Give Us Back Our DHL Cup!

MEAA leader Simon Whipp is probably a relieved man, after last night's All Black loss to Australia.

Last week Whipp was the man New Zealanders most hated.

But last night one man put in a brief but memorable performance that assured him of infamy. Take a bow Stephen Donald.

Donald doesn't deserve to be vilified quite as much as he is being. As international players go he is mediocre, and not up to it. But he didn't kill anyone. Let's give the guy a break.

Sure he had two chances to win the game for New Zealand. He missed a regulation penalty kick that would have given us an almost unassailable lead. Then in the dying seconds he missed a kick to touch that might have finished the game, or at least allowed us to regroup.

Actually I'm getting bloody angry just thinking about it. Damn you, Donald!

Departing South Canterbury CEO Got Huge Payout

Stuff reports that former South Canterbury Finance CEO Lachie McLeod was paid out $550,000 as a golden handshake in November 2009.

The scale of the mismanagement at SCF becomes clearer by the day. I don't suppose there's any way to claw back the money paid to McLeod, but those on the SCF who made the decision to pay him out rather than sack him on the spot for incompetence ought to take responsibility.

Not holding my breath though.

Privacy Be Damned

Wait, so we're not allowed to know about our MPs' travel now?

Individual MPs use of travel perks - such as what was used by Act leader Rodney Hide to take his fiance on an overseas holiday - will now be kept secret under new rules.

Speaker Lockwood Smith defended the changes, released this afternoon, saying that the money available for the MPs' overseas travel perk has been deducted from their collective salaries, so it is not so much a perk but something they have already paid for.

I am outraged. And not just by the apostrophe crime being committed in the above excerpt from the Herald.

Stuff privacy. They're our representatives. Why was it okay previously to release expenses information, when now it's not? Is it because now that National have had two years in office they're worried about the public reaction towards all the (probably quite necessary) travel they're doing?

National were quite happy to attack Labour on ministerial spending when the first lot of expenses were revealed and painted Labour in a bad light. So what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

There is simply no justification for this sudden secrecy.

I've been generally very impressed with the performance of Lockwood Smith as speaker. But this is wrong.

Living In The Past

The political radar of Chris Trotter is malfunctioning again.

Trotter appears to delight in writing columns condemning Phil Goff as a leader.

Given how completely Trotter has missed the mood of the nation over the Hobbit affair, I’m now beginning to think that if that’s really what Trotter thinks, Goff may well be the man to lead Labour back into power.

Take this little gem from Trotter’s latest Dominion Post column:

Constrained by the legal and moral undertakings pursuant to her agreement with the Hollywood moguls, Ms Kelly's options were limited. But with Parliament in session, Mr Goff could have made full use of parliamentary privilege to launch a devastating counterattack against Sir Peter and his growing chorus of anti- union acolytes.

By refusing to fight back, the Opposition transformed what was rapidly escalating into a full-scale, Government-led attack on the entire union movement into a complete rout.

In the absence of unassailable Labour counter- arguments, the mainstream news media stuck slavishly to Sir Peter's anti-union script.

The week, which had begun with such high hopes for organised labour's triumph, ended with its total, ignominious and unnecessary defeat.

So Trotter is saying that Goff should have gone on the attack against Sir Peter - or should that be St Peter? Gee, I wonder how that would have gone down with the media and public. Actually, I don’t wonder. It would have been a complete and utter disaster.

Trotter’s message to Labour and to those he labels "scabs" could better be expressed as follows:

Comrade, throw yourself and your children before the oncoming tanks of the oppressive capitalists. Your brave sacrifice will not slow them down for more than a moment, but your martyrdom will be an inspiration for all downtrodden workers.

What? You refuse to sacrifice yourself and your entire family for the cause? You traitorous scum!

Trotter’s clapped-out Marxist thinking was obsolete thirty years ago. It now looks positively ancient.

So many on the hard left are happy to take the mickey out of those Objectivist nutters who live their lives through the weird writings of a dead Russian-American woman. Yet they fail to see the irony that they themselves use the writings of a 19th century German to frame every political issue.

People who define every issue through a narrow lens tend to miss the bigger picture. Trotter’s an obvious example. It’s entirely possible to be generally sympathetic with the union movement without giving individual unions the right to do as they please. He doesn't grasp this obvious point. Trotter quotes history in many of his articles to argue that this is just another example of an anti-union crackdown. While an understanding of past events is essential for good decision-making, it can sometimes occur with some historians that they end up trapped in a past age. I suspect that is what has happened with Mr Trotter.

Class treason or not, labelling Actors Equity as an inept bunch whose actions have harmed the union movement is simply telling the truth. To do anything else is to conceal the facts. If the demands of ideology require people to lie for the greater good, then the cause isn't worth fighting for.

Splitter!

A personal message from Bob Mittsky, Chairman of the Workers Solidarity Party of Aotearoa.

YOU!

YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE! SCAB! WRECKER! SNIVELLING RUNNING DOG!

YOU THINK YOUR BETRAYAL OF THE WORKERS WON’T COME AT A PRICE TO YOU? THINK AGAIN, FASCIST DOG!

THE REVOLUTION IS COMING, AND WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU LIVE.

AND WHEN I FIND OUT THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO KEYED MY LEXUS THIS MORNING THERE WILL BE WAR!

No SFO Investigation Into Blue Chip

The decision by the SFO not to prosecute anyone involved with the Blue Chip companies is unfortunate.

Serious fraud cases are complex, and I’m in no position to judge whether the SFO's decision is the correct one. I agree there's no point in prosecuting someone if your prospects of success are slim.

But had there been a prosecution, even a failed one, we would have learned a lot more about the deceptive and morally dubious practices of the people behind Blue Chip.

So nobody will go to jail. I would quite like to see some of the people behind the Blue Chip companies horsewhipped, but apparently there are laws about such things (PC madness!!)

Finally A Fantasy Story That Doesn't Involve The Hobbit

John Key has said there is a risk that other fantasists might be lurking within the public service, after an official investigation into the appointment of Stephen Wilce determined that he should not have been appointed.

Never mind the public service. Key need only look at his own caucus to find a CV fantasist. 

When is Aaron Gilmore going to resign?

Uncle Ernie: Young Mr Key

Let’s hear it for our wonderful Prime Minister!

Bernie Ecclestone is right. If we have learned one thing from the Hobbit debacle it is that democracy is the enemy of good government. When you consider how close we were to losing the Hobbit films, the unavoidable conclusion is that John Key should have been put in charge from the beginning. In charge of the whole shooting match.

Mind you, I don't even watch movies, because they just don't make them like they used to, and nowadays they're full of young people carrying on like goats on heat. And the TV has gone downhill too, since that Paul Henry fellow was taken off air. Now he was good to watch, although he was a bit racist for my liking. If there's one thing I can't abide it's a racist. Oh, and a Chinaman.

But we need a film industry, because it provides jobs for all those otherwise useless unemployable creative types. So I'm pleased to see our young Mr Key rising to the occasion and acting decisively. He is pushing urgent legislation through Parliament today to rewrite employment laws, without any consultation or mandate from the public. That’s how all great leaders operate. Consultation and debate are for wet hand-wringing liberals. Parliament is just a formality, an unnecessary institution that slows down progress, and prevents the necessary work of government from being done.

Think of the hip operations that could be performed if we just put Key in control of everything. No MPs salaries or parliamentary staff wages to pay. Why we always break government expenditure down into numbers of hip operations has always been a mystery to me. Not that I’ve got anything against hips. I've had both of mine replaced, you know. So if there was a hip party I’d give them my vote. They’re splendid things, and the human race would be a sadder species if we had to make do without hips. That’s why these socialists want to spend my money on bureaucracy and waste, rather than fixing hips. Hips make people happy. Now why would those miserable moaning lefties want people to be happy? Next they'll be after our sternums. Well I say enough is enough! You can have my dicky knees, but you're not having my sternum. Maybe bodysnatching is how they do things in Russia, but in this country we ask first before we take someone else's body parts.

And while we’re at it, what are the unions all about? What has union agitation ever done for the average worker? The minimum wage, annual and sick leave entitlements, reasonable pay and conditions for workers, proper lunch and tea breaks for most workers, protection from unjustified dismissal, and labour laws that protect employees from being exploited. So apart from all of those things, nothing. Nothing at all!

Our gallant Prime Minister rode into battle on our behalf to rescue the Hobbit films from being lost offshore, all because of union interference. An Australian union. It’s bad enough that they won’t take our apples. What’s wrong with our bloody apples anyway? It’s not as if the Aussie ones are much chop. Those Australians have some cheek coming over here, I tell you. I’ve never forgiven the Australians for what Greg Chappell did to us in ’81. We should have declared war on the spot. But it's what you'd expect from a nation descended from thieving criminals.

I’m not even a fan of the rubbish Mr Tolkien wrote. I tried to read that book about the ring, but he just doesn’t have the literary skill of say a Dan Brown or a Wilbur Smith. And the ending of the book defied all belief. If I’d had one of those fancy rings I wouldn’t have just thrown it away into a volcano. It must have been worth a bit of money to that Sauron fellow, so why didn’t they sell it to him? Do you know they even have one of those internets now where you can buy and sell things? Couldn’t they have sold it to the highest bidder on one of those?

Mind you, they would need electricity to run a computer, wouldn’t they? That would be a problem for those characters in the book, since they don’t even seem to have motor vehicles. But you don’t need electricity to run an old-fashioned typewriter. They were made to keep working, unlike the useless pile of plastic and metal that sits in a corner in my spare room. I've said before that typewriters are the way of the future. As for that computer, I've had it for a few years now, and I recently tried to contact the manufacturer, because I think the ribbon must need to be replaced. I just can’t get it to work. But it seems Mr Wang has gone out of business. Typical fly-by-nighter!

Even if they had electricity in the ring book, they would probably struggle to afford to pay for it. These power companies seem to take great joy in gouging us older folk, so that they can provide bigger discounts to their corporate clients. Big business has a lot to answer for, and so do all those politicians who keep giving them our money. Look at how much money that American film company is being given by our government, just so it can make a couple of lousy films here.

The politicians just don’t get it, do they? It’s our money, Mr Key! Such is his unseemly haste in stitching up a deal that he’s now rushing through urgent legislation. This is an abuse of democratic process and ought to be stopped. I didn’t have my right testicle shot off by a Chinaman in Korea so that our money-trading leader could give away our sovereignty.

Shame on you, Mr Key, shame on you!

So Here's The Deal

Now that the Hobbit films are here to stay, and that we have established that the ham-fisted attempts by the actors union to negotiate were a handy pretext to enable Warner Bros to extract more cash from us, let's look at the deal struck today. I've now had time to look at the terms. 

• John Key to receive honorary Bilderberg Group membership.
• Gerry Brownlee to get a cameo role in the Hobbit - as a barrel.
• Taxpayer to pick up Warner Bros hotel minibar bill. May run into the thousands.
• Employment laws to be changed to clarify that the law is what Warner Bros lawyers say it is.
• New Zealand to be renamed Middle Earth. Invercargill to be renamed Mordor. Hamilton to be renamed Shithouse.
• Oath of fealty to Sir Peter Jackson to be compulsory in schools from next term.
• New Zealand navy to urgently purchase more vessels so that actor unionists can be flogged around the fleet.
• A special fund to be established to promote the National Party New Zealand tourism. 
• Script to be changed so that Orc king is now an Australian union boss.
• Emergency Canterbury earthquake legislation to be amended to give Warner Bros boss the ability to pass Orders in Council.
• Phil Goff to become even more irrelevant.

Certainty Is Not Always A Positive

I’m sorry to keep posting on the Hobbit film issue, but since it’s the big news story of the moment you’ll just have to cope.

John Key yesterday said he was going to look at whether our labour laws needed to be changed, in order to give comfort to producers of the Hobbit films.

Let’s put aside for a moment the obvious question: should we change our laws to suit a large US corporate? Instead, let’s consider what certainty Key could offer Warner Bros.

Warners appears to want certainty that there won’t be any industrial action during the filming of the Hobbit movies. It seems that its intention is to hire most, if not all, staff as independent contractors rather than employees.

If actors and other crew are hired as independent contractors, rather than employees, then under the terms of their contracts they won’t be able to cause trouble without finding themselves in breach of contract. But Warners is worried that those staff might still try to argue that they are employees, not contractors. Warners executives are probably aware of the Supreme Court case Bryson v Three Foot Six Limited [2005] NZSC 34. Mr Bryson was on the Lord of the Rings crew as an independent contractor in its miniatures unit, but when his contract was terminated he successfully argued that he was an employee.

The law provides that, whatever label you give to the relationship you have with the person who pays you, if your situation resembles more an employment arrangement than a typical fee for services arrangement you will be regarded as an employee. When a case is litigated the courts will apply a number of tests, such as the “control”, “integration” and “fundamental” tests, to determine the status of a worker. It won’t matter that you called yourself an independent contractor, or that you signed an agreement saying that you were not an employee. This is the duck test. If it looks like one and sounds like one etc…

There are some pretty obvious reasons for having this law. If people who would normally be regarded as employees were able to be hired as independent contractors, then employers could effectively contract out of all of their employment law obligations, such as the obligation to pay a minimum wage, to provide annual leave and sick leave, and so on.

Critically, the Employment Relations Act gives employees and their unions rights to bargain and, ultimately, to withhold their labour. This may be the scenario Warners fears.

What I don’t understand is just how National are proposing to bring certainty to the situation. If the law is changed so that the label the parties give to a relationship can override the reality, what kind of precedent does that set? Pretty soon every second employer will be getting their staff signed up as independent contractors, and so avoiding all employment obligations.

I suppose it might be possible to formulate clear guidelines about what is and what isn’t an independent contractor arrangement. For example, a list of the types of working practices that indicate more an employment relationship than an independent contract. But I could see such a set of guidelines being the size of a phone book and taking months to write.

It may be that the clever folk from Crown Law can pull a rabbit out of the hat without fundamentally distorting our industrial relations practices. I’m not an employment lawyer but, still, I have my doubts. Assuming I am right, what certainty is John Key able to offer Warners other than a rule that allows the master to determine the status of their workers?

Most people want the Hobbit films made in New Zealand. But if the price is a wholesale surrender of the rights of employees, then the price is too high.

Slavery: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

After a lengthy meeting with Warner Bros executives yesterday afternoon, Prime Minister John Key said that changes would have to be made to labour relations laws if the The Hobbit films were to be filmed in New Zealand.

"Warners have said the only reason the film may not be made in New Zealand is the risk of further industrial action," said Mr Key.

"But we have assured them that we intend to do everything in our power to ensure The Hobbit is filmed here, in New Zealand."

Mr Key said that Crown Law were looking at potential changes to labour relations laws to accommodate the Hollywood studio.

"One option that I'm keen to explore, and that I want us to take a look at, is slavery," said Mr Key.

Some experts say that the introduction of slavery would reduce the likelihood of industrial unrest during the shooting of the film.

Mr Key confirmed that officials had looked at some of the economic modelling around the use of a slave labour force.

"When you look at the benefits of enslaving people, it's actually surprising that previous governments haven't considered it before.

"It's got some real advantages for the film industry and may help us to attract more blockbusters. Having a force of slaves with no civil rights, and who live or die at the whim of their cruel and tyrannical masters, is the ultimate attraction for a film adaptation of a Tolkien book.

"They can do a lot with special effects, but they still can't match the realism of people being forced against their will to do battle, and to slaughter others in order to save themselves. The battle scenes will be unlike anything we've seen before on the big screen."

Gerry Brownlee, the Minister for Economic Development, also attended the meeting with Warner Bros executives. He said he would support a move to slave labour.

"This is the boost the New Zealand economy has been looking for," said Mr Brownlee.

"Businesses are likely to invest more in capital and R&D if they know they won't have to pay wages, and if they know the people working for them will be flogged mercilessly if they so much as raise their voices.

"Look at the Greeks and the Romans. Their nations were built off the back of slaves, but look at their achievements: law, culture, art, pederasty, to name but a few.

"I've already drafted an Order in Council to make this happen."

Prominent business writer Rod Oram said the move to reintroduce slavery was innovative.

"I have been one of the harshest critics of this government and its lack of vision in planning a more productive and innovative future for this nation.

"But by God, think what we could achieve if we had an army of slaves to do all the work. We could have world class infrastructure, all for the price of a few bits of mouldy bread, some chains, and foul water."

However, Labour leader Phil Goff was scathing of the slavery plan.

"This is just the same old neoliberal prescription we've heard again and again. How can we afford armies of slaves when the government continues to make the cost of living so unaffordable for ordinary people?

"It's the aspiration of most decent New Zealanders to own their own home, as well as slaves that they can order around, beat or sexually abuse.

"Unlike National, Labour will walk the talk. Those who can't afford their own servile staff will have access to Working Slaves For Families, and we will offer discounts to those on low incomes who can't afford the whips, flails, paddles and other gruesome instruments of torment necessary to cower a captive labour force."

The Prime Minister admitted the slavery plan had not been fully developed or costed.

"Look, it's still just an idea at this stage. Obviously we'll have to find a cheap source of slave labour for the plan to be viable. We don't have conquering armies that we can send overseas to capture territories and enslave entire races, thanks to years of neglect of our defence forces by previous governments.

"So we'll have to look internally for our slaves. We may even need to change our insolvency laws to introduce debt slavery and peonage. The good news is that the way our economy is tracking our plan ought to deliver us thousands of slaves."

Mr Key said the Warners executives had not yet made a decision on where the film would be made. But they had expressed interest in the slavery option.

"Imagine a servile workforce with no rights at all, being sold down the river to Hollywood executives.

"How could Warners say no to that?"

Shock Beehive Leak Shows Evil Warners Masterplan!

I have had a contact in the Beehive (Let's just call him Bill) drop a bombshell today.

He sent me a pile of emails from the PM’s own computer. I can’t even guess how he got hold of them, but he insists I publish them, even though it puts him at great personal risk.

The emails show an exchange between senior Warner Bros executive Albert Brassica and Prime Minister John Key over the weekend just passed. I have transcribed the full exchange below, in the interests of democracy and accountability.

Hopefully the news media will now take this story up.

Albert Brassica (AB):

John

It looks as if this is getting great publicity. I just wanted to say you’re doing a great job for us here at Warners.

John Key (JK):

Albert

The suckers are reeling. Had a big union rally last week and nobody noticed. People are falling over themselves to put the boot into the actors.

It was a great idea you guys had. Smash the unions and make me look good when I come to the rescue.

AB:

Don’t thank me – thank Sir Peter! It was his idea to drain the life out of the actors' union. Low wages here we come!

And don’t thank us too much. It’s not like we didn’t get our pound of flesh!

JK:

Union flesh! Is there any tastier dish?

You guys drive a hard bargain, though. Bill will be fuming when he finds out how much of a tax break I’ve promised you.

When Bill gets uppity I just remind him of the 2002 election.

AB:

Wait, you guys have elections? I thought you had a new king or something.

I like my unionist bloody. Seared on the grill for only a couple of minutes, then turned. Keeps the juices inside.

JK:

Albert, Aragorn was just a character in the Lord of the Rings films. We have a queen. But I’m really the one in charge, when my Business Roundtable bosses let me off the leash that is.

How do you tenderise the meat? Don’t you find some of the louder noisier unionists a bit, well, tough? God, imagine trying to chew into Sue Bradford.

AB:

Come on, John, stop pulling my leg. Next you’ll be saying you don’t have any hobbits there.

You mean we could have made these films in Ireland after all?

JK:

No hobbits. It’s true.

But where else in the world are you going to find someone as cynical, manipulative and despicable as me? You need me.

AB:

LOL! That’s for sure.

Try marinating them for a couple of hours before you slap them on the hot grill. Red wine and garlic, and a sprinkling of virgins’ blood mixed in.

JK:

I’ll try that when you’re next down here. I love a barbecue almost as much as I love to perpetuate acts of dastardly evil against the good, decent hardworking folk of this country.

AB:

Amen to that. Bring it on!

JK:

I hope you enjoy the spectacle of my crushing the life blood from the union movement once and for all. ONCE AND FOR ALL!

LONG LIVE THE REPTILIAN ELITE!

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA! BWAH HA HA HA HA!

AB:

You okay there, John?

JK:

Yeah, left the room and the cat walked on my computer keyboard. Must have turned caps lock on.

Jesus Murder Case: Authorities To Re-Open Investigation After Father’s Pleas

Biblical authorities confirmed yesterday that they would consider re-examining some of the evidence in the Jesus murder case, after a plea from the father of the victim.

Last week the New Zealand Herald published an interview with God, the father of Jesus.

“I just want answers,” said God.

“Not a day goes by when I don’t think about that boy. And all these years not knowing who did it. It breaks my heart. Some days I get really mad at the world, and lash out.”

God said that the death of His son had sent Him into a destructive cycle.

“Plagues, wars, smitings and earthquakes. You name it, I’ve done it. I even made sure that the land where they killed my son would never see peace.”

Jesus Christ was crucified by the Romans 2000 years ago, on the instigation of religious authorities. But the Roman soldiers who nailed him to the cross and speared him have never been identified.

Some people have also questioned the official version of the Jesus story.

The official biblical investigation found that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Jewish high priest, Caiaphas, in return for 30 pieces of silver.

But supporters of the disgraced Judas say he was made a scapegoat, and that the evidence for Judas’ involvement is questionable.

They point to the Gospel of Judas, which indicates that Judas was acting on instructions from Jesus.

Mary Peters, one of Judas’ supporters, said Judas had been unfairly targeted and that the Jesus case had led to his untimely death.

“Such was the pressure on him that he hanged himself. He just could not take all the insults and vilification,” said Mrs Peters.

“It’s time to re-open the investigation, and to clear Judas’ name once and for all.”

Meanwhile, a group of former and current sports stars have lent their weight to a bid to re-open an investigation into the death of Jesus.

“My autograph? Um… yeah okay,” said Leon Dexter, a prominent rugby sevens star, when asked if he would sign a petition calling on authorities to re-open the investigation.

And a former Silver Ferns captain, Yvonne Sneltz, currently on trial for the murder of her mother, agreed that society owed it to God find a way to ease His pain.

“I support the Herald's campaign. I like seeing pictures of someone other than me on the front page of the Herald,” said Ms Sneltz.

However a prominent atheist, Dr. Jordan Brunswick, and author of Show Me The Money: Why God Doesn’t Exist, said that a new investigation would be a waste of resources.

“God is sad, God is upset, and wants answers. Well tell me this: how can an imaginary being feel pain? Even if we were to accept that God might exist, which is utterly absurd proposition, how can this all-powerful being not know what happened to his own son. To Himself, in fact! Such is the whole f**ked up trinity thing.”

But in a stinging editorial this morning, the New Zealand Herald rebutted Dr Brunswick’s claims.

“Dr. Brunswick, stop being such a spoilsport. We’ve put an enormous amount of resources into reviving this old story. We ain’t got nothing better for our front pages, so give it a break will you?”

Thousands Come Together In Anti-Christchurch Concert

While tens of thousands turned up in Christchurch today for the earthquake relief concert Band Together, another concert dedicated to Christchurch was taking place further north.

Thousands gathered in the Auckland Domain this evening for the "Let's Burn Christchurch" free concert.

Concert-goers ranged from the elderly to young families. Police estimated that at least 70,000 had gathered by 6pm to give their support to demolishing the pustule on the nation's backside that is Christchurch.

New Auckland mayor Len Brown roused the crowd with a stirring speech as night fell.

Mr Brown said that he didn't like Christchurch, and that he hoped another major earthquake would come soon to finish the job.

His speech was greeted with cheering and sustained applause.

The crowd appeared largely good-natured, and police said that apart from a large number of savage beatings and knifings, things had gone smoothly.

Event promoter Jasmine Curry said she was pleased with the turnout.

"We've all got friends and family in Christchurch, and we all know the hell they've been through since the big quake.

"All the same, that's no reason to suddenly pity the fools who have chosen to live in the foulest city in the Southern Hemisphere.

"Every time I see a Cantabrian I roll up a great big glob of spit in my mouth and let it launch."

Ms Curry said the money raised during the concert would go to a number of Canterbury projects.

"We're building a great big dirty bomb," she said. "It'll make the earthquake seem like a fart."

Prime Minister John Key was in Christchurch today, but his opposite number Phil Goff made an appearance at the Auckland event.

Mr Goff appeared on stage wearing a t-shirt with the words "Fuck Christchurch" on it.

"To the people of Canterbury, we are gathered here to send a message of support," said Mr Goff.

"Support for burning down your stinking main city and every goddamn surrounding town. You people make me sick. All of you! I hate you all so much!"

An emotional Mr Goff was led away shortly afterwards by his minders, screaming obscenities while being restrained.

But it was the music the crowds came to hear. They were treated to a mixture of popular modern tunes and some classic Kiwi rock anthems. The crowd boogied to Frankie Stevens and Tina Cross singing the popular tune I'm yearning for Christchurch burning, while Neil Finn wowed the audience with some of his great hits, like Christchurch Better Be Gone Soon, Don't Dream It's On Fire, and Six Months In A Leaky Boat would still be better than even a minute in that poxy place.

The concert closed just after 9pm, after a stirring show by the headline act The New Beatles.

The surviving Beatles had been keen to be involved as soon as they heard about the concert. Paul McCartney told the crowd that he had vivid memories of Christchurch from their 1964 tour to New Zealand.

"I mean, what a god-awful place. Christ, I can't believe they didn't just bulldoze it years ago.

"When I heard about this concert I thought 'I have to be involved'. Christchurch was about the worse place we ever toured. I still have nightmares about the people.

"George was never the same after that concert. I do believe all the foul memories of the place ate away at him for years, and finally killed him."

Organisers estimate that at least a million dollars was raised towards a giant dirty bomb. They are also planning to use some of the money raised to build a giant wall around the entire Canterbury region, so that nobody can get on or out.

Brave Defenders Of Our Freedoms Stand Proud!

Uncompromising left-wing columnist Bob Mittsky busts some myths about what is really behind the Hobbit dispute

And so the powers of evil and darkness gather around that notorious union-buster Sir Peter “Sauron” Jackson. It’s fitting that a filmmaker adept at bringing to the screen Tolkien’s tales should find himself engaged in a struggle with the forces of light and goodness. Jackson and his bully-boy Hollywood executives have now set their armies into motion, and a union-busting horde has emerged from the gates of Mordor, as if vomited froth from the very pits of Hell. They were on the streets of Wellington on Wednesday night, marching like hungry Orcs promised human flesh.

They may not have the numbers, but the courage of Actors Equity members is there for all to see. Their heroic defence against overwhelming corporate might resembles the tragic yet noble sacrifice made by the men of Gondor at Osgliath. Jackson’s dark legions may well still cross the river, but every blow struck by the actor’s union against the bosses is a blow for the future of socialism. Their resistance to the bullying of Hollywood is a symbol of hope to workers around the world. If the vision of Robyn Malcolm energetically defending herself against a savage scab hate murdering lynch-mob late at night doesn’t make your loins stir, then you are truly lost to the darkness.

Every union battle has its scabs, so it was no real surprise to see Jackson and his cronies organising a counter-march by production crew during the week. If the march lacked one thing it was the jackboots and black shirts we all expected to see. But don’t worry, people, they are coming, they are coming!

If The Hobbit is made in New Zealand on the terms demanded by Jackson and his capitalist friends then the fascists and reactionary forces of unrestrained capitalism have won. That’s why we must resist them. It’s no longer just about the actors, though those men and woman stand proudly for everything this nation fought for in previous wars. In 1939 we stood up to totalitarianism, and many of our young men laid down their lives so that the shadow of fascism would never fall over our lands.

Imagine how those poor souls would be turning in their graves now, but for the sterling defence of our socialist freedoms by the trade union movement.

It doesn’t have to be this way. If Hollywood studios want to come here to make films, then let them, but let us dictate the terms. We should insist on our actors and production staff having long term employment contracts, and on all profits from the films being divided equally between the workers who contributed to its success. That’s not so much to ask, is it? The fact that the studios won’t countenance such entirely reasonable provisions is evidence enough that they are enemies of the people.

In any case, as a book The Hobbit displays a clear lack of awareness of class and the machinations of the ruling elites. We should not be surprised that the main character, Bilbo Baggins, as bourgeois a character as any you will find in Western European literature, throws his lot in with the forces of reaction. The main character may end up at home, safe and wealthy at the end of the story, but Baggins is no hero. His efforts to help re-establish a kingdom, and the rewards showered on him by way of plundered gold, show him to be a notorious class traitor and enemy of the proletariat.

If we are to have The Hobbit filmed here, let us at least insert a little realism into the script. If the dwarves are to be the main focus of the story, let them at least form a soviet and allow themselves to make their own decisions collectively about the progress of the quest. As a minimum they should each receive an equal share of all rewards, and all quest decisions should be ratified by a central politburo of delegates (chosen by a special congress of dwarves) following discussions between soviet members facilitated by commissars appointed by a central bureau of union representatives.

It goes without saying that the dwarves should also be unionised, and that a number of union delegates should accompany them along the way, in order to ensure that members of the group receive the entitlements they are due under employment laws: such as a minimum wage, sick leave, holidays and the like. If they are expected to fight their way out of trouble at night, or to march for days on end, let them be paid appropriate amounts of overtime, and receive time in lieu.

The biggest change, though, will have to come at the top. It is inconceivable that Peter Jackson, the arch-lapdog of the Hollywood bosses, could make a politically suitable film. So let’s get Ken Loach to direct and produce these Hobbit films.

But none of these things will happen, of course. Hollywood isn’t interested in socialist realism, or in using the medium of film to document the relentless class struggle between workers and bosses. For if the people really know how exploited they were they would surely rise up and cast off their chains, just as the brave folk of the Shire overthrew their masters at the end of Tolkien’s great trilogy.

How Can Nobody Be To Blame?

It would have been interesting to listen in on the discussions at New Zealand Cricket when Daniel Vettori and Mark Greatbatch fronted up to explain why the team performed so poorly.

They must have been pretty convincing, because not only do they keep their jobs, but apparently no significant changes are proposed for the upcoming tour of India.

There probably isn't that much they can do at this late stage anyway, other than drop some players. This close to a tour it isn't feasible to dump anyone in the management team. So if players are to be axed, who would they get rid of?

When players fail to fire that badly you can either pin the blame on the players themselves, or the management structure supporting them. Ultimately it is the role of the players to go out there and get runs and wickets. Good management can help, but it won't make the difference between a series victory and a 4-0 drubbing.

So we don't have the right players. You can forgive the younger ones for failing to perform. They're junior and Bangladesh is a tough place to tour. It's not as if domestic cricket in this country truly hardens players for intimidating conditions.

But there were enough senior players on tour (e.g. Vettori, McCullum, Mills, Taylor) to have ensured that, even if the younger ones failed, someone would step up. Yet the tour stats show that some of the juniors were better performers. For example Kane Williamson got a century and led the tour batting averages.

So something is wrong. To do nothing won't suffice. If the problem isn't the management then it's the senior players. India will be rubbing their hands together at the prospect of playing New Zealand. Let us pray we show more resolve than we did in Bangladesh.

A Public Appeal To "Chris Trotter"

Cometh The Hour

Why Russell Brown Is Wrong

I took the below post from The Standard. It's worth republishing, because it's a powerful point by point response to the claims made by that notorious Chardonnay Socialist Russell Brown and his attacks on Actors Equity.

Union Good

Peter Jackson not like Union

Peter Jackson Bad.

These People Might Vote For Us

Anne Tolley and the Government continue to say they cannot accept the teachers' pay claims. They say there's simply no money to pay teachers more, without borrowing further and burdening future generations.

But executive pay in the tertiary education state sector continues to climb.

It seems that Key and Tolley are happy for top executives to be a burden on future generations. Well, I suppose they're more likely to vote National than those rabble-rousing teachers.

"The quest stands upon the edge of a knife"

The Hobbit may be moving offshore, but the death of our film industry is at least good news for another country. The Irish are keen on the project.

PIPPIN: I didn't think it would end this way.

GANDALF: End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path, one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass, and then you see it.

PIPPIN: What? Gandalf? See what?

GANDALF: White shores, and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.

PIPPIN: Well, that isn't so bad.

GANDALF: No. No, it isn't.

Thanks Sir Peter, And All The Best

If you wanted a template for all the ages on how not to engage in industrial action, the Actors Equity action would surely be it.

I am usually supportive of unions and their efforts to secure better conditions for their members.

But don't ask me to support the action by MEAA and Actors Equity to secure better conditions. They may well have just destroyed the New Zealand film industry.

Actors Equity cancelled a meeting last night, apparently because they were worried about the "lynch-mob" mentality of the production crew people picketing outside. Those picketers had every reason to be angry. Their livelihoods depend upon big budget films coming to this country, and are being threatened by the Actors Equity action.

Why didn't the actors show up? What were they afraid of? Did they really think there would be a riot? Did they get stage-fright?

Whether the industrial action by actors ultimately determines the location of filming is hard to say. Sir Peter Jackson is certainly blaming them. Other factors, such as the more favourable tax incentives available elsewhere, are probably also a factor.

But actors will get the blame. And they will only have themselves to blame for the ham-fisted way they have conducted negotiations.

Actors have to make a decision. Do they want a film industry? Big budget filmmaking is a competitve business. If we want big films to be made in New Zealand we have to accept more or less the terms the filmmakers lay down. They can always get better deals elsewhere.

If we decide we're not prepared to compromise our principles, and that people should be paid "fairly" (whatever that means in the film industry), then let's say thank you to Sir Peter Jackson for all the good work he's done, and say farewell. Because we won't have a film industry any more.

I remain sceptical about the ultimate goal of the Australian union driving this dispute, the MEAA. If the Hobbit films move offshore that may well be regarded by the MEAA as a victory.

Money To Pay Teachers Spent On Prisons

John Key and his inept Education Minister are doing everything they can to aggravate the pay dispute with the secondary teachers union.

The teachers' claims are modest, but the Government's response has been provocative.

The Herald reports:

Mr Key said the Government was already borrowing $256 million a week.

"Do the teachers really want us to borrow more than that and place a noose around the neck of young New Zealanders?"

Talk of nooses is insulting and provocative. Nobody is going to be hanged as a result of the teachers' strike. If anything is going to burden young New Zealanders in the future (see how I avoided reference to nooses?) it is the fact that the Government borrowed money to fund tax its cuts. Cuts that were meant to stimulate the economy.  How's that working?

And the cuts to early childhood education are another thing that will hold back the progress of many young New Zealanders. Making it less affordable is likely to prevent some kids from attending early education centres. This will likely have negative outcomes for some children. We'll end up paying when some of those kids become unemployable adults, or end up in jail.

But I'm sure the Government will find money for new prisons when that happens.

Heil John Key-Hitler!

John Key has accused Phil Goff and the Labour Party of having a “road-to-Stalin” experience over plans to restrict land sales to foreigners.

I’m not sure why. If Goff’s policy moves Labour closer to Stalinism, then we should expect that when Labour next takes office farmers will be evicted from their lands and then systematically starved to death or shot. That is the “dekulakisation” policy Stalin adopted towards farmers in the Ukraine in the 1930s. It seems to me that, if anything, the new policy will protect farmers from being evicted by “outsiders”.

Stalin was a mass murderer who inflicted death and horrors almost unmatched in human history. Only Mao and Hitler compare in terms of the enormity of their crimes.

We expect politicians to name-call and insult each other. But some things are just beyond the pale. John Key should apologise for comparing Labour Party members to a mass-murdering monster.

Why has nobody (outside the blogosphere) called for John Key to apologise? Imagine the media and public outrage if Phil Goff compared John Key to Hitler.

SFO Investigates South Canterbury Finance Over Related Party Lending

The SFO have been called in to investigate the affairs of South Canterbury Finance.

Supporters of Alan Hubbard continue to claim that Hubbard has been wronged, but even they must be starting to question the wisdom of their decision to back Hubbard.

The SFO have now served a demand on the NBR to disclose information about a story it ran earlier this month, and the NBR are required to disclose this information by 9am this morning.. The NBR’s story is a damning tale of related party lending, involving one of the directors of SCF allegedly making his freezing worker brother-in-law the sole owner of Auckland’s Hyatt Regency hotel.

Mr Symes – who suffers bowel and lung cancer – told NBR he is the brother-in-law of former South Canterbury director Edward Sullivan.

He confirmed Mr Sullivan approached him to become a director and shareholder in numerous Hyatt-related companies in December 2008.

“My understanding is I was brought in because there were too many people from one company [South Canterbury] involved,” Mr Symes said.

Mr Symes said he acted on Mr Sullivan’s instructions.

“I’m going from memory here, that these papers came up from RSM Law [Mr Sullivan’s firm] with explanations ‘please sign here and return’ – and I did,” he said.

Mr Symes’ name appears on several documents filed with the Ministry of Economic Development authorising loans from South Canterbury.

He had never visited the hotel and was concerned his signature had been used to run up tens of millions of dollars of debt.

If true, this would help to explain why SCF failed, and why the people behind the company ought to be held accountable. That would include Mr Hubbard. If he is not actually implicated in any alleged fraud, then questions should be asked about his competence.

Undisclosed related-party lending can be toxic to a business’ prospects. Disclosure at least allows investors to determine whether the lending is on reasonable commercial terms – well in theory, anyway. Many investors in finance companies are too unsophisticated to understand the importance of related party transactions.

If you’re investing in an established business that has a lot of related party lending, that’s often a sign something is wrong. It’s different for start-ups, because usually the only people who will invest in start-ups are the four “F”’s – founders, friends, family and fools. But if an established finance or investment entity is loaning money out to related parties, there had better be a good reason.

What Will You Do To Mark World Statistics Day?

No doubt you're gearing up for the big day. I hope you have your costume ready.

World Statistics Day is marked tomorrow, highlighting the importance of Statistics New Zealand's data gathering and analysis, Statistics Minister Maurice Williamson says.

I look forward to donning my celebratory robes and joining in the festivities.

Tonight in celebration of the first United Nations mandated World Statistics Day

Mandated? We were commanded to observe this day? Outrageous! Down with this PC crap!

the Minister and Statistics New Zealand will release the latest New Zealand Official Yearbook at a ceremony in the Beehive.

And ten thousand doves will be released to celebrate the occasion. A procession of monks will then walk through the streets of Wellington banging gongs and chanting. An animal, or maybe even a child, will be sacrificed on the steps of the Beehive to mark this auspicious occasion.

Above: the final World Statistics Day parade rehearsal today in Wellington

Mr Williamson says statistics are important in informing decision making and measuring both the country’s progress, but the growth of global development.

“Government uses official statistics to help make decisions around where and how to invest in public services. Statistics also help measure the success of those decisions.”

And ministers use statistics to hide the really appalling way they are running our country.

“They also record our past and tell the story of our country,” Mr Williamson says.

They can certainly be used to tell stories. 

Mr Williamson said government departments are being encouraged to make more of the statistics they collect available for more people to use.

That will create greater transparency in government and more people will benefit from the sharing of facts and data.

“As more data becomes available more innovative ideas – and not just from the public sector – will be generated,” Mr Williamson says.

All this sharing sounds like communism to me. I don't like it, sir. No I don't.

Maybe I won't get out and celebrate after all. I will stay in and denounce the entire exercise on my site, even if it means missing the fireworks display and the military parade. This incoherent blog-rage doesn't write itself, you know.

Bill English's Guide To Statistics

A short message from Bill English

To those among you experiencing doubts about the competence of this government in light of what appears to be a sequence of negative statistics, let me assure you that all is well.

The statistics show that we are on track!

This guide should help you to better interpret all the supposedly-negative economic and statistical data bombarding you.

The statistics say: Inflation has fallen.

Interpretation: National’s wise and benevolent economic management has seen a drop in the cost of living for all hard-working Kiwis.

The statistics say: Inflation has risen.

Interpretation: National’s wise and benevolent economic management has seen unsurpassed economic growth, and this has put pressure on inflation, but what a nice problem to have!

The statistics say: The rate of unemployment continues to climb.

Interpretation: While Australians continue to slog their guts out, more Kiwis than ever are taking the opportunity to relax and enjoy some downtime. Who is really the Lucky Country?

The statistics say: Violent crime shows no sign of diminishing, despite years of get-tough law and order policies.

Interpretation: What does a statistical analysis know about the pain of losing a loved one to violent crime? How dare you bring rational reasoning to the law and order debate, you criminal-enabler!

The statistics say: The manufacturing sector continues to weaken.

Interpretation: Manufacturing brings a host of complex problems, such as environmental compliance, workforce issues and ACC costs. National is doing away with all that red tape for businesses.

The statistics say: GDP figures show little to no economic growth.

Interpretation: Mumble mumble… Labour’s fault… mumble mumble…

The statistics say: Wage growth is minimal, and we continue to lag behind Australia.

Interpretation: That’s just because you’re looking at the figures the wrong way. I think you’ll find that if you turn the figures inside out and upside down they show that we’re racing ahead of Australia.

The statistics say: The price of fruit and vegetables continues to rise

Interpretation: Fruit and vegetables are for pansies. Get some real meat in you!

"Get Off My Land!"

I am sure that the proposal by Labour to restrict foreigners from buying large amounts of land makes political sense. It will be popular and will satisfy the increasing number of people expressing concern about the sale of our land to overseas interests.

I’m still not convinced it’s an economic necessity. And I can’t help but notice how this issue only drew headlines when the Chinese started showing interest in our farms. We’d been selling our land to anyone who wanted it for years before then, without any particular political consequences.

I’m all for us having an informed debate on foreign investment. However the prevailing mood appears to be that foreigner = bad. We need foreign capital to grow our country. We simply don’t have enough of our own. But can we reasonably have an informed debate when this matter remains so politically hot?

I also wonder whether Labour's policy would have seen the light of day if, say, a nice British company had made a bid for the Crafar farms.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t impose restrictions on land sales, or on the sale of important infrastructure. I just worry that the almost blanket ban proposed by Labour is an overreaction to a problem that may not necessarily exist.

The Day Sutcliffe Top Scored With Eleven

The Herald asks if the 4-0 loss to Bangladesh is NZ cricket's lowest moment yet.

It certainly isn't. This is:

It would take a masterfully inept performance to come close.

Update: NZ cricket great John Reid says the Bangladesh result is worse that the 26. Well he would, wouldn't he? He'd be quite pleased to get that particular monkey off his back. But I think he's also being a bit insulting towards Bangladesh. They are improving. Unlike NZ.

I Like This No-Plan Plan

Inflation is at its lowest rate since 2004! Huzzah!

This is great economic news. It follows on from last week's great news that household spending is down. Bill English explained that this shows people are being wise and paying off debt.

National's cheerleaders are claiming this as a triumph. I'm so pleased. I had always thought inflation was commonly associated with economic growth, and that a stagnant economy often experienced low inflation, or even deflation. I'd even heard that sometimes a little bit of inflation can be a nice problem to have.

And until The Great Finance Helmsman carefully explained how people not spending was a sign of improvement, I'd even considered the possibility that the low household spending figures showed most people didn't have any spare cash, and that there wasn't money for luxuries, because so many people were up to their eyeballs in debt, or had lost their jobs. I'm sure a lot of people who don't have the genius of Bill English probably thought the figures were dreadful economic news.

Hopefully we'll see a rise in unemployment next. Because we'll then learn that more people than ever are keen to be in the workforce.

We've already been told how the Canterbury Earthquake is a boon for the construction industry and will drive economic growth. I suppose they're right. If I went out and burnt down all the houses in my street, imagine the boom times the local building industry would have.

It's a wonder, in fact, that we haven't all been instructed to torch our homes for the national good. Maybe that's in next year's budget.

So let us celebrate these milestones of progress. National's "we don't have a plan" plan is working brilliantly!

A Freedom Issue

A number of right-wing newspaper columnists have been attempting to frame the Paul Henry resignation as a freedom of speech issue. Well it is a freedom issue, but not for the reasons they have given.

It started on Friday with a bizarre column by Deborah Hill Cone, who worries that we are becoming just like children who aren't allowed to say what we think.

When kids grow up in a family where they feel they can't express their true feelings it is called an invalidating environment. It makes them go quite wonky. That is us, writ large. We already self-censor what we say because everyone is in great fear of being jumped on if they say the wrong thing. It is not fun getting shunned in a country of four million people. Trust me, I know.

And all of this of course means that we're going to hell in a handcart.

Citizens in socialist Cuba lose their own judgment of right or wrong because they have grown up in a society where they have been taught to spout lies. A lot of them try to leave. Same here. One million New Zealand passport holders don't live in this country; presumably quite a few of them have beetled off to somewhere where mediocrity does not rule. Freedom of speech is not really freedom if it means you can only say things which are tasteful and respectful and don't offend anyone. I think New Zealand just became a much more oppressive country after the Henry incident.

What Henry said might have been ill-considered, but it was a lesser evil than every citizen having to calibrate what they say to fit in with the prevailing ethos.

So the million or so folk who don't live here any more have found paradise elsewhere, where cloying censorship does not prevail. But where are these places? The UK? Hardly. If Paul Henry had been a BBC presenter I'm pretty sure the boot would have been applied to his arse months ago. Australia? I doubt his idiocy would have been any more tolerated than here. The US? Well certainly not on any of the mainstream networks.

Then in the Sunday Star Times Michael Laws conducts a boilerplate attack on liberalism. 

Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. The fundamental building blocks of a functioning democracy – freedoms that have evolved over centuries of western thought and civilisation. And they are now under significant and serious threat from the prevailing orthodoxy of political correctness in this country.

Laws would like to be able to say whatever he likes about anyone or anything he likes. This merely proves that this week's public apology by Laws for remarks made about the Governor General was entirely insincere.

Laws says:

The Henry affair has just made New Zealand democracy weaker. It presumes that only one thought pattern must prevail. And that is not democracy – that is the descent into a new fascism.

On the contrary, the fact that widespread public resentment towards a public figure's bigotry has an effect shows that democracy is working pretty well. Fascism would be more like a situation where someone was able to go on air and spew hate towards other groups without any sort of consequences. I'm pretty sure that is what the Fascists and Nazis actually did.

The attack by Laws is particularly ironic. He earns his bread by attacking others, expressing disgust for people he doesn't approve of. How odd then that when a large group of people do exactly the same thing he objects and cries foul.

In the Herald on Sunday, Deborah Coddington bemoans our supposed delight for witch hunts. While Henry isn't the prime focus of her piece, she lists him as another victim of this supposed tendency to put the boot in.

Some of the "victims" she cites, however, deserve probably a great deal more than they have received by way of opprobrium. Like Dr Herb Green of The Unfortunate Experiment fame. Yes, the one who was found by the Cartwright Enquiry to have experimented on women without their consent. Or Tony Veitch, who viciously assaulted his partner. How is it that vilifying and holding these people to account should be regarded as a witch-hunt?

Coddington then wonders why we don't express our disgust for other villains in such terms.

Finally, one thing puzzles me. This week there was virtually no adverse comment when Chris Kahui calmly told the coroner that yes, he would have called a vet if his puppy wasn't breathing but didn't do the same for his babies.

That the tiny boys weren't fed for 24 hours but he lied to police to look like a good father. And when he admitted, under oath, that he gave one story at his trial and another at the inquest.

Why no frothing, moral outrage here, do you think?

Well perhaps Coddington was in another country for the last four years. As far as frothing, moral outrage goes, the Kahui case pretty much tops everything. I have a theory that people are so weary with disgust for the entire Kahui clan that nothing they hear would really surprise or alarm them.

I have never bought this freedom of speech argument. All civilised societies impose restrictions or consequences on what people say in public. Most countries have defamation and hate speech laws.

But it is a sign of a free society that we are able to take action if we don't like what someone says. We can complain loudly and let our voices be heard. We can boycott TV or radio shows that allow offensive hosts to spew their hate. Advertisers can choose which shows they choose to associate their brands with. Aren't all of those freedoms just as important as the freedom to say what you like?

So I don't agree that Paul Henry's fate is an indication that our liberties are under threat. What it tells us is that if you're going to be a dick on air and say hateful things, some people are going to get pissed off. If people could say what they wanted on air without any ability to be challenged, would that mean we lived in a freer society? Free for whom?

Simon Says Abolish All This Shit

Justice Minister Simon Power has asked the Law Commission to investigate all the shit that annoys him.

The Minister made the announcement after reading this morning’s Dominion Post.

“There’s a whole pile of legal shit happening, and most of it I don’t understand,” said Mr Power.

“But some of it really pisses me off.”

The Law Commission review will be headed by Professor John Burrows QC. The review will be ongoing, for as long as Mr Power remains Justice Minister. It will report six-monthly on its findings and recommendations.

The terms of reference for the review are extremely broad.

“Basically any issue that particularly fucks me off on any given day,” said Mr Power.

“Bloggers, priests, jaywalkers, drunk drivers, that guy behind the counter in Bellamy’s who sneers every time I come in. If I’m pissed about something, then it’s the job of the Law Commission to put it right.”

Mr Power says the public would have the opportunity to have their say on any recommendations put forward by the Law Commission.

“Consultation? Yeah, yeah, sure, whatever. We’ll go through any necessary formalities, before doing exactly what we want. Of course we will. This isn’t North Korea, you know.”

Mr Power said that the first issue the Law Commission will examine is the application of the law to the Internet and new forms of media.

“I want to know if we can abolish the Internet, or failing that at least criminalise it.”

The Battle Of The Boy Wizards

The author and publisher of the Harry Potter books have failed in an attempt to strike out a copyright infringement claim against them.

Rowling and her publisher Bloomsbury deny any similarity between the book Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Adrian Jacobs' Willy the Wizard.

The estate of Mr Jacons is taking the claim. Jacobs died penniless in 1997.

The Jacobs story apparently tells the tale of a boy who goes to wizard school. The story includes a wizard contest and wizard trains.

The claim alleges that Jacobs approached a literary agent about his book, and that the same agent later went on to become Rowlings' agent. This is a critical point, because for a copyright infringement claim to succeed there must be evidence of actual copying. Given that Jacob's book was obscure, it would otherwise be very difficult to show Rowling had access to it.

Rowling and her publisher sought summary judgment in the English High Court on the basis that the claim could not possibly succeed or, in the alternative, a conditional order that the case go to trial only if the defendant provides security for costs.

The judge noted that the claim was unlikely to succeed, but said that the infringement claim was still arguable and so should proceed to trial.

Rowling has made millions out of her books. It may be tempting to settle rather than put all of that at risk, but authors often don’t settle because of the potential damage to their literary reputations. It could be a juicy battle.

We Will Never Know

The Police Commissioner has indicated that the Crewe murder case may be reopened.

I feel like a bit of a party-pooper, but I don’t see any particular reason why the case should be reopened. I’m not aware of any new evidence having come to light.

I am of course aware of the new Ian Wishart book (good lord, how could I not be?), but haven’t read it. However, reviews of the book I have read suggest to me that the nature of Wishart’s new evidence may be speculative, rather than conclusive.

The surviving daughter of the murdered pair, Rochelle Crewe, has pleaded for the case to be re-opened. She has also demanded to know why the two policemen fingered by the Royal Commission on the Crewe murders in 1980 were never prosecuted.

"I would like to know why the police didn't prosecute Hutton and Johnston on the commission's findings that they had planted the cartridge case.

"The commission did have access to live witnesses and direct evidence and reached its conclusion that Hutton and Johnston did plant the cartridge case and fabricate evidence. At the very least, the Solicitor-General should have given a court the opportunity to reach a decision on the same basis.

I've been hearing the same thing all day, in the news media, on blogsites and on the radio. One thing seems to have escaped everyone's notice, even if it is an obvious fact. One of the reasons why there was no prosecution of the cops Hutton and Johnston is that Johnston died in 1978, before the Commission made its findings. It’s pretty difficult to prosecute a dead man. And Hutton couldn't be disciplined by police because he left the force in 1976.

The Commission were convinced that Hutton and Johnston planted evidence to frame Thomas, and their analysis is compellng. But decisions about whether or not to prosecute always fall back to whether there’s enough evidence to convict. The Solicitor-General at the time, Paul Neazor, thought there wasn’t. The prosecution would have been relying on the word of one witness against several others. When the standard of proof to convict is “beyond reasonable doubt”, that’s probably a losing case.

Bear in mind also that much of the physical evidence was deliberately destroyed by police after Thomas' appeal against conviction at his second trial failed. There may well be new DNA tests and other scientific techniques available to investigators, but is there anything left to test? I'm not sure what may be left in storage, but it may not be much.

So it seems to me unlikely that 40 years after the murders, and 30 years after the Commission’s report, we’re going to learn anything new if the police do take a fresh look

Of course, if new evidence comes to light then I’d be all in favour of authorities taking another look at the case. But we should not waste too much police time and resources chasing a series of phantom “what if”s.

So I am reasonably confident that the Crewe murder will remain the most puzzling whodunit in New Zealand's legal history.

Another Endorsement Of Sir Roger By Someone Who Should Know

Who said "Sir Roger Douglas was worse than hopeless at privatising, to be honest"?

Was it:

A. Sue Bradford?
B. Helen Clark?
C. Phil Goff?
D. Jim Bolger?

Answer here.

Let's Just Make It Illegal

Rodney Hide has claimed that a proposed change to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to prevent Maori from charging for beach access is a “win” for ACT.

"I've never seen a new MP achieve a major policy win on behalf of all New Zealanders on their first day. It's a stunning achievement for Hilary Calvert and the ACT Party," Mr Hide said.

"Attorney-General Hon Chris Finlayson today confirmed that he would support Hilary's amendment to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to specifically prohibit customary title holders from charging for public access to the beach.

Stunning indeed. Even if, according to Attorney General Chris Finlayson (who knows more than most about what is in the Bill), the Bill already doesn’t permit customary title holders to charge for beach access.

And even if Rodney Hide’s clam of “one law for all” looks ever more suspect, because private titleholders are under no such restrictions.

But the latest Roy Morgan poll shows that ACT are in freefall. They will need more wins than this if they are to survive past the next election, and will need another stunning policy success. Luckily for ACT, I have an idea.

The Government continues to focus on law and order issues. So it should not be too difficult to convince National that the Crimes Act should be amended to make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that murder is a crime.

What better way to demonstrate to the public that ACT is keeping ordinary hard-working New Zealanders safe?

"Let arms yield to the toga, the laurel crown to praise"

If I want to ponce about in a gown then I'll just keep getting degrees and diplomas.

The prices on the Internet are very reasonable, but you don't get the graduation ceremony to go with the piece of paper when you buy online.

However, some people think lawyers should be able to ponce about in gowns more frequently.

Lawyers should return to wearing gowns in court, the Law Society says – but the suggestion has been mocked as silly and elitist, with one legal bigwig arguing the attire should remain "in the dress-up box".

The society said the profession should adopt the wearing of gowns during trials for indictable offences in district courts.

President Jonathan Temm said it was one of several initiatives that aimed to improve the minimum standards of performance of lawyers before the courts.

"The reintroduction of gowns is something that arouses considerable professional passion."

The prospect of wearing a gown may well suit the pretensions of a number of senior barristers and QCs, many of whom would like it to be known that they are better than the rest of us.

However, gowns belong in another age, when the law was a mysterious thing to be kept away from the proles, and when lawyers charged by the word rather than the hour.

With the greatest respect to my learned colleagues at the Law Society, the idea of lawyers returning to the wearing of gowns in court is the biggest load of elitist nonsense I've heard for a good while.

Now togas, on the other hand...

Outbreak Of Democracy Concerns Government

Wellington mayor Kerry Prendergast has lashed out at the voting system that saw her lose the Wellington mayoralty to Celia Wade-Brown.

“It’s outrageous that the will of the majority of right-leaning voters has been disregarded,” said Prendergast.

She has called on the Government to look at reforming the way local election voting occurs.

Political expert Dr Roy Stanislov of Otago University said the voting system used in Wellington’s election was quite widespread.

“The voting system they use is called ‘democracy’. It’s been quite controversial in some countries, particularly in the Middle East and some parts of Asia, where there have been all sorts of problems.

“Clearly something isn’t working right if we can’t always be certain a conservative business-friendly mayor will win the race.”

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide agreed there was a problem.

“In Auckland we’ve seen a noticeable move to the left. We set the Supercity up so this wouldn’t happen, but it looks as if we may have more work to do.”

However, Mr Hide said that he did not support legislation in Parliament to amend election rules.

“We don’t need more red tape. The Government can already pass an order in council under the Canterbury emergency legislation to fix this outbreak of democracy, and that’s what we’ll be looking at doing.

“I’m a big fan of one man one vote, but things have got out of hand. Did you know that they even let women vote now? Look at the trouble women have caused my own party.”

Hide said that it was probably time to consider introducing a greater degree of scrutiny over who has the right to vote.

“Perhaps it’s time we introduced a property qualification for voters. If you’re careless or lazy enough not to own several share portfolios and rental properties, then why should you get a say in how your town or city is run?

“And an educational qualification ought to be introduced, to ensure the right people are in charge of deciding who gets elected. If you can’t list the main characters in at least one of Ayn Rand’s books, you’re clearly not the sort of person we can rely on to vote sensibly.”

Labour’s Suicide Bomber

Brian Edwards has written a blog post in which he largely blames Phil Goff and the Labour leadership for the series of events leading to Chris Carter’s expulsion from the Labour Party. Edwards also makes the argument that expelling Carter from Labour was “gratuitous, small-minded, mean-spirited, petty.”

As a person who voted for Carter in the last election I'm pleased to see him gone. Carter has himself to blame for the majority of his troubles.

Carter would have been aware of the mood of the public when it came to the issue of travel expenses. It doesn't matter that the story was a media beat up. In politics perception is everything.

MPs were given a clear message by the Labour leadership that they needed to be sensitive to the public mood on MPs’ expenses. The Te Atatu MP refused to accept this from the start and made a number of silly statements to the media on the issue, claiming that he was being unfairly targeted, and that he was being subjected to homophobic treatment. Had he simply resigned himself from the beginning to the new political reality I’m sure he’d still be an influential member of the Labour caucus, and we’d have largely forgotten about his travel by now.

Carter was made to apologise in public simply because he had made it clear he thought he’d done nothing wrong. His position had become politically untenable, not because of his spending but because of his very public reaction to the new political reality.

In political parties it isn’t uncommon for MPs to talk amongst themselves about the leadership. Challenges may even occur and numbers may be tallied up. But all this is usually done out of the media spotlight. Sometimes the media will hear a whisper that a challenge is occurring, but they are generally spectators, rather than the means by which a challenge occurs. When Carter sent anonymous letters to the news media attacking Phil Goff he crossed into a territory that hadn’t been traversed before. For that he deserved expulsion from Labour’s caucus, because he proved he could not be trusted to keep things within the party.

Had Carter stopped there he might have retained his party membership. Instead, he continued to issue public attacks on the party’s leadership. Then, at the hearing on Monday to determine whether he would retain his membership, Carter threatened to spill the beans on Labour’s secrets. That was pure blackmail, in its most petty and spiteful form. According to the Herald, Carter told the hearing: "You can make a friend or a foe of me, and if you make a foe, it's war." And this was during a hearing in which he was attempting to retain his Labour membership. It was as if he deliberately sought expulsion. And perhaps that is what he wanted, because it allows him to continue to play the victim.

Brian Edwards is wrong when he says Carter should have been allowed to keep his party membership. All organisations have rules that must be followed. Within a political party it is usually accepted that there will be a diversity of political opinions, and a range of views on how the aims of the organisation can be best achieved. But if a member of the party publicly and deliberately undermines the entire organisation, and does so repeatedly, as Carter has done, he has no right to expect to continue as a member.

If Carter was so concerned about the leadership of Labour, he could have gathered the 17 or so caucus members he claims are against Goff and made a move behind the scenes. 17 may not be the majority needed to roll a leader, but if there were 17 solidly against Goff, I’m sure a few waverers would have joined in. They would have needed only 22 to form a majority.

So why didn’t Carter do this? Perhaps the 17 don’t exist, or are actually only lukewarm on rolling Goff. People may well think Goff isn’t up to the job, but most would probably agree there is no obvious alternative.

So Carter appears intent on destroying Labour’s chances of being seen as a credible opposition. Carter may have a point about Goff’s leadership, but without presenting a viable alternative for the Labour leadership all he has done is destroy himself politically and made it harder for Labour to win in 2011. Short of walking into the caucus room with a kilo of Semtex strapped to himself, it is hard to see how he could have caused more damage to the party.

The Startling Truth About Goff And Labour

Chris Carter promised last night that he would dish the dirt on Labour if they kicked him out of the party.

We don’t have to wait for Carter to release the dirt. I have it. Someone close to Carter has leaked the explosive material to me.

You won’t believe your eyes, so sit down and take a deep breath.

• Phil Goff was in fact born Otto von Stauffenbrunner in Munich in 1912. He met Hitler in Munich in 1929 and joined the Nazi Party a year later. He was instrumental in planning the purge against Ernst Rohm and the SA in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, and later served as an aide to the Fuhrer. In 1942 he requested that he be transferred to active duty, and he later served as a senior officer in the Waffen SS on the Eastern Front. He was responsible for the destruction of a number of towns and villages in the Ukraine, and for the deaths of several thousand Jews. He fled the downfall of Nazi Germany in 1945, and was smuggled out of Europe with the aid of the Vatican. He spent several years living in Argentina but decided to leave after the Israelis kidnapped his good friend Eichmann. He then made his way under disguise to New Zealand and created a false identity with the help of contacts in ODESSA. He has had plastic surgery numerous times to conceal his true age, which is ninety-eight. An ardent Nazi, he despises homosexuals, which is why he has targetted Carter from the beginning. According to Carter, only a handful of people within the party know Phil Goff's true identity. Helen Clark knew, but kept it secret, for fear of alienating the unions and other core non-Nazi elements of the party.

 Otto von Stauffenbrunner/Phil Goff at a Nazi Party rally in the 1930s

• Phil Goff is also almost certainly a vampire. Goff sat at a Cabinet table with Roger Douglas for a number of years in the 1980s. Douglas would have had plenty of opportunities to bite Goff. That’s why Goff almost always wears a collared shirt.
• Trevor Mallard has an assault conviction, after attacking Tau Henare. This makes Mallard a Maori-basher, ergo an evil racist.
• Jacinda Arden is a hardened communist. She is the current President of the International Union of Socialist Youth. An organisation name like that can mean only one thing. They are coming for you, Kulak!
• Andrew Little is a real meanie.

Don't Blame The Help

There's nothing I dislike more than when someone blames the staff for their own wrongdoing.

From the Herald:

National list MP Aaron Gilmore says the Parliamentary Service is responsible for an error that credited him with a high-level finance-sector qualification he does not have in a CV posted on his Parliament web page.

Until yesterday, Mr Gilmore was listed as a member of Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) Institute.

Last week, however, the institute told the Herald that was incorrect.

Mr Gilmore said the error was introduced when someone at the Parliamentary Service wrote the biographical material for the page.

"I've never been a member of the CFA institute. I've been studying towards membership and that's what I've always said and that's what my CV says."

He described the error, which he had corrected yesterday, as "a cock-up by somebody else".

An unlikely story. I can't see why or how Parliamentary Service would have created a membership of the organisation when one didn't exist.

A spokesman said the Parliamentary Service did not discuss matters affecting individual MPs but biographical information about MPs published on its website was supplied by them and approved by them as correct.

So in other words, it seems likely that Mr Gilmore approved the CV that was posted online. Not the fault of Parliamentary Service at all then. It could just be carelessness on the part of Gilmore (though surely he should know which organisations he belongs to), or it could be something else.

Mr Gilmore's online CV still makes the current claim about one of his supposed qualifications:

Postgraduate Diploma (Accounting), Massey University (75% complete)

How can you claim to have even part of a diploma when you haven't completed it? You don't get any part of the diploma until you complete the course. If you pull out half-way through they don't get a certificate out, cut it in half with a pair of scissors and then say "oh well, at least we can give you this bit."

This ludicrous CV entry does taint his claim that that the CV error was unintentional.

If I had time I'd like to look at all of the MPs' CVs to see if anyone else is making statements about having part-finished qualifications. I suspect Gilmore may not be the only one.

Absolutely Positively Outta There

Flew down to Wellington on a work thing today and was greeted on arrival by a gale, horizontal rain and a five degree temperature.

The day before I'd been sitting in the middle of Eden Park with the kids at the official reopening of the ground, risking sunburn.

"You should have been here yesterday" said the taxi-driver. Don't they all say that?

Len Brown, Murray McCully and John Key looked thrilled to be on stage together

A Forced Apology?

Michael Laws has apologised for insulting the Governor General.

And yet on Saturday Laws said he stood by everything he said. What changed?

It's difficult to imagining Laws volunteering to apologise. He has said some awful, odious things in the past, with barely an apology for any of the hurtful things said.

The only possible conclusion is that RadioWorks laid down the law and demanded an apology. Laws doesn't have the mayoralty to fall back on any more, so will be relying on the income his radio show brings. He can't afford to defy his bosses.

Laws was clearly reined in. Finally.

I Can Live With This Lot

I haven't had much time to analyse the local body election results, but am reasonably pleased with the outcomes as far as Auckland goes. A new mayor, and a council that is left-leaning but with enough moderates and righties to keep them honest.

I find especially amusing the fate of crybaby North Shore mayor Andrew Williams. He got less than 4000 votes for mayor and came eleventh in his ward. He did a good job of pissing away his chances with an inept election strategy. He has discovered that playing the victim and crying about the bullying behaviour of others does not inspire confidence amongst the voters.

I'm also pleased that serial idiot and attention-seeker Cameron Slater did quite poorly, considering the attention he got. He will claim he was instrumental in bringing Williams down, but if you look at how few voted for him that doesn't really add up.

In my ward Penny Hulse and Sandra Coney go onto the council. I'm reasonably pleased with the result, though I voted for Paul Walbran ahead of Hulse. Bill Daly flopped, coming in last place.

My local board is a bit of a mixture and looks to be a combination of the elderly, the inform and the right-wing. Leo Nobilo and Assid Corban are not exactly spring chickens. And Ross Dallow got in, which wasn't ideal.


Were you pleased with the outcome in your area?

Te Atatu Candidates' Names Released

The Dom Post reports that nine candidates have put their hands up for selection by Labour in the Te Atatu electorate.

Party president Andrew Little said the candidates were sitting MP Phil Twyford, who has twice missed out on other seats; former race relations conciliator and sitting MP Rajen Prasad; communications consultant Kate Sutton; lawyer Greg Presland; business owner Nick Bakulich, law student Jim Bradshaw; barrister Michael Kidd; university lecturer  Hamish McCracken and community advocate Ann Pala.

Another sitting Labour MP Darien Fenton announced today she had decided against seeking the nomination after earlier expressing an interest.

I don't know too much about most of them, but it looks to be a pretty strong group of candidates. I wonder if Chris Carter will give one candidate his royal stamp of approval, and whether his doing so will help or hinder their chances.

On Punditry

Political punditry is a funny thing. Before I started this blog only 18 months ago I'd never seriously considered myself an expert in anything much (other than my legal specialty, oh and and some aspects of Roman history). While politically opinionated and an avid reader, I was not (and still am not) the member of any political party*, and was not (and still am not) politically connected.

But it turns out that if you put the right sort of stuff on the internet people notice. I had no idea what I was doing in the beginning days of this blog, and it took a while for me to realise that taking the piss was a far better way of communicating a message than screaming.

I was bowled over when first asked on the Panel at Radio NZ some months ago. While my first effort was stilted, by the third attempt (this afternoon) I started to relax a bit. Most people who know me would agree that I'm quite reserved. I'm not a natural talker, and tend to like to think things through before expressing an opinion. But I think I'm improving.

The strength of a show like the Panel is that Jim Mora is a superb host. He really is great at putting his guests at ease. I've also been lucky in having good co-panelists each time to fill the void when I can't think of anything intelligent to say. Like today when Bernard Hickey was talking about house prices and the world economy. I really had nothing much to contribute, so was happy for Bomber Bradbury to do the talking.

My other media appearance was in one of those 30 second guest-blogger slots on The Nation. The requirement there appears to be quite different. Say something memorable and do it fast appears to be the name of the game. That must be why they keep getting guys like Cameron Slater on. He's always happy to slag people off. That's generally not my modus operandi. I'd much rather make fun of someone I don't see eye to eye with.

Another way to get noticed is to be on Kiwiblog. Whatever people may say about the man, David Farrar is the godfather of the New Zealand blogosphere. About a month ago he picked up one of my posts on South Canterbury Finance, and since that time my blog traffic has almost doubled - and traffic levels have stayed high ever since.

I'm still puzzling over why and how I've become a pundit. But I'll just enjoy the ride while it lasts.

* Disclosure: In a moment of anger at the Opposition in 2004 or 2005 (over what I don't recall - it might have been the Orewa speech) I joined the Labour Party, but then proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it, and my membership lapsed. As an aside, it surprised me that nobody ever contacted me to welcome me to the party or chase me up when I didn't renew. It seemed a bit odd that the time, considering how cash-strapped the party is always meant to be. Are other parties more proactive with new or non-renewing members?