This is terrible, almost beyond belief. The Hartford Courant reports:

Twenty-seven people, including 18 children, have been killed in a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, according to the Associated Press.

The shootings happened in a kindergarden classroom. How insane does someone have to be to shoot kids?

Newtown, Connecticut is a fairly small town of 28,000 people. The impact on them will be beyond belief.

It seems the (now dead) killer, Ryan Adam Lanza, killed his own mother who was one of the teachers, and many of the kids were in her class.

So very very sad.

Fairfax have rated the respective front benches. Their ratings on a one to five star scale are:

• Tony Ryall 4.5
• Paula Bennett 4.0
• John Key 4.0
• Gerry Brownlee 4.0
• Judith Collins 4.0
• Chris Finlayson 3.5
• Bill English 3.5
• Steven Joyce 3.5
• David Carter 2.5
• Hekia Parata 0.5

The minor parties:

• Russel Norman 4.5
• Peter Dunne 3.5
• Winston Peters 3.0
• Hone Harawira 3.0
• Tariana Turia 2.5
• Metiria Turei 2.5
• Barbara Stewart 2.0
• Pita Sharples 1.5
• John Banks 0

Labour

• David Parker 4.5
• David Shearer 4.0
• Jacinda Ardern 3.5
• Grant Robertson 3.0
• Clayton Cosgrove 2.5
• Maryan Street 2.0
• Su’a William Sio 2.0
• Nanaia Mahuta 1.0

A fair few there I’d dispute, but each to their own!

Sometimes being pseudo-media has its perks, and today was one of them. I got invited to a media preview of the Game Makers exhibition opening at Te Papa tomorrow.

I got the high score (to date) on Missile Command. The photo isn’t great quality but in person the old arcade games are in great condition, and playing them all again was like being back in the 1970s!

The Te Papa website will be showing high scores for the various games, so people can beat their mates.

But this isn’t just a large spacies parlour. They are full of info on the actual creators of the games. We may all know a game is Atari, or Nintendo – but what do we know of the individuals who created them. Their games are a form of art, which has impacted our culture a lot.

More memories.

This dance game will do doubt prove very popular.

But again it is more than just a collections of games. Don’t get me wrong, heaps will flock there for the ability to play old favourite ganmes for hours on end for just a $16 admittance fee. But there’s a lot of fascinating history on the games and their makers also.

Note if you are planning a long session, they have no toilets in the exhibition, or food and drink, so make sure you are well fed, and emptied, before you go in. The doors open at 10 am.

The exhibition space is pretty  large, so hopefully won’t get too cramped.

It brought back so many memories for me. The playing of spacies at the fish and chip shop while waiting for our orders. Then as we got older, the parlous in town.

And you know what, playing on the PC or an isomething isn’t the same as those old classic arcade games. The big screens. The simple icons. The graphics on their walls.

A great exhibition for young and those no longer so young!

An update to the post on The Nation, as Fran O’Sullivan has been adding up 2 and 2 to get five.

I saw (I think on Twitter) a reference to a story saying The Nation was not being funded next year by NZ on Air. I followed the link to a website I had never seen before called NZ Inc. The story seemed definitive “news spread last night that The Nation has missed out on funding for 2013” so I blogged a story on it. I did the story at 9.18 am and set it to appear at 2.00 pm. Most of my stories are done earlier in the day and then set to appear later.

I didn’t even note on the website whom the author was, and as I said the site was previously unknown to me.

I then left home to go to Te Papa for the preview of their Gamemakers display (opens tomorrow).  On the taxi ride there at 11.55 am I saw a comment by Fran O’Sullivan that The Nation will be back in 2013 and she stands corrected. I took this to mean that TV3 would be funding it, but then saw a further comment that NZ on Air was in fact funding it.

I then commented that this means the NZ Inc report was wrong, and I must go change my blog post lamenting it set for this afternoon.

That was the intention. I wasn’t sure what time it was set for exactly (as I do 10 a day), but anyway by the time I finished at Te Papa and headed to the airport, it was just after 2 pm when I got to go into the blog to edit the post. I do Facebook and Twitter easily from the iPhone, but significant editing of a blog post on a phone is incredibly difficult to do.

I got to the Koru Club, started up the laptop, and found that the post had already appeared, which annoyed me as I preferred not to run incorrect information.

I did a quick update to the blog the post at the top, stating the report was wrong and expressing some mild displeasure that the site I quoted hadn’t lived up to their tagline. It was only as I did that update I even realised that Fran was one of those behind the site.

Anyway Fran then lets loose on Facebook claiming my post was a “bitchy little hissy fit“,  and I was “just being an asshole cos he can be” and “He is just wanting to snipe from the sidelines. Nasty and stoking ill-will in an ill-advised manner.”

The irony may not escape people of Fran claiming I was being the nasty one.

I responded to Fran explaining the post was pre-timed, but she then effectively called me a liar. I have absolutely no time for people who doubt my word, and behave like that.

Fran doesn’t seem to have considered that if I really was wanting to damage her (and God knows why she thinks I am someone who would want to) then I would hardly have posted on her Facebook page noting the correction and saying I plan to change my blog entry. I could have said nothing at all. I could have rushed the post forward to do maximum damage, so that it got out there before the corrected version did. Her interpretation is ridiculous when you consider I made the comment myself that I planned to update it.

Sure I could have in the update acknowledged that the discovery that the story was wrong, had occurred a couple of hours earlier, but it doesn’t change the fact it was wrong and I didn’t think it was material what time the error was discovered. My commenters had already caught on that the story was wrong, and the link went through to the corrected story.

At the end I’m just surprised that Fran has such a thin skin, and turns so nasty when it is her who ran an incorrect story. We’ve all run stories that have proven to be incorrect. I don’t even mind pushback that the correction could have referred to the time, but as I said I detest people who call me a liar. I never ever will say something I know to be false (usual disclaimer around jokes, pranks etc), and as far as I know this is the first journalist to ever claim otherwise.

Michael Dickison at the Herald has a great article on the Apocalypse.

The top 5 scenarios for the end of the world as we know it

1) Aliens

Remember Independence Day? Astrophysicist Craig Kasnov recently announced that three very large, fast-moving objects were approaching Earth. Though largely discounted by others, the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) researcher Kasnov said the “flying saucers” were tens of kilometres long and would arrive mid-December.

How to prepare: Some say you should head to the French Pyrenees, from where you may be beamed up and rescued.

2) Natural disaster

Supervolcanoes cause mass extinction. The most recent occurred in New Zealand about 26,000 years ago, while a likely site for the next eruption is Yellowstone National Park, in the United States.

How to prepare: Leave the Pacific’s Ring of Fire, preferably for equatorial Africa, where humans survived the last volcanic winter.

3) Nuclear attack

Surviving the initial horror of thermonuclear war is just the beginning. A nuclear winter will follow as debris, smoke and soot block sunlight for weeks or even years, and then there’s radiation sickness, lawlessness and the breakdown of civilisation to worry about.

How to prepare: For a quick end, stand outside as the bombs fall. Otherwise, build an underground bunker with enough supplies, guns, clothing, etc, to survive in the Mad Max-style post-apocalyptic wasteland.

4) The god of war cometh

Bolon Yokte, a Mayan deity, is prophesied to return to Earth in 2012, although key passages on a stone tablet containing the prophesy have eroded away.

The god may cause huge chaos and upheaval – or bestow upon people the energy to take an evolutionary step.

How to prepare: Only human sacrifice can save us now.

5) Salvation

Biblical messianic prophesies suggest a Second Coming of Jesus, possibly including resurrection of the dead. Armageddon is often associated with such an event.

How to prepare: Watch Supernatural from series three onwards. And pray a lot.

The entire article is hilarious.

UPDATE: The story is false. NZ on Air is funding The Nation in 2013. This is not a good look for a news site whose tag line is “Informed, Influential, Indispensable”

NZ Inc reports:

Meanwhile, news spread last night that The Nation has missed out on funding for 2013 from New Zealand on Air’s Platinum Fund.  The Nation is the flagship of Richard Harman’s Frontpage stable.  Under Harman, The Nation produced comprehensive current affairs stories as well as the big interviews. It also cemented host Rachel Smalley as a force to be reckoned with.

The Nation’s competitor – TVNZ’s Q&A – is expected to resume again next year but without founding host Paul Holmes who has retired for health reasons and also without producer Tim Watkin who wants his weekends back. No news yet on Holmes replacement but Watkin is expected to move to a new role at TVNZ.

This is a real shame. I have enjoyed having two in depth current affairs and politics shows on TV. They have their distinctive styles and I especially enjoyed the Ralston and Edwards segment on the media on The Nation. I also think Rachel Smalley had matured into an excellent interviewer.

It will be interesting to see what Q+A does next year with a new host and producer.

The Dominion Post editorial:

If David Bain is innocent of the murder of his parents, two sisters and brother he deserves to be compensated for the 13 years he spent in prison. If he is guilty he does not deserve a cent.

Exactly. It isn’t so much about the money, but about the outcome. I don’t care about $2 million when the Government spends $80 billion a year. If David did not kill his family, then he has suffered more than any person should suffer – and deserves compensation and more. But if he did kill his father, mother, brother and two younger sisters and tried to frame his father for the killing – it would be repugnant to reward him for this.

The concerns raised by Auckland QC Robert Fisher about retired Canadian judge Ian Binnie’s report on the case are such that it cannot be used as the basis to compensate Mr Bain. …

However, Dr Fisher’s review of his report – commissioned by Justice Minister Judith Collins – suggests Justice Binnie misunderstood his brief and misunderstood the principles under which wrongful imprisonment claims are assessed. It is difficult to conceive of a more damning critique.

There is no dispute that Binnie got his brief wrong. He has admitted this. Fisher’s critique is damning. I am not a lawyer and am not competent to judge whether Fisher’s criticisms are valid, or as Binnie claims are nitpicking. I am not interested in the claims of anyone associated with the Bain camp (or Crown Law), or of those who are politically motivated by their views of Judith Collins.

I’d love to hear from non-interested legal experts as to their views of the Binnie and Fisher reports.

The Herald editorial sort of goes the other way and says:

Justice Binnie may also have erred in going beyond his mandate. But that is of no great importance.

Really? Obeying the terms of reference is not important? That is in fact crucial.

His reasoning has enough substance to warrant more than Ms Collins’ dismissive attitude.

I think it is clear a second report is needed. It need not be a report from start. It can use the evidence collated by Binnie, but follow the NZ law of evidence in reaching conclusions.

I think using Dr Fisher for this second report would lead some to attack it as they assume he is pre-disposed against Bain (I don’t think he is, but perceptions are important). but I am sure someone can be found – perhaps an Australian Judge?

Stuff reports:

Most countries at a conference on telecommunications oversight have agreed that a United Nations agency should play an “active” but not dominant role in internet governance as they struggled to reach a worldwide compromise.

As a marathon session at the UN’s World Conference on International Telecommunications concluded at about 1.30am local time in Dubai (10.30 am NZT), the chairman asked for a “feel of the room” and then noted that the nonbinding resolution had majority support, while denying it was a vote.

This may seem innocuous, but it will be used by many Governments to maintain their campaign to extend Government control of the global Internet.

I think WCIT has shown why the ITU should have absolutely no role in Internet Governance. Its culture of secrecy and backroom deals is a cultural abyss from the way most Internet bodies work.

But ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Tour pleaded that the document was part of a balance that gave Western countries most of what they wanted in the more critical binding ITU treaty.

“If we were to eliminate this, that was a compromise that will come (back) on the table,” Tour warned the gathering ahead of the show of support. ITU officials are striving to forge consensus and avoid formal votes, and delegates were unsure after the proceeding whether the resolution had been adopted.

Compromise is good if both sides have valid points. But compromise is bad when what one side wants is, well, bad. This is what the totalitarian Governments do. They put up such outrageous proposals, so they will then get a compromise that moves them towards their goals. I say you do not compromise when it comes to Internet freedom.

Tom Pullar-Strecker at Stuff reports:

Communications Minister Adams has declined to shed light on whether the Government is considering intervening over broadband pricing because of concerns about copper-based competition to ultrafast broadband, or Chorus’ ability to fund the UFB roll out.

Adams said claims that consumers would lose out if the Government overruled a Commerce Commission move to drop the wholesale price of copper broadband connections by as much as $12.53 a month were exaggerated.

It “was highly unlikely that retail service providers would fully pass through any wholesale cost savings”, she said.

I’m quite dismayed that the Government’s response to the Commerce Commission’s draft copper pricing determination has been to threaten to legislate to overturn it, if they persist with it.

Lower prices are a good thing. Unless the Commerce Commission has misinterpreted the law they operate under, they should be applauded for looking after the interests of consumers.

And while it is right that retailers may not pass on the entire $12.50 a month saving, I am confident they would pass on the vast majority. If you think they won’t, then you are saying we do not have a competitive retail market and that is a far bigger issue.

I have been a huge supporter of the fibre roll-out to 75% of New Zealanders. But you don’t get people onto fibre, by artificially inflating the price of copper.

To be blunt the Government should shut the hell up on the Commerce Commission’s draft determination. There are some aspects of the Commerce Commission’s work where they refer to to Ministers for a decision, such as mobile termination rates. In those areas it is entirely appropriate for Ministers to express a view – as they are the decision making.

But in this area of setting copper access prices, it is purely a decision for the Commerce Commission, under the law passed by Parliament. The only response by Ministers should be that these pricing decisions are a matter for the Commission, and they support its independence.

Know your pests 🙂

In light of the last photo that looked sort of wasp-like (but was in fact a useful and harmless fly), I thought we could do a diversion into those insects that are pests.  This is the Asian Australian paper wasp.  You might also note its antenna are very different to the last little guy I posted.

Click for larger, higher res image

Rob Maetzing at Stuff reports:

Venture Taranaki has joined in on the fracking debate, releasing a study that forecasts billions of dollars and thousands of jobs over the next decade if fracking is allowed to continue. …

It claims fracking has the potential to annually deliver almost $800 million in GDP and create more than 7000 jobs under a growth scenario over the next 10 years.

But if a moratorium is introduced and fracking is banned, the GDP would reduce to $215 million and create fewer than 2000 jobs.

“In an industry where a single well strike can add $1 billion onto the nation’s balance sheet, the value in optimising the productivity of existing wells cannot be underestimated,” the report says.

The report criticises perceptions that profits from oil and gas activity in New Zealand disappear offshore or into a central royalties fund, that it employs few New Zealanders, and that the nation does not benefit. “This simply isn’t the case.

“The economic rewards from oil and gas extend far beyond royalties. The value that could be added by fracking lies in jobs, innovation, added-value manufacturing, regional growth, and greater energy security for our national economy.”

New Zealand’s base-load domestic energy demand is 160 to 170 petajoules a year.

By 2018 the country is forecast to experience a shortfall between demand and supply, which will require either increased imports, new discoveries, and/or embracing new technologies that will enable the extension of existing fields.

“Fracking is one of those technologies, and can help New Zealand meet the energy demands of current and future generations,” the report says.

And in the UK, the Government has just given fracking the go ahead.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says she will step down at the next election.

Turia, who has signalled her intention to retire previously before changing her mind, said she would have spent 18 years in Parliament by the time she leaves in 2014.

The Maori Party said Turia had signalled her intention to leave early so it could prepare for her departure and put a succession plan in place.

“I have given it serious thought and have made the decision with my family not to seek re-election in 2014,” Turia said.

Her co-leader Pita Sharples said it would be a “huge change to lose my mate”.

Turia would not give up her roles as minister and co-leader in the interim.

Tariana is 68, so this is no surprise. She has had a remarkable transformation from the scary radical activist who helped occupy Moutoa Gardens, to an effective Minister of the Crown.

This poses three challenges for the Maori Party.

1. They need to elect a female co-leader and get her into Parliament
2. They need to ensure they have politically agile parliamentary leadership. Everyone loves Pita Sharples, but it is known that Tariana is the one who makes things happen. This probably puts some pressure on Flavell to become male co-leader at some stage. However changing both co-leaders at the same time is also a risk.
3. They need to retain Te Tai Hauauru

I think Turia’s endorsement should be enough for them to retain Te Tai Hauauru in 2014, if they select a competent enough candidate. However by 2017 they’ll need to be able to retain it on their own.

Stuff reports:

TVNZ is axing its Teletext information services after 28 years, labelling it obsolete.

The service launched in New Zealand in 1984 with funds raised in the 1981 Telethon, to give New Zealand’s deaf community more access to news and information.

It provided news, weather, Lotto, flight schedules and financial market information alongside lifestyle information such as horoscopes in simple text format.

TVNZ chief executive Kevin Kenrick said it had hung on to the service for as long as it could but regular users were in ”relatively small” numbers.

I’m amazed it lasted this long.

Teletext was great in the days before the Internet. I used to be on page 101 all the time. But it is totally redundant today, and should have been euthanised long ago.

Stuff reports:

Moon Tae-Hwa stares at his computer, dizzy and nauseous from the hours of porn he’s viewed online while his wife and children slept. He feels no shame – only a righteous sense of mission.

“I feel like I’m cleaning up dirty things,” the devout Christian and family counsellor said.

Moon is among the most successful members of the “Nuri Cops” (roughly “net cops”), a squad of nearly 800 volunteers who help government censors by patrolling the Internet for pornography in their spare time.

Hmmn, so these 800 people volunteer to hunt for all the nasty dirty porn out there, to protect their fellow citizens from it. You know, that sounds like quite a fun job! 🙂

Unlike most developed nations, pornography is illegal in South Korea, though it remains easy for its tech-savvy population to find. More than 90 percent of South Korea’s homes have high-speed Internet access, and more than 30 million of its 50 million people own smartphones.

“It’s like shovelling snow in a blizzard,” Moon conceded.

But nevertheless, he’ll happily carry on spending eight hours a day, seven days a week searching for all that pornography so he can complain to someone about it. True valiant servants.

The reports are out. Not online yet. Now on Scoop. The summary from Robert Fisher includes:

•  Justice Binnie went beyond his mandate. He did not have authority to express any conclusion on the question of whether there were extraordinary circumstances such that compensation would be in interests of Justice. Nor was he invited to make any recommendation as to whether compensation should be paid.
• In assessing innocence, Binnie J made fundamental errors of principle.
• In assessing misconduct by authorities, Binnie J has also made fundamental errors of principle
• Correct principles should now be applied to the evidence afresh. That is not saying a fresh assessment would produce a different outcome. It is possible that it would vindicate Binnie Js conclusions
• Binnie J criticised named individuals without giving them adequate opportunity to respond.
• Instead of assessing each piece of evidence to see whether it increased or reduced the likelihood of innocence, and if so by how much, Binnie J discarded any item that was not individually proved on the balance of probabilities.
• Instead of considering the cumulative effect of all relevant items of evidence, he arrived at a provisional conclusion of innocence based on one item (luminol footprints) followed by a serial testing of that conclusion against others in turn.
• Instead of requiring David Bain to satisfy him on the balance of probabilities throughout the enquiry, he imposed an onus on the Crown wherever the Crown suggested a factual possibility inconsistent with innocence
• He appeared to regard the jury acquittal as something that was relevant to the question whether David Bain had proved his innocence
• He appeared to accept David’s version of events without question except where it directly conflicted with other witnesses
• His decision to disregard any item of evidence that did not prove a subsidiary fact on the balance of probability was contrary to the law of NZ and to a proper understanding of the probability theory.
• Discarded were evidence of blood stains on David’s clothing, broken glasses, David’s fingerprints on the rifle, arguable shielding of part of the rifle, Robin’s motive, Robin’s mental stability, David’s post-event admissions, factors consistent with suicide, David’s admission that he heard Laniet gurgling, David’s gloves, and knowledge of the trigger key.
• The way in which Binnie J approached the cumulative significance of the evidence in its totality seriously skewed the exercise towards an innocence outcome which is contrary to the law of evidence in NZ when dealing with circumstantial evidence.
• Logic and experience suggest that if a suspect has lied in denying his responsibility for the crime itself, he will scarcely shrink from lying about the details. For the purpose of drawing inferences from surrounding facts, most decision-makers will prefer sources other than the suspect.

This poses a real challenge to the Government. Do they make a decision on the basis of the Binnie report, or do they now commission a new report? I am firmly of the view that  if the Binnie report had not had the issues detailed above, then the Government would follows its recommendations (even if some Ministers have different private views). Not following a recommendation is politically damaging. But unless Dr Fisher is incorrect in his peer review, it is hard to have confidence in the conclusions.

Also a must read is this article by Martin van Beynen of The Press, who actually sat through the entire second trial. His summary:

1. How did the cadaverous Robin fight off son Stephen in a fierce fight and sustain no injuries?

2. Why did he put on David Bain’s gloves to execute his family when he was going to spare David, not implicate him, and commit suicide?

3. Why did he change into fresh clothes between killing his family and taking his own life? He took the soiled clothes and put them neatly in the washing basket.

4. Why were none of Robin Bain’s fingerprints on the rifle, especially since he must have clasped it tightly to kill himself in the very odd way he chose?

5. Why did he wait until David Bain was just about bouncing through the door before writing his suicide note and killing himself?

6. If he was supposed to put on fresh clothes and cleaned himself up after the killings, how come he still had spots of blood on his hands?

7. Why would he kill with a full bladder and after an undisturbed night?

8. Why did he follow his normal routine – set his alarm, get the paper from the gate – if he was so disturbed he had decided to kill the family?

9. How come it was David who was scaring the family before the killings by threatening behaviour with his rifle?

On the basis of these points, compensation for David Bain would be a travesty.

Binnie has responded to the Fisher report, which is at the link above. Somewhat amusingly it also seems he sent an e-mail to  the Minister this morning in ALL CAPS.

What I will be interested to hear, are opinions from lawyers who have some expertise in this area, who are not connected to the case. Do they think Fisher’s concerns are correct?

Clive Matthew-Wilson writes at Stuff:

The proposed changes to the vehicle licensing laws are a case in point. According to the Government, most of the changes involve stretching out the period between warrants of fitness (WOFs) from six to 12 months.

Sounds good. The government geeks assured us there would be no safety compromises as a result. Beware of geeks bearing gifts.

No, they never said there would be no compromise. They said the benefits probably do not exceed the costs.

Despite a glowing endorsement of the Government’s plans by the AA (which is the beneficiary of several lucrative government contracts), the best independent research suggests the average motorist will save very little and might lose a lot.

A ridiculous attack on the AA. The AA has battled Governments on many many issues they disagree with.  To suggest they are not impartial is a classic attacking the man, not the ball. Add to that the mischaracterisation of what the Government has said, and he is off to a bad start.

A recent independent report by Australia’s Monash University, contradicts many of the claims by the Government and the AA.

The report concluded that extending the WOF period from six to 12 months is likely to increase the road death toll by between 1.3 deaths and 25.6 deaths per year. Monash also predicts injury accidents might increase by between 16 and 325 per year.

Not the selective cherry-picking. He overlooks the actual conclusion from Monash. The report is here.

In terms of the cost-effectiveness of the New Zealand WoF scheme as a whole, we placed the known costs of the scheme to the motorist as one side of the cost-benefit equation and then estimated the necessary benefits to equal these costs, represented by Figure 10. The benefits started to exceed the costs only when the drop in crash rate associated with the scheme reached 12%. This is evidently quite a demandingly high level of injury reduction. It is unlikely from the literature and from the rate of fault detection in the NZ WoF scheme that 12% of crashes can even be considered to be caused by mechanical defects, let alone able to be prevented by periodic inspection and repairs.

So Monash said that six monthly WOF checks are only cost effective if they reduce the crash rate by 12%.

Now recall that mechanical defects are implicated in only 2.5% of vehicle crashes and are the sole cause in only 0.4% and you see that there is no way the six monthly checks reduce the road toll by 12%.

So Monash concluded:

Despite these safety benefits estimated, the costs to the motorist of the 6-monthly inspections over and above the annual inspections were estimated to be considerable. This means that the 6-monthly inspections compared to annual inspections were not considered to be cost-effective.

But Matthew-Wilson said:

The Monash report found: “[changing the period for WOFs from six months to 12 months is] not considered to be cost effective”. In other words, there will be little or no saving from the changes.

That is the exact opposite of what they found. Go read the report for yourself.

The 2012 Google Zeitgeist for NZ is here. The overall top ten trending were:

1. Olympics
2. Volvo Ocean Race
3. One Direction
4. Kizi
5. Whitney Houston
6. Gangnam Style
7. Pinterest
8. Diablo 3
9. Hurricane Sandy
10. 9GAG

9GAG is fun!

The top ten trending news events:

1. Kim Dotcom
2. Tongariro
3. Transit Of Venus
4. Belarus
5. Marmite
6. Margaret Mahy
7. Jock Hobbs
8. White Island
9. Give Way Rules
10. Sophie Pascoe

And the global top 10 were:

1. Whitney Houston
2. Gangnam Style
3. Hurricane Sandy
4. iPad 3
5. Diablo 3
6. Kate Middleton
7. Olympics 2012
8. Amanda Todd
9. Michael Clarke Duncan
10. BBB12

No I have no idea what BBB12 is either!

Stuff reports:

Google began selling basic laptop computers to schools at a price of US$99 (NZ$120), meeting a price point that prominent MIT professor Nicholas Negroponte famously held out in 2005 as key to bringing computing power to the masses.

The internet giant will be offering the steep educational discount on Series 5 Chromebooks from Samsung through December 21. They typically retail for US$399.

Negroponte’s One Laptop Per Child Foundation failed to meet his ambitious target, which critics said would be impossible to meet when he set it. His XO laptop currently sell for about US$200.

Still, he is widely credited with helping to launch the era of low-cost portable computing.

I think every kid when they turn five and go to school, should have a laptop or tablet or some sort of computer and Internet device. Of course you can only do that, if it is affordable and these initiatives make it easier to do so.

Google has details on their (US) initiative here.

John Key has announced:

Prime Minister John Key today announced Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson and Solicitor-General Michael Heron have been appointed Queen’s Counsel. The rank of Queen’s Counsel recognises outstanding contributions to the legal profession.

The appointments are the first to be made under recent amendments to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, which restored the title of Queen’s Counsel.

“Both Mr Finlayson and Mr Heron have been appointed Queen’s Counsel due to their career achievements and the leading positions they hold among New Zealand’s legal profession,” says Mr Key.

“In New Zealand, it is recognised the Attorney-General, as first Law Officer, is the leader of the legal profession. The office’s responsibilities are of constitutional significance.”

Before entering Parliament in 2005, Mr Finlayson practised law in Wellington for over 25 years, including as a partner at Bell Gully, and became a barrister sole in 2003. He has represented clients in all of New Zealand’s courts and tribunals, including nine appearances in the Privy Council.

“Christopher Finlayson is one of this country’s finest legal minds,” says Mr Key. “His achievements speak for themselves. He is an outstanding barrister and this appointment reflects the responsibility he holds on behalf of the Crown.”

Mr Heron was admitted as a barrister and solicitor in 1990. He was a partner in Meredith Connell from 2000 to 2007 and then in Russell McVeagh from 2007 to 2012, when he was appointed Solicitor-General.

“Subject only to the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General is the Government’s chief legal adviser and advocate in the courts. A key responsibility of the Solicitor-General is to advise the Government of the day on constitutional questions,” says Mr Key.

“Like Mr Finlayson, Mr Heron is a respected lawyer in the profession and this appointment is a reflection of the responsibility of the office he holds.”

Notes: 
Previous Attorneys-General appointed Queen’s or King’s Counsel:

Rt Hon Paul East, QC – 1995
Hon Dr Martyn Finlay, QC – 1973
Hon Sir Clifton Webb, QC – 1954
Hon Henry Mason, KC – 1946.

I’m delighted with this long overdue appointment for Chris Finlayson. As noted, he was one of the pre-eminent NZ litigators with a near record nine appearances before the Privy Council.

QCs are effectively approved by the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, and recommended by a panel consisting of the Presidents of the Law Society and Bar Association.

Finlayson was recommended by the panel in 2005, approved by the Chief Justice, but vetoed by then Attorney-General Michael Cullen (a non-lawyer) on political grounds. It was one of the more malicious acts done by Cullen (whom I generally respect)).

I’m very pleased to see Chris made a QC. He will not remain in Parliament for life, and I am sure will make a great contribution as a QC in future.

The Southland Times reports:

Shamed Environment Southland chairwoman Ali Timms has taken six weeks paid leave, effective immediately, but four regional councillors believe she should have stood down.

Ms Timms applied for the leave after being outed for making a hoax phone call to talkback television last week. She harangued Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt about the council’s funding of the Auckland to Bluff yacht race for nearly 10 minutes on the Cue television programme, while pretending to be a struggling mother of two called Ruby whose partner had been laid off at Tiwai.

Environment Southland councillors discussed her actions in a closed-doors meeting yesterday, with acting Environment Southland chairman Nicol Horrell later issuing a statement saying they had unanimously expressed their extreme disapproval of her “unacceptable lack of judgment”.

The council is expected to hold a meeting in late January “to consider the council’s chairmanship”.

I don’t see how she can continue in the chair’s role with credibility. I don’t think she needs to resign from the Council, and in October voters can decide whether to keep her on. But the council elect the chair, and they can’t have a leader who does fake calls to TV shows to attack the Mayor of one of the Councils they have to work with.

Shadbolt may be hard work, but the tactics can not be condoned.

The recommendations from the joint report by the Australian and NZ productivity commissions are here. Some of the more significant ones are:

• Mutual recognition of imputation credits (MRIC) would be expected to result in a more integrated capital market and improve trans-Tasman economic efficiency.
  
• The prerequisite conditions for a trans-Tasman monetary union do not exist.
• The Australian and New Zealand Governments should proceed with the implementation of a single application and examination process for patents.
• The Australian and New Zealand Governments should waive CER Rules of Origin for all items for which Australia’s and New Zealand’s Most Favoured Nation tariffs are at 5 percent or less and  consider reducing any tariffs that exceed 5 percent to that level.
• The Australian and New Zealand Governments should remove the remaining restrictions on the single trans-Tasman aviation market.
• The Australian and New Zealand Governments should consider removing remaining restrictions on trans-Tasman foreign direct investment.
• The Australian and New Zealand Governments should consider a ‘trans-Tasman tourist visa’ for citizens from other relevant countries who wish to travel to both countries.
• The Australian Government should address the issues faced by a small but growing number of non-Protected Special Category Visa holders living long term in Australia, including their access to certain welfare supports and voting rights.

Many good proposals there.

The Press editorial:

Collins’ announcement explaining why she had sought the review was candid, even sharp, but in the circumstances reasonable. The fact that she has had Binnie’s report since September had raised expectations that the matter would be put before the Cabinet and a decision announced before Christmas. It has also become well known, and has not been denied, that the report is favourable to Bain. The reasons for the delay needed to be explained and Collins did so in a characteristically forthright style.

It is worth noting that Collins did not seek publicity. It was in response to media inquiries that her statement was released as to why she sought a peer review. The announcement of Fisher was not made public, but inevitably leaked out.

Binnie’s report, she said, appeared to contain “assumptions based on incorrect facts, . . . showed a misunderstanding of New Zealand law . . . and lacked a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions”. Binnie, perhaps unused from his lengthy term on Canada’s highest court to such direct comment, was stung by Collins’ remarks into responding. It was an unwise move.

By convention, judges never comment on their decisions once they are delivered. The decisions are taken to contain all the facts and reasoning required to be able to speak for themselves. Binnie is no longer a judge, of course, but in this procedure he is acting as one. Once he had delivered his report to Collins in September the function for which he was hired was over and he should have remained aloof from anything that ensued, whatever it was. It is unseemly and undignified of him to get into the mud and the dust of the political arena in the way he has done.

I think his response was a massive mistake. If he has confidence in his report, he should let that speak for itself.

If nothing else, it raises misgivings about his judgment. Fourteen long paragraphs in response to a terse couple of sentences from the minister looks weirdly disproportionate. In addition, questionable statements Binnie makes, particularly concerning the alleged views of the Privy Council on Bain’s guilt or innocence, look faulty enough to suggest that Collins’ doubts about the report are well-founded.

Again, I agree.

Collins said yesterday she was considering releasing the report along with the review of it this week. She says that both should be released together. While that would be ideal, she should go ahead and release Binnie’s report (both the original and the two subsequent versions that Binnie has given her unsolicited) whether the review is ready or not. The tumult is not going to die down, and rumour and surmise will fill the vacuum if she delays.

I understand there is a reasonable chance both the Binnie report/s and the Fisher report will be released tomorrow.

Also of note is this exchange in question time:

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: What are the specific “assumptions” based on “incorrect facts” demonstrating some “misunderstanding of New Zealand law” that she alleges are contained in the report of Justice Binnie concerning the application by Mr Bain for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) : I stated in my media release that “My concerns are broadly that the report appeared to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts, and showed a misunderstanding of New Zealand law.” Prior to giving examples, I need to give just a little bit of context to this. I can advise the House that an independent peer review of the first Binnie advice is being done by the Hon Robert Fisher QC, and I am considering the public request made by Mr Bain’s supporters to release both these reports—or advice to me—before Cabinet has made its decision. One of the things I am considering is whether or not it is going to be in Mr Bain’s interests or in the interests of justice to do so. But in relation to the examples sought, there are many. I will give the House two of those. The first is relying on incorrect understanding of what has been given in evidence. In this case, Justice Binnie asserts that a named scientist testified at the first trial that he had chemically enhanced the prints and later sought to resile from this. The reference to chemical enhancement was an error on a label attached to a fingerprint, and this was explained as such by the named scientist at the retrial. A second example is in relation to assumptions as to the correctness of submissions on the law. Justice Binnie appears to have assumed to be correct Mr Karam’s submission that the adverse inferences should be drawn against the Crown case on the basis of evidence that is no longer available. This is incompatible with the onus of proof being on Mr Bain in this particular case, because this is, in fact, a request for Cabinet to use its discretion, and that is very clearly wrong.

Again, the reports will be interesting.