crackpot scheme schools that compete for these students have to show results are being achieved before they get fully funded.

So would someone in the working group please put their crack-pipe down and tell me this – why would a school take on a difficult student and risk not being fully funded? Isn’t it better to take on the smart, motivated kids whose parents will push them to succeed?

And is it any co-incidence that the smart, motivated kids are more likely to come from homes that are more stable, wealthier and less prone to the pressures of poverty?

So it’s not about helping the bottom 20%. It’s about looking after the top 5%.

Brother, Can You Spare A Bowl?

Close Up, TVNZ's nightly current affairs show, was surely plumbing the depths last night. Mark Sainsbury interviewed Mike Hosking about Alison Mau's on-air attack on Women's Day.

That's right.  A TVNZ presenter interviewed a TVNZ presenter about what another TVNZ presenter said on - yes - a TVNZ show.

The Close Up piece can be viewed here. But a warning: after watching this you will probably feel the urge to stab out your eyes, vomit over your loved ones and then run down the street naked screaming " the horror! the horror!".

The crowning glory of this astounding piece of "journalism" is Chris Baldock, editor of the Truth newspaper, a venerable weekly organ whose pages are devoted to titties and ads for prostitutes and psychics, telling the aforesaid Mr Sainsbury he was concerned that the US paparazzi culture might be coming to our shores.

So can I get that bowl now?

Racist Fool About To Get A Surprise

Another Imperator Fish Fool of the Moment

Renowned racist Pauline Hanson is coming to town! But don't panic, because she's only on a stop-over on her way to Britain.

Watch out New Zealand. Australia's most controversial politician, Pauline Hanson, is heading for your shores, although it will only be a stepping-stone on her way to Britain, where she plans to settle.

The former fish and chip shop owner turned far-right politician has announced that, after years of opposing immigration to Australia, she is about to become an immigrant herself.

She has lost faith in her home country, of which she says: "Sadly, the land of opportunity is no more applicable."

Yes, that is the sound of chortling you hear.

Has anyone told Hanson that the UK has one of the most multicultural societies anywhere in the world? London and some of the northern cities (like Bradford and Leeds) have enormous ethnic populations.

She might find a white haven hidden somewhere in the Welsh valleys, but they probably won't speak English.

The very scale of her delusion requires me to induct her into my Hall of Shame - Pauline, you're the latest Imperator Fish Fool of the Moment.

National Standards Now Or Bambi Dies!

How To Use A Dog Whistle

This is a dog whistle.

It comes in handy when you're pretending to run a respectable blogsite, but in fact get much of your material from wingnuts like Trevor Loudon.

If you're going to use it properly, here are some tips:

• never express outrage over the behaviour you wish to draw your followers' attention towards. Use words like "interesting". The pack will do the rest
• if called by someone for your whistling, make sure you take umbrage at the allegation. "Who me? I would never do such a thing!"
• it helps not to have a moderation policy. That way people can say what they like, and you can just shrug your shoulders and say "that's freedom of speech for you!"

 Happy whistling!

Herald On Sunday Editor Quits! Tabloid Shocker Confession!

The outgoing editor of the Herald on Sunday, Shayne Currie, just wrote his last editorial.

This is the 280th edition of the Herald on Sunday - and my last as editor. Some people will be relieved about this. Mike Hosking, perhaps. He's not the paper's biggest fan.

I have something in common with Mike Hosking after all.

Charlotte Dawson has not really been a happy camper, either. She has always thought, wrongly, we have had it in for her and she takes particular offence at anything written by our irrepressible gossip columnist Rachel Glucina.

When a newspaper lists the vacuous Charlotte Dawson as an enemy, that’s a huge clue why the HOS has been such a letdown.

Thankfully, Hosking and Dawson aren't the norm. In five years, we've grown our readership to more than 370,000, become the third-biggest newspaper in New Zealand, and won every major newspaper award.

There are only three Sunday rags, all of middling to poor quality. You’re going to each of the major awards eventually. The papers probably share them around.

In an age when it's easy to write off newspapers (and journalists can be the biggest doomsayers of all) the Herald on Sunday's success should be ample proof that a masthead will succeed when it listens to its readers and adapts its content accordingly.

The Herald on Sunday has been shaped by its readers. The newspaper you're holding today is a completely different beast to the one we launched in October 2004.

Translation: Give the suckers what they want.

Over the years we've become known as the property paper, the car crash paper, the Tony Veitch paper, the All Blacks paper and the Millie Elder paper.

Together with every other Sunday paper.

We don't mind any of this.

Translation: Proud to be a tabloid.

We've always tried to adapt to what our readers want - and buy. Selling the paper is of utmost importance, and to achieve that it's not always what might be considered the best, traditional journalism that makes the front page.

Translation: We’ll print anything – so long as it sells. it doesn't have to be the best. Anything will do.

The front page has to excite, titillate and capture your interest within three seconds - we rely much more heavily on retail sales than a daily newspaper with its larger subscriber base. Of everything we do, the front page is always the most frequently discussed aspect of the HoS. (Except when we stuff up the crossword grid - then all hell breaks loose.)

Translation: Doesn't have to be newsworthy. Just titillating.

The worst thing we can do is be boring. A good guideline is National Radio. If its media commentators start tut-tutting about one of our stories, it usually means we're on the right track.

Translation: There is no bad publicity in this game. If people complain in the media because we write rubbish, we win. So let’s write more rubbish.

National Radio staff have no concept of working in a commercial market.

Translation: I am taking enormous liberties by pretending nobody in National Radio has any commercial media experience, and am hoping nobody will notice this little fib.

The point is, if we don't sell the newspaper, we won't have a product or pages to present the work of some of New Zealand's best journalists and columnists.

Or maybe those top journalists would just go work for the competition, or find some other outlet for their work. As for some of the best columnists, who please? Kerre Woodham?

You get the picture. I should say before I go on that I don’t hold Shayne Currie solely responsible for the mediocre rag the HOS is. I know the newspaper game is a tough one, and that he has corporate masters to account to. But I also won’t be lectured to by someone who attempts to justifies poor quality by blaming the fact it’s tough in the “real world”, and who then tries to blame critics for having no understanding of the media game. If someone puts something out for public consumption and I don’t like it, I’ll yell as loudly as I want about how much I don't like it. As a consumer of media products I am in fact an expert - an expert in what people like me want. And the customer is always right, as the cliche goes.

I don’t usually buy the Sunday papers any more. I might skim their websites for anything interesting going down, but won't normally buy a hard copy. Whenever I've tried to read the HOS I have found myself spending five minutes just turning pages looking for something, anything, worth reading. By that time I'm usually at the end. I’m sure there are many like me who would be more than happy to forgive the HOS’s occasional foray into some celebrity’s or sportsperson’s underwear draw, if the paper was also publishing more of the hard-hitting stories and news it is surely capable of providing.

If I want to read only gossip and uninformed opinion, I can do that already on the internet. I can even write it. If a newspaper wants me to buy its product it has to convince me it can do a better job on the other stuff – like news and analysis.

John's Diary - 15/2/10

It's been a tough week.

Had my big speech in Parliament on Tuesday. Managed to say not much, and didn’t commit to doing anything, which left me very pleased. Sat down after the speech feeling pretty good about myself, only for the other lot to start tearing strips off me. Who do they think they are? Don't they know I won the election? They taunted me by saying the blogger David Farrar only rated my speech a B. Someone needs to remind Farrar who pays his wages.

I also announced we would look to increase GST to 15%. A lot of people are whining about this, and some of them claim I promised no GST increase. They say this proves I can't be trusted. But I never said we wouldn't raise GST. What I said was we wouldn't have to raise GST if we did a good job governing this country. Which part of that statement was a lie? LOL!

I’m having a bit of bother with the media. First, the bastards at Close Up bumped me for Robin Brooke. The producers explained that getting a middle aged man to weep inconsolably on camera because he'd made a mess of things would be a ratings winner. But I refused, so they put on a story about a former All Black instead. LOL!

Then TV3 announced last night that I own shares in Uranium. I was pretty darned pleased to hear I owned a part of my favourite 80s rock band (Man I loved the 80’s – big hair, big corporate deals, power lunches. Don’t remember 1981 though). But then someone told me Uranium is, like, totally bad. They make nuclear weapons and stuff out of it. Still not seeing a problem. This is why I put all my shares in a blind trust – to make sure I don’t get in trouble over my share dealings. The funny thing being that blind trust is what people usually put in me. LOL!

The papers aren’t much better. That Steve Braunias is a funny guy – NOT!. Wrote a mocking satirical piece in the Sunday Star Times yesterday pretending to be my diary (how truly sad would someone have to be?). Well, Steve, if it was so funny, how come I wasn’t laughing? Maybe I’ll get the SIS to take him out with “extreme prejudice”, as they say in the films. Though I’m not sure if they’re allowed to do that, so it may have to be a dirty job on the quiet. But who do I know who can sort this? That Slater guy might be the go. He spends most of his time on character assassination, and extreme prejudice is his speciality. LOL!

I’m very excited about my plan to make NZ a super-fund hub. It’s one of those big plans that will transform our economy. Like the nine-day working week. LOL! They did this super-fund thing in Ireland and look how that turned out. Okay, so the Irish have a crippling national debt and mass unemployment, but then they didn’t have a national cycleway plan, did they? This one is next on my urgent-action list, just after my plan to save the whales.

You see, big thinking is my greatest strength. I’ve got some great ideas for how we can make this country more prosperous, and I want us to use our science and innovation sector to lead the way. I know why our science sector is failing to perform. They simply don’t want it badly enough, are too process-driven and are practically looking for reasons to fail. Well I’ve had enough. So I got some expensive consultants in to take a look at the CRI sector. Rodney’s also been at me to slash red tape in the CRI sector for yonks, and with his help I’ve put together an action list. It includes abolishing scientific method, and rewriting the rules of physics and chemistry to be consistent with IFRS. I’m also thinking of making Simon my chief scientific adviser. Ian Wishart was unfortunately unavailable. (Note to self: price of gold is expensive, so ask Simon whether anyone in the CRI sector is looking at alchemy)

I just got voted the country's hottest politician, ahead of Simon Bridges. David Garrett was desperate for a win, and was trying to get all his friends to vote for him, until he found out it was a poll on the most sexy, not most sexist. LOL!

That will do. Have lots of big thinking to do.

UWA v Gray - The End?

Is this the final chapter in the UWA v Gray saga?

The University of Western Australia says it will have less money to fund research as a result of a court ruling that allowed a former staff member to keep his $98 million stake in a research company.

The High Court today refused UWA's bid to appeal a long running case involving former professor Bruce Gray, who developed a cancer treatment technology during his time there.

That technology is being developed by Sirtex Medical, a company founded by Dr Gray.

UWA tried to claim the profits from various cancer treatments developed by Dr Gray, and others, while he was an employee and his 29.5 per cent stake in Sirtex (valued today about $98 million), as it owned the intellectual property.

In September, the full bench of the Federal Court upheld a 2008 decision by Justice Robert French, which found in Dr Gray's favour and awarded him costs. UWA first launched legal proceedings in 2004.

The UWA v Gray case has generated a lot of publicity, with academic institutions worried they may no longer be able to claim ownership of much of the IP created by academic staff.

But the sky is not falling down. The "take-home" for institutions in this case is that many of them need to sharpen up their acts. In many cases the academic policies of institutions relating to IP and who owns that IP are either unclear, are improperly implemented, or are simply not properly incorporated into employment contracts and other documents.

An Open Letter To The PM

Dear Mr Key

I know I’ve been making fun of you lately, and I’m sorry about that. But you have been make it easy for me.

Anyway, I wanted to write to you because there’s something I want to say. You see, it’s about your government’s economic policies and your speech this week to Parliament.

I thought as I listened to your speech that something didn’t add up. It was as if you had identified this almost unattainable goal but didn’t seem to have any clear way of reaching it. I began to wonder if your plan to get us back to economic prosperity was to simply do nothing.

And then the penny dropped. Oh my God, I thought - you’ve been reading The Secret.

Mr Key, I think I get it now. It’s not about tax cuts, or fiddling with GST, health or education. Those things are just so goddamn tricky and complicated. It’s about something much bigger.

It’s about using the power of the cosmos and our inner spirituality to lift us from our economic rut and propel us into a successful future. It's about thinking positively and using words and phrases that make us feel good about ourselves. Isn’t that all we need? We don’t need any of that policy hocus pocus. We just need to feel empowered about ourselves. Every thought has a frequency. Every thought sends out a magnetic energy. What we focus on with our thoughts and feelings is what we attract into our experience.

It's such a brilliant plan I just didn't see it coming. Mr Key, I misunderestimated you.

But, Prime Minister, you're clearly new to this. I like the way you talked about achieving a step change, providing stable and inclusive government for all New Zealanders, encouraging innovation, skills and employment, and creating incentives for people to work hard, improve their skills and get ahead. As a first attempt it was pretty good. But I'm sure you can do better. And that's why I've written this letter.

Because I want to help you. Let me give you some advice.

Next time you want to talk about incentivising beneficiaries to get off welfare, why don't you instead talk about the power each and every one of them has to create their own reality? Tell them to close their eyes and visualise having everything they want, and that they are the makers of their own abundant universes.

And to those who feel weighed down by the burden of poverty, uplift them by reminding them that their job is not to worry about the "how", because the "how" will show up out of the commitment and belief in the "what".

Mr Key, you're already halfway there. You have shown under your administration that you understand the power of the mind. Under your capable government we have seen the imaginations of the poor and needy unleashed. So many of them can now only imagine what it must be like to afford the rent, to feed and clothe their children, and to hold down a well-paying job.

I know some people will slander your name. They will say you are a mediocrity, at best a caretaker leader who lacks the vision or courage to make the tough calls this country needs. But don't let their negativity affect your spirit. Know yourself. When the voice and vision on the inside become more profound and clear than the opinions on the outside, you have truly mastered your life.

Someone once said that our mind is a tool that we can use to make things happen. How true!

Mr Key, when I go back and listen to what you said, I think to myself: "What a tool!" 

On The Use Of Evidence

A guest post by Justice Minister Simon Power

I am often asked as Justice Minister what my position on evidence is.

Because I get asked this question a lot, I have decided to spell out my position and the position of the government I am a member of, so as to leave no doubt about where we stand.

For so long as I am Justice Minster there is not a single, solitary chance that this government will relax its position on the use of evidence.

Indeed, I will not rest until the use of evidence in formulating governmental policy has been cut to zero. I know this is an ambitious target, but, like the Prime Minster, I am ambitious for New Zealand and its people, especially when those people happen to be me.

Evidence is all around us. It is all pervasive. Most of us will know someone who is using evidence, and will have seen the destruction evidence causes, particularly to the chances of those people voting for my party.

And let me tell you a personal story. I have also dabbled with evidence. Not only at university, but also during various stages of my legal career. I know first-hand the terrible damage to irrational policymaking an addiction to evidence can cause. Thankfully, those days are now just a memory, but they have left me with a powerful determination to never again use evidence.

And let me be clear on one other thing. We don’t subscribe to the view that some types of soft evidence aren’t really harmful. It doesn’t matter whether it’s soft anecdotal evidence or hard facts. Prolonged use of evidence by voters can be harmful to this government.

That is why we have taken this stand. We are simply not prepared to gamble with the futures of New Zealanders who also happen to be members of my caucus.

Another Win For Binyam Mohamed

I reported a while ago on the case of Binyam Mohamed, who was tortured while in the custody of US intelligence agencies, with the full complicity of MI5. The British government has tried to prevent release of part of a judgment that details the torture Mr Mohamed was subjected to. This has led to a series of cases and appeals.

A further appeal by the British government has now been lost, and the Court of Appeal has issued a judgment authorising release of the originally redacted information and criticising the behaviour of the British government. The ruling is a sharp slap in the face of British foreign secretary, David Miliband. According to the Guardian:

The judges – Sir Igor Judge, the lord chief justice; Lord Neuberger, the master of the rolls; and Sir Anthony May, president of the Queen's Bench – shattered the convention that the courts should not question claims by the executive relating to national security.

In damning references to claims made by Miliband and his lawyers, and stressing the importance of the media in supporting the principle of open justice, they said the case raised issues of "fundamental importance", of "democratic accountability and ultimately the rule of law itself".

Publication of the material Miliband wanted to suppress was "compelling", Judge said, since they concerned the involvement of wrongdoing by agents of the state in the "abhorrent practice of torture". The material helped to "vindicate Mr Mohamed's assertion that UK authorities had been involved in and facilitated the ill- treatment and torture to which he was subjected while under the control of USA authorities".

So after all that, here is the section of the originally redacted judgment that the British government fought so hard to suppress:

It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2002 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.

v) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed. 

vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and "disappearing" were played upon.

vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews

viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS [security services] made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

x) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities.

It's not pretty, and it reveals a clear pattern of deliberate torture. Mr Mohamed has also alleged that he was subjected to vicious physical punishment, including having his genitals sliced, and being viciously beaten.

It gets worse. According to the Guardian, the text of the Court of Appeal judgment was watered down to delete damning references to MI5's culture of suppressing evidence, after the Court was leaned on by the government's lawyers. The Guardian has published a letter from the government's lawyers to the Court requesting the deletion of some of this damning material. The letter itself reveals what some of that information is.

All of this suggests the British intelligence services think they are a law unto themselves, that they have the right to act outside the law, and that they should not be held accountable for anything they do. But everyone who doesn't believe the TV show Spooks is actually a documentary should be concerned by such rampant abuse of power.

Mind Those Stairs

Ah hell, everyone else has been making jokes about John Key's "step change". Might as well join in.

Joe Walsh v Joe Walsh (Confused? Good)

The Copyright 1709 blog reports on the spat between the lawyer for Joe Walsh of the band Eagles and Joe Walsh, the Republican Congressional candidate for Illinois.

Walsh the politician has been using the song "Walk Away" by Walsh the musician in his election campaign - but with changed lyrics.

Billboard magazine reports on the letter written by the lawyer for Walsh the musician, Peter Paterno, to Walsh the politician:

The letter begins by schooling politician Joe Walsh that it "might be beneficial" for him to learn a thing or two about the United States Copyright Act: "It says a lot of things, but one of the things it says is that you can't use someone else's song for your political campaign promotion unless you get permission from the owner of the copyright in the song. As far as we can tell you didn't do that. Maybe you got so busy with the campaign that you just forgot. But that's not OK.

"Second, under that same United States Copyright Act, you're not allowed to take someone's song and change the lyrics. This is not to say you're not allowed to write silly lyrics, you just have to write them to your own music. Now, I know why you used Joe's music -- it's undoubtedly because it's a lot better than any music you or your staff could have written. But that's the point. Since Joe writes better songs than you do, the Copyright Act rewards him by letting him decide who gets to use the songs he writes."

Then the letter gets pretty interesting in its discussion of trademark issues. Because the two guys share the same name, Paterno mentions the public could be confused as to the source of material or whether there's an endorsement being made.

The letter continues: "Given that your name is Joe Walsh, I'd think you'd want to be extra careful about using Joe's music in case the public might think that Joe is endorsing your campaign, or, God forbid, is you."

Walsh the politician is affiliated to the Tea Party movement. It's a fact that is unlikely to endear him to Walsh the musician.

Republican candidates have a habit of taking the music of other people without permission. The party is big on property rights, but its leaders seem extremely cavalier about the property rights of others.

Get Your Murdering Done Now - Updated

National MP Paul Quinn's Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill has won the ballot today and will be introduced into Parliament for a first reading.

Oh good, I thought as I read about this. I was just thinking the other day how much we needed to add another regressive and mean bit of law to our statute books.

I should say that I can't find a copy of the bill anywhere, but the title of the bill appears to be self-explanatory. (Update: here is a link to the bill)

At present the Electoral Act 1993 disenfranchises prisoners who are serving a sentence of life imprisonment, preventative detention, or three years or more imprisonment. There are other disqualifications (e.g. for mental health reasons), but I won't go into those, as they aren't relevant to this particular issue. I'm assuming the purpose of the bill is to widen the scope of the restrictions that apply to convicted offenders. If it turns out Mr Quinn in fact wishes to ensure that prisoners are given big fluffy pink teddy-bears when they line up to vote, I'll of course apologise.

So, yes, let's disenfranchise those who are already at the bottom rung of society. After all, they don't generally vote National, do they?

Seriously though, unless the proposed law only applies to a select group of complete bastards, I'd be worried about its implications. For example:

• will it apply to everyone in the nick?
• will it apply post-release? What about during parole?
• are some offences excluded?
• will there be an exception in case Nelson Mandela decides to spend his remaining years in Godzone?

And if this proposed law is to only apply to a select group of complete bastards, why are we bothering? There is a backlog of important legislation that needs to be passed. Why is this National backbencher wasting Parliament's time? Is this really the best idea he can come up with?

I don't know whether the bill has the support of Quinn's own party, but you would assume so. And you know anything that is "tough on crims" will get ACT's vote.

But don't panic, because most laws aren't retrospective in effect. So if you've been thinking about that big heist, or have been weighing up whether to knife Grandma, you've still got time. Just make sure you get it done before they change the law, otherwise you may lose the opportunity to vote.

(Update: The law will apply to anyone in prison - anyone at all. But it won't apply after release, so at least Nelson Mandela is safe.

It is still a pointless, petty and punitive law. This justification from the bill is simply breathtaking:

Given most persons sentenced to any term of imprisonment of less than three years are almost certain to have a record of prior convictions this bill is based on the premise that such persons have already committed crimes against the community sufficient to forfeit their right to have a say in its governance.

It is not "almost certain" that those in prison for serious crimes are repeat offenders. And even if they are repeat offenders, it is not "almost certain" that those prior offences were so serious as to justify the taking away of the right to vote. This is just loony thinking. Taken to its logical extreme, it could be used to justify taking the civic rights away from anyone who commits any offence - any offence at all.)

Key's Speech - Anything New For Science And Innovation?

John Key's speech today has disappointed many for the timidity with which the Prime Minister approached much-needed tax reform.

But what did he have to say about science and innovation? One of the first acts of this government was to scrap the R&D tax credit. And up to today it has shown little urgency in helping to support our science and innovation sector. Last year's budget announcements provided for some modest increases in funding for the sciences, but when the loss of the R&D tax credit is taken into account, it did not really amount to a net improvement.

What Key said

So is anything about to change? Maybe. Key has identified support for science and innovation as one of the "six main policy drivers". Here's the portion of his speech dealing with science and innovation:

New Zealand's future economic performance depends to a large extent on generating and using new ideas.

We are home to some of the brightest and most innovative people, scientists and inventors in the world. Despite our small size, and distance from foreign markets, New Zealand companies have time and again proven themselves capable of producing world-beating products and services.

From Weta Digital and Icebreaker through to Zespri and Fonterra, New Zealand's leading exporters have harnessed science and innovation to develop new products and improve the way they do business.

The challenge for New Zealand is to get more of our firms using science, research and technology to deliver more valuable products and services, which in turn allows them to succeed in competitive export markets and to create new and better-paid jobs for New Zealanders.

Science and innovation are therefore key elements of the Government's economic agenda, both this year and into the future.

Our objective is a high-performing public science system which supports economic growth, and a wider innovation system that encourages firms to increase their investment in, take-up, and application of research.

This year the Primary Growth Partnership gets fully up and running, with the Government investing up to $40 million, alongside industry, in research and innovation to boost New Zealand's primary, forestry and food sectors. This investment rises to $70 million in future years.

We are also investing significantly this year in the Domestic Centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research, and in the Global Research Alliance, to drive much-needed research on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

This year the Government will fund a network of open access food development and commercialisation facilities across New Zealand.  This network will provide the infrastructure that food and beverage firms need to develop new ingredients and consumer products.

The Government therefore remains committed to high quality innovation in New Zealand's traditional resource-based sectors. However, we also want to boost our support for innovation in newer, knowledge-intensive activities like high-tech manufacturing. Growing a substantial portfolio of these businesses, beyond our core resource-based strengths, will be important for New Zealand's future economic growth.

In 2010 the Government will be making changes in the way we invest in Crown Research Institutes (CRIs).  The Government believes CRIs can be more powerful engines of growth and we plan to introduce changes to deliver greater benefits for New Zealand. We will also introduce measures to get more research and knowledge out of CRIs and into firms.

As I indicated earlier, the fiscal situation means that future new spending allowances can only be very modest, and most agencies will miss out on funding increases altogether.

Nevertheless, science and innovation, and how they can underpin business opportunities, are so important for this Government that we have made this area a priority for new spending in this year's Budget, with a focus on boosting business research and science capability.

Key's speech utilises lots of feel-good language about the importance of innovation, and he throws in a few examples of successful innovative companies as if to prove that, yes, we really can do it.

Analysing what Key said

But what about the specifics?

• The Government is investing up to $40 million into the Primary Growth Partnership this year. This investment rises to $70 million in future years. This funding was committed in the last budget, so there is nothing new in this announcement. Verdict: old news.
• The government will also invest significantly this year in the Domestic Centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research, and in the Global Research Alliance, to drive much-needed research on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. The Government has already committed to funding the Centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research, so it's not clear whether funding is to be increased, or whether this is just a rehash of news they've already released. As for the Global Research Alliance, the Government had already committed $45 million over four years. So the jury is out on whether Key is proposing any real funding increase here. Given his subsequent comments on fiscal constraints, probably not. Verdict: probably little new here.
• The Government will fund a network of open access food development and commercialisation facilities across New Zealand. This is a pretty vague promise lacking in detail. It's not clear whether this funding will be provided within the existing funding regimes, or represents a new commitment. Verdict: unclear whether anything new.
• The Government will make changes in the way it invests in CRIs.  It will introduce measures to get more research and knowledge out of CRIs and into firms. This suggests there could be a shakeup of the CRI sector. For a relatively small country we do have a large number of CRIs, and they compete with each other for the same small pool of funding. It's not clear whether the funding of CRIs will change, or whether there will be a more fundamental reform of the CRI sector. The promise to get knowledge out of CRIs and into firms is a bit woolly. All CRIs are commercialisation-focused, even if their successes have to date been mostly patchy. So without any clear detail this just sounds like more  feel-good language. Verdict: potentially promising, but lacking detail.
• The fiscal situation means that future new spending allowances can only be very modest, and most agencies will miss out on funding increases altogether. Self explanatory. Verdict: discouraging.

Summary

So a few vague promises, combined with a talking up of things that have already happened or funding that had already been committed.

The only hint of something significant is the possibility we will see some reform of the CRI sector. But even that's not clear.

If this is one of the six main policy drivers of this Government, forgive me if I admit to feeling underwhelmed.