Petrol tax should not be used to fund the Government’s general spending. Most people would agree on that. For several decades petrol tax was a great revenue earner for the Government. It was impossible to avoid, had low compliance costs and only four companies had to pay it.

National in the late 90s changed this. Previously almost half the petrol tax went into the consolidated fund. It then made a decision to dedicate it to the land transport fund. What this means is that petrol tax is an imperfect form of user pays.

Again I think most would agree those who use the roads should pay for them. Why should someone who works from home pay the same towards road maintenance as someone who spends four hours a day driving on them?

In a perfect world we would have GPS chips that monitor every road we drive on, how congested it is, is it peak time etc and we’d get charged directly for our road use. However that technology is a wee way off, and there are huge privacy issues around that. So we have petrol tax as an imperfect but pretty good rough system of user pays.

This then leads to two issues around petrol tax. The first is whether it is set at the right level to fund the various land transport projects, or are they making a profit from it?

I asked for a copy cashflows for the National Land Transport Fund for the the last three years.  The net revenue from petrol tax, road user charges and vehicle registration fees was $2.51b, $2.63b and $2.69b in the last three years. The expenditure or distributions were $2.93b, $3.03b and $2.67b. This means that spending was greater than income by $420m, $400m and $20m surplus last year. So over the last three years $800m deficit.

That makes it clear to me that the Government is not using petrol tax to fund non-transport projects. If transport expenditure is needed, of course motorists should pay for it. I actually have a view that the petrol tax level should not be set by Government at a set level, but automatically increase or decrease to fund all transport projects that have a positive business case.

Now the second issue is what transport projects are funded from the land transport fund. The Greenies want nothing spent on roads, and it all spent on rail. There;’s never been a road they have supported. Some think there should be no subsidy for public transport – that passenger fares should pay for public transport, not road users.

I think the current mix of both road and public transport is pretty good. The NLTP plan has $12.3b invested in land transport of which $1.7b is for public transport. Some people would have you think there is little funding of public transport.

Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii died earlier this week. He was aged 88, and was planning to run for a tenth Senate term in 2016, when he would have been 92.

In NZ politics, there is a general feeling that your peak political years are the 40s and 50s. Once you make 60, the timer has started and in your 70s you become (in my view) almost unelectable. However in the US it is very different, with many people being elected to office in their 60s, 70s, 80s and even 90s.

Inouye had been the President pro tempore of the Senate since 2010. That made him third in line for the presidency after the VP and Speaker of the House. In reality he would never have become President (except in a Tom Clancy novel) as no Speaker has even become President, but it is a weakness in the US succession laws to have the President pro tem in the line of succession  considering the position is always held by the longest serving Senator of the majority party.

Inouye has represented Hawaii in Washington for as long as it has been a state. They became a state in 1959 and he was in the House of Reps from 1959 to 1963 and a Senator since then.

He was a Japanese-American and served in WWII, once the ban on serving was lifted. Like many in Congress, he was seriously wounded and lost his right arm. War heroes do well in elections.

All in all an extraordinary life of service, especially representing the state of Hawaii for its entire existence.

Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:

New Zealand has no power to ensure internet giants like Facebook and Google pay more tax, according to an IRD report.

The new report appears to back Revenue Minister Peter Dunne’s claim that New Zealand cannot solve corporate tax loopholes alone, arguing that even law changes would be overridden by international treaties.

Of course it does. NZ simply has no power to tax overseas corporates. If I buy a book from Amazon, can the Govt force Amazon to pay tax in NZ? Of course not.

The issue of tax rates on international companies, especially in the technology sector, has hit headlines since it emerged Facebook paid less than $14,500 in New Zealand last year, or less than 1 cent for every one of its 2.2 million Kiwi users.

That’s a silly comparison. You don’t tax firms on their number of users. You tax them on their profits. It is even sillier when you consider Facebook does not charge a user fee.

I don’t how to put this diplomatically, so I’ll be direct.

Dear Fairfax,

Please, please, please exterminate the abomination that is Stuff Nation. 

I of all people am a supporter of allowing readers and commenters to contribute content. I think that is a good thing.

But it is a bad thing when you put that content on the front page of your website, and mix it in with the articles written by actual journalists. It devalues their work, and the entire site.

Take an example of a “story” that was on Stuff’s front page yesterday. It was this one that said:

A few years ago I applied for a job at a factory making trampolines.

The manager’s first question was: “Are you a married woman?”

I thought ‘ughh you creep’ but bit my tongue and asked why he needed to know.

His answer left me speechless: “I don’t employ married women because their place is in the home to raise their children properly.”

Guess what though? I truly hate to admit it – being a (reformed) seventies feminist  – but he’s dead right.

Let’s even put aside that a company that has a majority of female employees publishes on their front page a story saying married women shouldn’t get jobs, because that makes them bad mums who can’t raise their children recently. Let’s agree that is a valid debate (personally I think it was a valid debate in 1912 not 2012).

But the 81 word “story” doesn’t even make a case for or against. It just says an employer asked me this once, and he was right.

Danyl McL has a theory that Stuff Nation is in fact a cunning plan by Fairfax to make people appreciate real journalists even more. If so, it is working!

Look I understand the commercial attraction of Stuff Nation. Get hundreds of people to write for us for nothing, in the hope their contribution makes the front page of Stuff, and we get to make advertising revenue from the ads we place on their content. And that is a fine model for GP Forums, and other bulletin boards.

But this mixing of banal reader contributions and actual journalistic articles and columns is hideous. Has Fairfax asked their staff what they think of it? I’m pretty confident they hate it.

Is there a solution, short of my preferred option of a large radioactive nuclear bomb?

How about just removing Stuff Nation articles from the front page of Stuff? I’ve already removed the Stuff Nation section from the Stuff front page, but their articles still turn up under “Editor’s Picks”. The article on why married women should not work was an Editor’s Pick!!!

Why not make Stuff Nation a standalone website. Make it nation.stuff.co.nz. Have a link to the site from Stuff, but don’t mingle together the content from your professional journalists with your reader contributions.

Either that, or nuke the abomination!

UPDATE: The new editor of Stuff Nation has responded in the comments:

Ouch! I’m totally up for debate on this (as the new editor of Stuff Nation and Stuff’s digital communities), but abomination might be a bit rough.

I think there’s some fair points in this blog though and also in the comments. I’m glad BlairM pointed out the obvious flaw in the fact that this is a blog, based on the opinions of an individual, much like the majority of content on Stuff Nation. I think it’s dangerous as journalists for us to assume that one person’s opinion is more valid than another’s.

There was a lot of debate yesterday about the quality of the ‘job interview nightmare’ mentioned above but I think in the context of readers sharing their stories and opening up debate on key issues, it’s a very valid form of citizen journalism. And by publishing it we weren’t endorsing the content – in the same way we don’t agree with every op ed piece we publish in our papers or websites.

I think it’s fair to mention that Stuff Nation – like any new major project – is a work in progress and we’re constantly working on ways to improve it and the quality within it. We have had some really beautifully written pieces from our readers (like this http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/8059106/Remembering-loved-ones-My-world-ended-that-day ) that have not only been amazing reads, but have provoked discussion around tough issues such as suicide, miscarriage, and loss, and that we would have struggled to produce through traditional news gathering channels.

In the meantime though, the stories are very clearly marked as Stuff Nation content, so if you’re not keen, you can easily avoid them. And I’ll just work away in the next few months to win you back 

Thanks to Janine for a constructive response to my rather inflammatory post. To some degree I find the dross puts me off discovering the gems like the ones cited above. Maybe have people vote on the best pieces and have them displayed more prominently, so that the signal to noise ratio is higher?

But here’s an example of what I was complaining about. I follow NZ Stuff Politics on Twitter. My expectation is that tweets from that account will be linking to stories written by journalists on politics. One tweet this afternoon was:

Call for new Education Minister

I clicked through on this, thinking it was a significant story. That a lobby group or school or union or MP had called for a new Education Minister.

Instead the link was to this Stuff Nation story. It was basically a letter to the editor, or a short piece by a reader called Peter Condon that he thinks Parata should go.

This shouldn’t be tweeted as a political news story by the Stuff NZ Politics twitter account. It isn’t a story. I’m not saying don’t have the opinion on the website somewhere, but this treating of a Stuff Nation opinion as no different to a news story is I think bad.

Some have said just don’t read Stuff Nation stories. I generally don’t. But when the Stuff twitter accounts promote them as if they were actual news stories, I have no way of knowing until I click on them. Set up a Stuff Nation twitter account, and leave the nation stories ou of the other twitter accounts.

I called yesterday for more focus on the substance of the Bain issue – mainly whether or not Fisher’s criticisms of Binnie’s report are justified and substantial, and wanted to hear from legal experts rather than those with a vested interest.

Was pleased to have commenters discover or point out that no less than three law professors have actually commented publicly on this issue. And it appears they have all concluded that they agree with Fisher’s critique. Let’s go through them all.

First, there is this video on TVNZ with Otago University Law School Dean Mark Henaghan. Definitely worth viewing.

Then the ODT report:

Having read both reports, Prof Henaghan said a main issue of concern with Justice Binnie’s report was whether it relied on the onus of Mr Bain proving his innocence, rather than the Crown proving his guilt.

”In this case, it is not a criminal trial. If you are asking for compensation the onus is on you to prove you deserve it and that was one thing Robert Fisher was worried most about in respect of Justice Binnie’s report.”

He thought Dr Fisher’s recommendation to have a revised report drafted and opened for feedback from all involved was sensible, and anyone preparing such a report could at least benefit from Justice Binnie’s ”thorough” compiling of data.

Tapu Misa reported:

The Otago University law professor, Kevin Dawkins, told Radio New Zealand last week that he agreed with Robert Fisher’s criticism that Binnie failed to consider circumstantial evidence and the way we in New Zealand approach it.

Professor Dawkins said Binnie’s dismissal of individual pieces of evidence was problematic and “corroborates the Minister of Justice’s conclusion that the finding in the report is not supported by robust reasoning and analysis”.

He also agreed that Binnie incorrectly imposed the burden on the Crown to prove Bain wasn’t innocent, when the onus of proof should have lain with David Bain.

Also ZB reported Dawkins:

Otago University Law Professor Kevin Dawkins says there’s an ongoing concern in the Fisher review, that Justice Binnie was more inclined to believe David Bain’s version of events, than the Crown’s.

“I think there were parts of Justice Binnie’s report which indicate an inclination to find David Bain innocent on the balance of probabilities.”

Kevin Dawkins says Ian Binnie may have been confirmed in his view by the verdict of the jury in David Bain’s retrial, but that point isn’t relevant in this inquiry.

And finally we have Andrew Geddis. He has blogged extensively on this at Pundit. he is very critical of Judith Collins over not giving Bain’s camp a copy of Binnie’s report, and the way Fisher was commissioned. However he also gets into the substance of Fisher’s criticisms and his main conclusion:

I think Fisher’s core criticism of Binnie’s approach to the physical evidence is right.

And in detail:

But how and why Binnie thought this footprint evidence (put together with the timing issue, and the no blood in the shoe point) was stronger than the combinedevidence that pointed towards David Bain’s guilt we’ll never know – all we know is that he says he considered the matter and came to that conclusion.

And that is a problem, because it is only in the overall “thickness vs sharpness” analysis that you can reach an overall assessment on the balance of probabilities of whether David Bain is innocent. So I think Fisher is absolutely correct in this aspect of his criticisms: even if Binnie really did do what he says he did (and remember, an absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence), we needed to see him doing it in order to be fully satisfied about his conclusions.

So, yes – for all the problems that I have with the way Fisher’s review of Binnie’s report was commissioned and framed, Collins was right to conclude from it that Binnie’s report is not a safe basis for concluding that David Bain is innocent. Having read that report, and Fisher’s critique, and Binnie’s response, that is the conclusion I myself have come to.

So there seem to be three options going forward:

1. Pay Bain compensation, despite the documented inadequacies of the Binnie report.
2. Do not pay Bain compensation, on the basis that the Binnie report has failed to make the case that he is innocent.
3. Ask someone to do another report on Bain’s likely innocence, and make a decision on compensation based on that.

I don’t think anyone expects (1) will occur. Nor should it occur.

I think (2) would be rather unfair to David Bain. It is not his fault that Binnie’s report was sub-standard. He shouldn’t lose his chance for compensation because of it.

So inevitable we need another report. As some have noted it can use as a starting point, the evidence collated by Binnie.

But who should do it? You have a double challenge. First to identify someone acceptable, and secondly to convince them to do it – considering the toxicity of the environment around this now.

Geddis blogged:

So maybe the only way through this is to give the job to more than one person. As my Boss at the Otago Law Faculty, Mark Heneghan, has suggested, “at least with a panel of judges they can reality-check each other and make sure they are not being influenced by one thing.” And as I make it a policy to never disagree with my boss, I’m going to suggest that this is a brilliant idea from a fair-minded, highly intelligent and devastatingly good-looking man.

The idea of a panel is not a bad one.  Maybe two NZ Judges or QCs who have had nothing to do with the case, and one Australian?

If you have a sole reviewer, and they reach a different conclusion to Binnie, then the Bain camp will criticise that as having hand picked a favourable reviewer. But if you have a panel, it is much harder to criticise it – and it worth recalling appellate benches are always panels.

Of course a reviewer or review panel may come to the same conclusion as Binnie – and that is fine, so long as their report correctly sets out why, and the tests they applied.

I am staggered. The Herald reports:

A teacher tried to hire a gang member to assault her principal because she was being hassled about lies she told to the school, a disciplinary hearing has found.

So she hired a gang member to assault her principal and she lies to her school.

The disciplinary tribunal heard the teacher also fabricated grades for work not done by students, forged the head of department’s signature, and lied about what classes she had taught.

And she fabricates grades, forges signatures and lies about classes taught.

The disciplinary hearing was to establish if she should be deregistered as a teacher.

The tribunal said the “difficult decision” in the case was whether the responsibilities to the public and the profession could be met without deregistering the teacher.

“We have concluded that we can [meet those responsibilities] but only after very careful consideration and by the finest of margins,” the report says.

Yet the Teachers Council says she can continue as a teacher!! What do you have to do to be degregistered? Actually have the gang member do the kneecapping?

The IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study has some interesting results.

Maths

Singapore, Korea and Hong Kong are tops, all over 600. The midpoint is 500 and NZ is 486. Bottom is Yemen on 248.

Science

Korea, Singapore, and Finland are tops, all over 570. The midpoint is 500 and NZ is 497. Bottom is Yemen on 209.

Reading

Hong Kong, Russia and Finland are tops, all over 568. The midpoint is 500 and NZ is 531. Bottom is Morocco on 310.

The graphs are worth looking at, because they show the distribution for each country also. You can also see the results for 2001 and 2006 as well as 2011.

A reader writes:

Aquaflow (http://www.aquaflowgroup.com), an organisation competing in the GE: Ecomagination Energy Challenge. Aquaflow is partnered with New Zealand Trade & Enterprise and the United States Department of Energy. Their focus is renewable hydrocarbon fuels made from polluted municipal water.

Low-carbon emission fuels, clean water and all that good stuff.

I know there’s some big, and very different camps pitched for the Climate Change and environment debates, but I think most would agree Aquaflow’s work is the sort we want to see out there succeeding in the market. The waterways in this country could be cleaner, and addressing this issue is good for primary industries as well.

That’s great innovation. Turning polluted water into fuel!

You can vote for Aquaflow’s project in the Ecomagination Energy Challenge.

The Herald today has an article on how Lindy Chamberlain’s lawyer thinks David Bain should be paid compensation. It doesn’t look like he has even read the reports incidentally.

What I want to read, and have been waiting for media to report, is expert legal analysis of the Binnie and Fisher reports.  Surely the key issue isn’t what you think of David Bain, or Judith Collins, but did Justice Binnie interpret New Zealand law correctly or did he make significant errors as Dr Fisher has stated? Are Fisher’s criticisms valid and significant or are they nit picking?

I have a view on Bain, as most people. I’m prepared to go along with an expert review of the evidence, even if it reaches conclusions different to my expectations. But only if it has correctly applied New Zealand law. My lay reading of Fisher’s report is that Binnie made several very significant errors. Now again, I am not a lawyer, so can’t judge how significant Fisher’s critique is. But there must be scores of top lawyers out there who are experts on this stuff. Can’t a news outlet go interview some who have no connection to the case?

I don’t want them to be asked what they think of David Bain, and should he get compensation. I don’t want them to talk about the process. I want them to be asked to read both the Binnie and Fisher reports and to state whether or not Fisher’s criticisms are accurate and significant.

The State Services Commissioner has announced:

The State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie, today announced that he has accepted the resignation of the Secretary for Education and Chief Executive Ms Lesley Longstone.

Mr Rennie said that the last six months have been especially challenging for the Ministry of Education.  Despite the best efforts of the Chief Executive to work through a number of issues, there now needs to be a focus on re-building the critical relationships that have been strained.

Following very careful thought and discussion, Lesley and I have decided that the best interests of the Ministry would be served by her stepping down and the appointment of a new Chief Executive, Mr Rennie said. …

Mr Rennie said he was grateful to Victoria University of Wellington for supporting the secondment of former Public Service chief executive Peter Hughes as the Acting Chief Executive and Secretary for Education. Peter Hughes will take up his role from 9 February 2013. The State Services Commission will advertise for the permanent role in the New Year.

This has the potential to make a significant difference. Peter Hughes is the former CE of MSD and despite the huge complexities of that ministry, was twice judged top performing public sector CE by the Trans-Tasman panel.

By contrast, the Ministry of Education has consistently come near the bottom of the ratings for the 40 or so core public sector agencies. This has always been a huge concern when you consider the importance of education to New Zealand.

The departure of Longstone and appointment (for now) of Hughes, is an opportunity to change things for the better. I look at what I regard as the three main educational stuff ups of the year. They were:

1. The Budget announcement on increased class sizes in return for improved teacher quality
2. The Christchurch schools restructuring
3. The Novopay performance

The 1st issue was a political failure. The Government failed to define what they would do to improve teacher quality, and hence it was like asking for a blank cheque. The policy could have worked if the work had been done on what precisely would be done to improve teacher quality – then people may accept the trade off. The responsibility for that one rests with the Minister, but to be fair to Hekia the decision was a collective one by Cabinet – not hers alone.

The 2nd and 3rd issues were primarily operational failures by the Ministry. The Minister is accountable for their performance, but not directly responsible. In this case, seeing the departure of the CE, and a very competent (temporary) replacement announced is exactly what should happen for such operational failings.

Hughes has a huge task ahead of him, to make changes to the Ministry. There are many good people there, but the structure and culture as a whole are not currently up to the job.

Enemies of the current Government will claim that everything that has happened has been the Minister’s fault. As I have said, she is accountable and there has been political failures also. But to be honest if you really care about improving the NZ education system, you’d be welcoming the appointment of someone like Peter Hughes to be Acting Secretary of Education.

The facts Hughes has agreed to take the role on, is very significant also. He had left the public sector. He would not take on the role unless he had confidence both in the Minister, and in his ability to work with her to make change for the better. He pretty much could have had his choice of any public sector job he wanted when he left MSD.

I look forward to seeing how 2013 goes for Education. It could be very different to 2012.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

MPs are in line for a Christmas bonus of several thousand dollars.

The Remuneration Authority confirmed today it expected to issue its annual review of MP salaries on Thursday – backdated to July 1, meaning they are in line for backpay as well.

Based on a pay rise in the order of 1.5 per cent, that could be $6000 plus for Prime Minister John Key, while a back bencher will get an extra $2000-plus a year.

But MPs could also be in line for an adjustment worth a couple of thousand dollars more, based on changes to their international travel discount which was estimated to have left them about $9000 a year worse off.

The Remuneration Authority has already adjusted their pay by $5000 and $2000 over the last two pay rounds and is likely to top up pay packets further in its determination on Thursday.

Remuneration Authority chief executive John Errington said he could not discuss details till the determination was gazetted.

But when asked if the payrise was likely to be in the order of last year’s rise of 1.5 per cent he confirmed that was likely.

The annual pay rise is always controversial and likely to attract stiff criticism again this year after  pre-Christmas news that motorists will be stung by a hike in petrol taxes by 9c a litre over the next three years.

I have advocated for many years a win-win solution to this issue. Rather than have annual pay adjustments, the law should require the Remuneration Authority to set salaries and allowances for MPs for an entire term of Parliament, every three years  before the election. This means that no MP gets a payrise during their term, and people stand for Parliament knowing exactly how much the salary will be for that Parliament. It doesn’t mean MPs get paid less overall, but it does mean you avoid this annual masochistic exercise. Rather than say an annual 1.5% increase, you may just have the salary for one term of Parliament set 4.5% higher than the previous term.

The Govt Admin Select Committee has yet to report back on a bill, which may make that change. Hopefully the inevitable outcry tomorrow will convince MPs of the merits of making a change.

Michelle Cooke at Stuff reports:

Parliament’s worst kept secret of 2012 is official – Speaker Lockwood Smith is heading to London to take up the position of New Zealand High Commissioner.

The House has risen for the year, MPs are on holiday and Smith has put his role as Speaker of the House aside to move to the United Kingdom.

Smith’s upcoming move was already widely known, but Prime Minister John Key formally announced the appointment today.

“Lockwood Smith has had a distinguished political career and his nomination is a mark of the high esteem in which he is held,” Key said.

“I wish Lockwood and his wife, Alexandra, all the best for this new appointment.”

Smith has been a Member of Parliament since 1984 and was the MP for Rodney from 1996 until 2011, when he was elected under the National List. His fellow MPs elected him as Speaker in 2008 and again in 2011.

It is understood that MPs will vote in a new Speaker at the end of January. 

Heh, it had to happen. The video of Jay-Jay and the PM doing Gangnam Style is at The Edge. If you want to see his full nine minutes on The Edge, it is here.

No doubt the humour impaired will moan, but I think it is great that Key has such a great sense of humour. The full nine minute interview is hilarious.

Parliament’s Education and Science Committee has just released the report of their Inquiry into 21st century learning environments and digital literacy. The 48 recommendations were agreed to unanimously (National, Labour, Greens and NZ First are on the committee. Some of the more significant or interesting ones are:

• That it consider requiring all New Zealand teachers to demonstrate a defined
  standard of digital literacy and to undertake professional learning and development to maintain their digital literacy skills, knowledge, and understanding.
• That it consider measuring and evaluating teacher training institutions on the quality of their digital literacy training.
• That it consider ensuring that all appropriate New Zealand video content produced for public consumption is licensed and funded under a single national contract, and made available to all schools.
• That it review the intellectual property framework for our education system to resolve copyright issues that have been raised, including considering Creative Commons policy.
• That it consider research and the potential for a greater role of educational games as part of digital learning environments for 21st century learning and skill development.
• That it review licensing arrangements for software, so that students have equity of access in schools and in homes, including the use of open-source software.
• That it consider introducing a policy that every student have access to a digital device for learning, including the appropriate age for such a policy to apply.
• That it consider reviewing the best institutional arrangements for providing the leadership to deliver both digital capability and 21st century learning environments. This review should include options such as, but not limited to, strengthening the Ministry of Education, extending the responsibility of Network for Learning Ltd, or establishing a new Crown entity.
• That it consider that the Education Review Office report on the digital capability of schools in its regular school reviews.

The two most significant recommendations, in my opinion, are the recommendation that every student have access to a digital device for learning, and that a new crown entity be considered to provide leadership around digital learning, rather than necessarily try to do this from within the Ministry of Education.

There’s some inspiring examples of world leading e-learning at some of our schools in New Zealand. Normally this has come about due to a few motivated and skilled individuals. The challenge is to extend this to all schools, and to make sure e-learning is not just an add-on which you do in one class a week, but is a key part of the whole school experience. I’ve seen first hand how educational games on a device such as an iPad, can make learning fun for kids, and actually get them learning at a far faster rate than would be the case otherwise.

The Government is now required to consider the report, and respond to it in the first half of 2013.

UPDATE: Hekia Parata has welcomed the report and says she will respond in due course.

Stuff reports:

A Supreme Court ruling in the Takamore body-snatching case looks set to test “uncharted cultural waters”.

The decision, a culmination of five years of legal action between James Takamore’s partner and his whanau, could also lead to a standoff between Tuhoe and authorities.

Mr Takamore died of an aneurism in 2007 and was to be buried in Christchurch, where he had lived with Denise Clarke and his two children for nearly 20 years. But his Tuhoe relatives spirited his body from the funeral parlour to his original birthplace in the Bay of Plenty, where they buried him next to his father at Kutarere Marae, near Opotiki.

Ms Clarke, who is executor of Mr Takamore’s estate, obtained a High Court judgment confirming her right to decide his burial place and ordering an exhumation.

The decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal, but Mr Takamore’s sister, Josephine Takamore, appealed to the Supreme Court against that decision on the grounds that Tuhoe tikanga, or customary protocol, should decide the location of burial.

In a decision published yesterday, Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias said Ms Takamore’s appeal had been unanimously dismissed.

Giving rights to anyone bar the executor would have led to massive uncertainty and encouraged more family disputes to be sorted out by whom can grab the body first. The Supreme Court decision is welcome. Their media summary states:

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Ms Takamore’s appeal. Three Judges of the Supreme Court (Tipping, McGrath and Blanchard JJ) have held that there is a common law rule under which personal representatives have both the right and duty to attend to disposal of the body of a deceased. The rule becomes operative where there is no agreement or acquiescence among the family on what is to be done, where arrangements have broken down, or where nothing is happening. In exercising that power, the personal representative should take account of the views of those close to the deceased, which are known or conveyed to him or her. Any views expressed by the testator on what should be done are an important consideration.

Those three Judges have also decided that under New Zealand’s common law a person who is aggrieved with the decision of the personal representative may challenge it in the High Court. The Court must address the relevant viewpoints and circumstances and decide, making its own assessment and exercising its own judgment, whether an applicant has established that the decision taken was not an appropriate one.

The Chief Justice and William Young J agreed that Ms Takamore’s appeal should be dismissed but would not have recognised the role of personal representatives. On their view, any disputes about what should be done with the body of the deceased can only be resolved by the Court.

I’d make the point that I think the views of the testator should be more than just an important consideration. I think they should be legally binding on the executor so long as they are legally permissible and affordable.

Stuff reports:

A Kiwi mum has lost a battle to prevent her cancer stricken boy from receiving more treatment, with a judge in the United Kingdom ordering it.

Neon Roberts’ Kiwi mum made headlines across the UK after refusing to have him treated for fear of the side effects of radiotherapy.

Sally Roberts, a former DJ from Auckland, went on the run with her seven-year-old son for four days before British police eventually caught her and brought them back.

The Family Division of the High Court in England was told by doctors overnight that Neon needed further brain surgery before radiotherapy could begin and without it, he would die.

Neon has already had brain surgery to remove a tumour and was expected to have radiotherapy in the weeks after before his mother took him on the run.

At the weekend, Roberts and her estranged husband Ben Roberts received news that Neon’s cancer had returned.

MRI scans showed a mass, about 1cm in diameter, had grown.

According to the Daily Mail, Roberts had initially consented to Neon having the radiotherapy but changed her mind just before the hearing.

In his ruling, Justice Bodey said the benefits of surgery far outweighed the negatives.

“I have reflected on the mother’s concerns and no one could fail to sympathise with her and indeed the father.

“‘Those concerns and uncertainties may well be part of the reason why she had consented to surgery, but when I had walked into court I was told she no longer consented.

“I have weighed up the risk factors attached in surgery. It is obvious and known to everyone that all operations carry risks and this is no exception.

“But taking this on the balance against the expected gains to Neon, in the unhappy position he now finds himself in, I am quite satisfied that surgery is in his best interests and I am making a declaration so it can go ahead.”

Parents generally get to make all the decisions about what is best for their kids. But there are limits. You can’t decide to not send your kids to school. You also can’t decide not to allow life saving treatment for your kids.

In Stuff on 21 Dec 2011, I did 20 political predictions for 2012, to complement the ones by the gallery team. My were not entirely serious. I’ll mark them now with one for basically correct, 1/2 for correct in principle and 0 for a miss.

1. Labour will poll over 30 per cent on the first poll of 2012. – they got it in he 2nd poll of 2012 – 1/2

2. Asenati Taylor will surprise many as the most impressive NZ First MP. – Ouch – 0

3. Forty-nine per cent of Mighty River Power will be sold before 2013, with huge demand leading to over $2 billion proceeds from the sale. – 1/2 as court action hard to compensate for

4. There will be no ministerial resignations due to scandal in 2012. – Whoops – 0

5. Lockwood Smith will become high commissioner to London, and a minister will replace him as the new Speaker. – I’m giving myself 1 for this as we all know it has happened, just the formality delayed until Jan.

6. Lockwood will throw Winston Peters out of the debating chamber on at least two occasions before he departs. – 1 – he did it twice I believe

7. There will be at one by-election in 2012 (and two in 2013). – 0, none

8. Aaron Gilmore will be an MP again before Christmas 2012. – I give myself 1/2 as it is only delayed until January.

9. The 2012 budget will be followed by at least three public sector strikes demanding pay increases. – Not sure if they were any. I’ll say 0.

10. Unemployment will be below 6 per cent by the end of 2012, and inflation will be below 3 per cent – 1 for inflation and 0 for unemployment is 1/2

11. The review of MMP will recommend getting rid of the one-seat threshold and reducing the party vote threshold to 4 per cent. – spot on – 1

12. The constitutional review will propose an upper house known as the “Treaty House” which is 50 per cent tangata whenua, and will have similar powers to the House of Lords to scrutinise and delay legislation. – 0 for now as no proposals yet.

13. Defence lawyers will start a Bring Back Simon Power campaign. – 0 for that – they prefer Judith.

14. The age for buying alcohol will increase to 20 for at least off-licences. – very thankful that was  zero. I should back myself more 🙂

15. Labour List MP Rajen Prasad will put out twice as many press releases in 2012 than he did in the previous three years. – also a zero – I over-estimated his work ethic.

16. As Sue Kedgley has retired, Easter will pass without a Green MP putting out a press release condemning the size of Easter eggs as too large. – 1 for that

17. The first prosecution in the Copyright Tribunal for copyright infringing through file-sharing will occur. – 1 for that as they have been lodged and are under consideration.

18. NZ First will drop below 5 per cent in the polls, and by coincidence Winston Peters will attack immigrants the following fortnight. – 1 for that

19. The Crafar farms will be bought by Landcorp. – 1/2 – a joint venture

20. The Government will pledge to implement every recommendation made by the Royal Commission into the Pike River disaster. – so far a 1.

So in total I generously score myself 9.5/20.

Got an e-mail a week or so back from Film NZ, declaring NZ the winner of “Best Supporting Country” to film makers. They said:

“Today we are highlighting just a few of them, individuals, businesses and community groups like the Glenorchy Volunteer Fire Brigade and the entire population of gorgeous Otago town of Naseby,” she said.

Gisella Carr said the range of skills required to support a production with scale as large as The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is incredible.

“We’re saying ‘thank you’ to people like the Canterbury weather planner, the resource consent expert from Ohope, the Queenstown based helicopter pilot, the Wellington sushi maker, the digger driver and his wife in the King Country – and of course those wonderful folk who kept the crew fed and fuelled.” 

They also had some interesting facts about the filming of The Hobbit:

• 99 sets were built
• 6750 domestic flights were taken
• 19 commercial properties were leased long term
• 93,000 hotel bed nights were sold
• 1800 rental cars were hired
• 1650 work vehicles  were used                                                                                            
• $380,000  was spent on coffee
• $9,180,000 was spent on set construction materials (with local suppliers) 
• approximately 16,000 days were worked by New Zealand actors
• $1,450,000 was spent with local food suppliers 

The NZ film and TV industry is now worth $3 billion a year to the NZ economy. Long may it keep growing.

Susan Chalmers writes at the NZ Herald on the TPP:

I’m not an economist, but I do understand what a net loss or a net gain is. Most people will be familiar with the concept – at the end of the day, are you better or worse off? To figure that one out you need to know what you’ve brought in, and what you’ve paid out.

We’ve recently heard what New Zealand could bring in under the Trans Pacific Partnership – US$2.9 billion by 2025. But that figure is based on a hypothetical situation involving 21 countries, not the 11 that are negotiating. Even so, the Prime Minister recently embraced and advanced this figure.

What’s missing? Our leaders haven’t told us what the costs will be.

The biggest cost that New Zealand could sustain under the TPP would be in the intellectual property, particularly copyright. This is because the most powerful party to the negotiations – the United States – is a net exporter of copyrighted goods (movies, books, TV shows, songs, games, etc) while all other TPP parties are net importers.

The interests that drive US trade policy in copyright are Hollywood and the recording industry. They want stronger and more powerful legal rights that would bring more money to them, often at the expense of many different sectors of society and business.

I’m all for the benefits of liberalising trade with other countries. That does provide benefits. But as Susan says, we also have to be aware of the costs to New Zealand, if the TPP includes US drafted changes to our copyright laws.

The Government has rightly said that any decision on TPP will be based on whether it is a net gain to New Zealand. But again, one can only calculate a net gain if you actually calculate the costs.

Now ideally NZ holds firm and doesn’t agree to any provisions that require changes to our IP laws.

Since the Government has not run its own analysis of potential costs, perhaps we can look elsewhere for guidance. Australia is a good place to start. Like New Zealand, Australia is a net importer of copyrighted goods and wants better access to the US agricultural markets – for sugar and beef exports in particular. …

A report from the Australian Productivity Commission – the Government’s independent research and advisory body – indicated that Australia suffered a net loss under AUSFTA as a whole because of accepting the US copyright demands.

Maybe the NZ Productivity Commission could look at the the benefits to the NZ economy of balanced IP laws?

So why has our political leadership not talked about the costs of accepting the US copyright demands? For instance, the cost of paying decades more in royalties to overseas companies, losing parallel imports, not to mention all the taxpayer money to support US copyright litigation here in New Zealand.

Trade agreements are meant to liberalise trade. Banning parallel imports is putting up barriers to trade.

Regardless of the reason for our leaders not acknowledging the potential costs, it is now time to run that analysis, as any normal business would. New Zealand’s copyright negotiators have been holding the line throughout 15 TPP rounds, working to stave off these costs for the country. Let’s encourage our elected officials not only to give them some support, but to explain exactly what the country is about to commit to. Shouldn’t we know?

We should.

The 2012 Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update has just come out. A couple of interesting graphs from Bill English’s presentation.

It is worth considering that the reduction in spending has occurred despite the Christchurch earthquakes. Spending at 35% of GDP is not sustainable, and in my opinion needs to get below 30%.

The turn about in household debt or savings is the reversal of a 15 year trend. It reflects the new world we are in.

Moth City is an online graphic novel set in the 1930s East Orient. It’s done by a Wellington  illustrator and writer Tim Gibson. The story is:

It is set against the backdrop of the Chinese Civil war, when the governing Nationalist Party fought Mao’s Communists, and tells the story of an American weapons tycoon who must solve a brazen murder, before his city’s inhabitants are wiped out by the warring factions. 

 It has politics, treachery and murder, you know, the good stuff. 

Tim was one of the designers on the Tintin movie. To read the comic, you click through frame by frame.

Alex Tarrant at interest.co.nz writes:

The fight to stop the government’s asset sales programme is heading to the Supreme Court.

The highest court in the land today granted approval for the Maori Council to appeal a High Court decision a week ago that the government’s decisions regarding moves to partially privatise four state-owned energy companies were not reviewable in court.

The Supreme Court also granted leave for the appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court, meaning the next decision could be the final act in the Maori Council’s bid to prove the sales would be unlawful.

The approved ground of appeal was whether the High Court was right to dismiss the application for review.

The Supreme Court said it would hear the appeal on January 31 and February 1 next year.

It is good that the Supreme Court granted leave to bypass the Court of Appeal. This means that if they do not uphold the appeal, the the partial sales can proceed on time.

Of course it is possible the Supreme Court may uphold the appeal. To do so they would need to find that Justice Young was incorrect both in ruling that the decisions were not reviewable, but also that even if they were none of the grounds cited were substantial.

Cynics might say that regardless of the merits, the Maori Council may start with one vote in their favour. So it could be up to how the other four Justices see it.