“Look at these Sassenach louts drinking and fighting and mugging old ladies! No Scotsman would do such a thing. Well, no true Scotsman.”

I mention this because a funny thing happened today on the way to the blogosphere. Matt McCarten in the Herald On Sunday:

ACT was founded on the odious principle that human greed is the driving force of human progress and is to be celebrated as some sort of religion. The cultists worship at the altar of their prophet, Ayn Rand, and delude themselves if everyone only focuses on getting what they want, then somehow this is good for everyone.

Those of us who have had kids expect them to grow out of their selfish stage by the age of 3. But it seems the disciples of Act missed their parents’ lessons, growing up believing they are entitled to do whatever they like. There is no morality. They dress it up as neo-liberal or libertarian politics. But it’s just a cover to justify their avarice.

Apparently-full-time Objectivist blogger Lindsay Perigo responds:

I’ve known many Actors over the years, including the leads, and I can’t think of one, alas, who “worships at the altar of Ayn Rand.” (I can think of one, a major funder, who possessed a copy of Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness, but didn’t want anyone to know, so hid it.)

He continues:

It’s true that Act the parliamentary party is now a disparate bunch of single-issue waifs and strays. It’s true equally that they’re authoritarian, statist waifs and strays, with whom McCarten has a great deal in common. If by sophisticated liberalism McCarten means libertarianism, and if by that he means Randian individualism, then the idea that Act is or ever was a Randian party with which he is intractably at odds is laughable.

It just so happens that I was in Rodney Hide’s office last fortnight to cover the whole fiasco, and guess what I saw?

ACT Leader and Totally Not An Objectivist Rodney Hide

Again, Totally Not An Objectivist

I, Uh, I Guess He Just Really Likes Unsympathetic Characters

I hope Perigo decides to let Hide back into the fold rather than quibble over how he’s a real Randian because real Randians die of emphysema in honour of Prometheus or something. After all, definitions are the guardians of rationality; the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration.

Socrates said that, I think.

So many; I had not thought death had undone so many.
-T.S. Eliot

It’s my first time at a Sensible Sentencing conference, but there’s a distinct sense of deja vu as I wind my way across the Beehive’s banquet hall to my seat. I put it down to all the familiar faces; faces I’ve seen a hundred times before with a slight phosphor blur outside dozens of High Courts.

Eva the publicist has assured us we’re welcome, but a greying man in Sensible Sentencing merchandise – cap and khaki polo shirt – eyes me warily. The family of Karen Jacobs, killed by a partner with mental illness in 1997, are sitting directly across from the press table but avoid eye contact altogether. We are, after all, the Liberal Media. But I’m here today – just like the politicians and police and judges and defense lawyers – to hear Sensible Sentencing’s supporters firsthand and find out what they want from our justice system. If only it were that easy.

***

Sensible Sentencing formed in the wake of the 1999 arrest of Mark Middleton, a Wanganui man who made public plans to torture and kill the man who had raped and murdered his daughter if he was ever released on parole. Though Middleton’s threats were undeniably in breach of the law, his trial became a rallying point for other victims of violent crime who felt marginalised and manipulated by the legal system – led by Garth McVicar, a sympathetic self-styled “cow cockie from Kaitoke”. By the time Middleton was released with a suspended sentence in 2001, McVicar’s earnest oaths and calls for justice had made the group a permanent fixture on the evening news.

In the years since McVicar has fronted the trust on any number of issues, from parole (it shouldn’t exist) to legal aid (it shouldn’t exist for repeat offenders) to our chief justice (she should resign for suggesting a low-risk prisoner amnesty). But McVicar was accused of rank hypocrisy in 2008 when he publicly defended Bruce Emery, a Manurewa businessman who stabbed a 13-year-old tagger, Pihema Cameron, to death outside Emery’s home.

McVicar characterised Emery as “a decent hard working citizen” and said Emery’s violence was mitigated by the fact that Cameron had defaced his fence. When Media 7 presenter Russell Brown challenged McVicar on his comments earlier this year, McVicar said Sensible Sentencing was now looking to start a debate around “entry-level crimes” – presumably with the same calls for long and proscriptive sentences. But today it seems like his supporters have other ideas.

Gil and Lesley Elliot are two of the newest members “in a club nobody wants to join”, as McVicar puts it. Their daughter Sophie was murdered in 2008 by her ex-boyfriend in a graphic assault which shocked the nation. The public outcry over her killer’s defence of partial provocation caused it to be repealed, but Gil isn’t satisfied. In today’s twenty-minute presentation to his fellow victims he rails against what he sees as basic inequities in the choice of counsel, disclosure of evidence, relocation and delay of trials, the convicted’s right to appeal and even the Bill of Rights.

When I finally get the chance to speak to Gil at lunchtime I’m not sure where to start. I begin with Sophie’s story: after all he’s seen and heard, what is it that he believes creates a violent criminal?

He sighs. “It’d be nice to know that, wouldn’t it?”

Sophie’s killer – who was also her lecturer – had just gained his PhD “and ostensibly worked quite hard for it.” The conventional suppositions of broken homes, economic injustice and mental illness don’t quite seem to fit Gil’s experience.

“Three and a half weeks later after graduating he kills our daughter. Why would he do that? He must have known he was going to go to prison if he killed her and he just went ahead and did it.”

I ask whether he thinks prison is a deterrent after all. It’s been a common theme amongst today’s speakers; that ACT’s “three strikes” legislation will stay the hands of would-be thugs who fear a maximum sentence. Gil is unsure whether it will, but not for the reasons I’d assumed – he believes prisons must be too comfortable these days.

“Sixty percent of offenders will reoffend and go back to prison within three years of being released: If prison was that bad they wouldn’t do it because they’d know ‘hell, I don’t want to go back to that place’.

Perhaps it’s the other way around, I venture: perhaps it’s hard to get your life back on track when everyone knows you’re a con. Perhaps there are some people in our prisons – non-violent offenders – who shouldn’t be there at all?

“Probably there are.” He looks down at my press pass and mulls it over for a moment. It’s a tricky one, he says.

“I think there are two types of crime: there’s crimes against property and crimes against the person, and I think crimes against property are at the lower end.

I’m talking burglaries and things like that: they do get a much lesser sentence than somebody who commits a violent crime against someone.”

He doesn’t know what to do with them though – perhaps a return to borstals, a sort of prison-cum-boarding school for young offenders. Perhaps even a remand-type prison with compulsory rehabilitation programmes. But Gil rebuffs the possibility of probation or parole.

“They say that they keep an eye on them out of prison but they often don’t, as you might have heard,” he says, gesturing towards ex-ACT MP Stephen Franks’ seat on the presently empty stage.

“They don’t chase them up.”

It’s a fair point, but it’s not necessarily for lack of trying. Sensible Sentencing blasted a speech by Chief Justice Sian Elias last year which suggested, among other things, an early release programme for low-risk inmates. But Elias’ comments about the country’s probation services – “overwhelmed by its case-load, under-resourced to do the job and insufficiently supported and appreciated” were largely overlooked. I ask Gil whether greater funding and resources might be the key.

“It might,” he says.

***

Later in the day I get to sit down with the Ashleys. Ian and Lorraine are friendly and exceedingly polite; Ian apologises at one point for his one-off use of the word “bullshit”. They are happy to be interviewed, he says, but they are not “high up in the politics”. They are here as friends of the McVicars. And of course to honour their son Liam, who was killed in the back of a prison van in Auckland four years ago today.

The Ashleys are unique amongst today’s attendees because Liam died in custody. It is not lost on us that today’s speakers have spoken only in terms of “the worst violent offenders”, and I silently wince at ACT MP David Garrett’s callous claim that “in C block [they] can kill other inmates and guards… but they can’t kill you.” But Liam represents the other side of rough justice – the morass of prisoners who are not violent, are most likely to benefit from rehabilitation and are at greater risk of suffering violent crime themselves with every day they spend behind bars.

Liam’s story is especially tragic because it was Ian and Lorraine who pressed the charges and refused to post his bail. They tell me the 17-year-old Liam suffered from an attention deficit disorder and had been acting out lately. ‘Borrowing’ Lorraine’s car without permission had been the last straw.

“It was how he perceived prison, really,” she says. “He thought it was a good place to go with all the bros, and we were trying to show him that it wasn’t the place he thought it was.”

But it wasn’t the place they expected either. Ian says he thought Liam would end up somewhere like the Weymouth youth facility he’d visited in the 1980s.

“It was more like an old-style school camp with walls and fences around it and the doors locked, but it wasn’t a clunker jail-type of thing, you know? Everybody sort of got on with everybody.

“This is where I thought Liam was going – and what they did is they put him together with the most violent person in New Zealand.” His voice drops. “Which is just wrong.”

I ask him what they’ve seen of prisons since.

“Just violent, terrible places, filled with gang members and gang prospects. They’re in a mixture with young people who are going in for minor offences and [those people] will come out badly.”

Time for the tough questions, then. I ask them whether they feel marginalised by the black-and-white terms of today’s conference: Violent Crims versus Upright Citizens. Ian is philosophical.

“I think that there’s bigger issues as far as what the Trust’s main message is. They’re having to focus on the very, very violent people in the society before they can move down to the others. You can’t get safety on the streets or safety in society until you start with the hardcore people,” he says, rapping his knuckles on the table for emphasis.

But what can be done for the Liams, I press. If they had their time over with him, what would they do?

Lorraine shows me the notes she’s been keeping from today’s events. “Fresh Starts” and “Limited Service Volunteers” are scrawled in big, bold letters and underlined for good measure. They’re the two “boot camps” for young offenders which National campaigned on in the 2008 election. Lorraine says she doesn’t know much about them but they sound tailor-made for someone like Liam. Ian agrees.

“The [Labour] Government systematically closed down all the special needs classes; all the boot-camp-type places for them as well, so there was nowhere else for Liam to go.”

I ask them what they think of defence lawyer Greg King’s speech. Earlier today King described the Japanese corrections system, which separates inmates by the nature of their offenses. Is it a goer? Absolutely, they say. There’s no reason not to, even.

“It’s redirecting taxpayers’ money which is what they’ve done, I think, with this Fresh Start boot camp and [all] that,” Ian says.

“It only makes sense to me that they initiate some more programmes so that it teaches people before they reoffend – before it gets to prison.”

Is Ian – a Sensible Sentencing supporter – saying he wants to see more diversion? Apparently so.

“Diversion is a good thing I, think, as long as there is a system of cleaning up.

“Prison really should be for the major offenses that society needs to be safe from.”

I can’t help but express my surprise: there are a lot of people out there who see the SST as… I search for the right words. Authoritarian? Dogmatic?

“Right-wing rednecks?” Ian suggests with a grin. Exactly, I reply. But like anything in the justice system, it’s not that simple.

Whether it’s diversion or probation or rehabilitation, Ian says they’re in favour of whatever works: if someone takes a life they should expect nothing, but there are others, the Liams, who still have a lot of potential. I glance at the clock; it’s just turned five and their shuttle is waiting outside. So just to clarify, I ask as we gather up our things, the Ashleys don’t stand for deep dark dungeons after all. Ian laughs and sets me straight.

“Put all the evil people in the deep dark dungeons – but to my mind it’s not for everybody.”

Sensible sentencing indeed.

That infamous photo of SAS corporal Willie Apiata in February supposedly sparked a seachange in the Government’s PR policy. It is a fact, Prime Minister John Key told us, that “New Zealanders deserve to know what our forces are doing overseas on location”.

Yet the response from both the Prime Minister and the New Zealand Defence Force on the issue of arrests has revealed a continued and deliberate campaign of obfuscation and omission.

When Jon Stephenson first broke the story in last week’s Star-Times, Defence Minister Wayne Mapp confirmed that it was likely the SAS’ Afghan partners had sent its captives to the infamous National Directorate of Security, a CIA-styled facility known for its torture and abuse of inmates. The question was, did New Zealand’s military participate in those arrests? If so, New Zealand was at least partially responsible for those prisoners’ safety and potentially in breach of international law.

So did the SAS assist with these arrests? No, Key said. Echoing Chief of Defence Jerry Mateparae’s statements, the SAS were merely “working alongside” the Afghan Crisis Response and happened to be “in the vicinity” of the arrests. This nuanced perspective on association and intent rarely seems to extend to the people the coalition forces have arrested, but no matter. Perhaps Key and Mateparae were drawing a legitimate distinction; perhaps the SAS were waiting in the car the whole time and it’s simply operational security which prevents them from saying so.

But both Stephenson and I have previously received NZDF responses to OIA requests which use that same twisted logic to omit any information about arrests whatsoever.

In March we each filed OIA requests asking for basic information on the SAS’ operations. Buoyed by the Prime Minister’s promises of transparency, I asked how many arrests had the NZSAS assisted with in Afghanistan to date; when and where, whether NZSAS members had had prisoners in their custody, and of course into who else’s custody these detainees had been transferred. Stephenson asked much the same.

The NZDF responded with a now-familiar formula:

“…members of the NZSAS have not detained or arrested any persons in Afghanistan during their current deployment. NZSAS personnel have been in the vicinity when members of the Afghan National Security Forces have arrested or detained Afghans. NZSAS members have not assisted in detaining persons or making those arrests.” [Emphasis mine]

It should have been clear from my additional questions – did NZSAS members physically make arrests or have detainees in their custody at any time? – that I was not seeking some legalistic definition of assistance. The NZDF’s response clearly implied that the presence of NZSAS at these arrests was rare and coincidental, and with other stories on the boil I gave it little further thought.

It wasn’t until Stephenson’s story broke that I learned that Mateparae had told a parliamentary select committee in June – three months after my request – that the NZSAS had been in the vicinity twenty-two times. It beggars belief to think that soldiers would be deployed into potentially deadly situations twenty-two times for no particular reason of assistance, and Key and Mateparae insult New Zealanders’ intelligence in saying so.

This kind of sophistry is predictable but nonetheless disappointing, especially on the heels of such solemn promises of candor. Obviously I’ll be filing a complaint with the Ombudsmen, but I’d also like to hear from anyone else who has been given the runaround on this issue. After all, we deserve to know.

[UPDATE - David responds]

The NZ Association of Convenience Stores (another pro-tobacco lobby group helmed by Glenn Inwood) put out a press release this morning claiming that 60% of retailers opposed a display ban on cigarettes.

Leaving aside the little tidbit that nearly a third of the association’s constituents actually want the ban, Lyndon here at the Scoop offices Stephen Judd noticed something odd about the PDF of polling data supporting this.

The research was apparently conducted by Curia, the polling firm owned and operated by Kiwiblog’s David Farrar. Nothing particularly unusual about that, and Farrar is free to accept whoever he likes as a client.

But if you right-click and select Document Properties, the pdf’s author is apparently one Aaron Bhatnagar. You know, like the Auckland City Councillor. Who is also John Banks’ campaign strategist. Whose polling is also done by Curia.

Did Farrar borrow his laptop or something? What’s going on?

[UPDATE] David responds:

Heh simple explanation. I tend to open existing documents and resave them under a new title for a new client. Aaron drafted up some questions for one of the polls for John Banks, and that must be a document I used to do the results for the NZACS.

Around 18 months ago The Standard got excited by something similiar when I put out my 50 page analysis of the election results, as the properties had it as Ministerial Services. They thought it meant I was on the payroll, but instead it meant I had used the 96 analysis in 1999 and 2002, and 2005 and 2008 while never bothering to change the properties!

One of these days I must set up some proper templates

Cheers

DPF

[By David Farrar, Keith Ng, Rob Salmond, Tim Watkin (and now me)]

Many people are concerned about the quality of public affairs journalism in New Zealand. Being concerned is a good start, but how can you take the next step? How can you help make it better? Yes, you.

Here is one way. Follow this link and vote for Nicola Kean in the AMP “Do Your Thing” Scholarship competition.

It is an online popularity contest, and the winner gets $10,000 to help them pursue their dreams. Voting is quick, easy, free, and for a good cause. Of course, there are many, many fantastic applicants for this award, and we are not opposed to any one of them winning the money. We’re just especially in favour of Nicola winning, because of the value that her dream holds for all of us.

Nicola’s dream is to go to the US for postgraduate study in journalism. She’s already done the hard part and got accepted to Columbia University, one of the best and most selective programs in the world. Now she just needs a lot of cash.

Nicola, 24, is already a prize-winning journalist, winning an ASPA award in her second year as a Salient staffer and being selected for a global student journalism award handed out by the UN. She is also a prize-winning student, winning a Fulbright scholarship this year and earlier winning three of the big prizes offered in Victoria’s political science department (best first year student, best BA, best Honours student).

She is going to go far (when you start in Upper Hutt that is sometimes a good idea), and could well become one of New Zealand’s very best public affairs journalists. That is what motivates her:

“In one of my research papers…, I described the impacts of political journalism becoming increasingly leader-focussed at the expense of policy. In the paper, I found that the increasing focus on leaders and leadership, and the reporting of the ”game” of politics, in the media was one of many contributing factors in the ”trivialisation” of New Zealand politics. My medium-term goal is to help counteract this trend in my own reporting…”

How good could she be? That depends partly on whether she gets to learn the state of the art from the world’s best in New York. And that is where you can help by voting for her.

And if you want to help even more, go to her website and give her some money.

This post is going up simultaneously on Kiwiblog, Public Address, Pundit, and The Standard. It is a non-partisan effort. We’re all backing Nicola’s campaign because we, left and right, partisans and non-partisans, all want what you want. We want top quality journalists in New Zealand holding the people in charge, whoever they are, to account for their actions and the consequences.

So let’s all club together and help Nicola get to Columbia.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing on behalf of [REDACTED], its subsidiaries and affiliates ([REDACTED]).

[REDACTED] has become aware that there exists an unauthorized use of [REDACTED]‘s copyrightable material on multiple pages of the scoop.co.nz website (the “Scoop Website”), which we understand to be owned and operated by Scoop Media Ltd.

The content in question is a series of financial text reports entitled [REDACTED], developed by or on behalf of [REDACTED] that it utilizes in connection with its financial businesses.

Below are some examples of the infringing content on the Scoop Website:

[REDACTED]

Copyright in the infringing content is owned by [REDACTED]. I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials as described above is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

[REDACTED] requests Scoop promptly take down the [REDACTED] Reports (including all excerpts and links thereto) from the Scoop Website, and any Scoop affiliates’ websites. [REDACTED] also requests that Scoop takes reasonable steps to ensure violations of [REDACTED]‘s copyright in the [REDACTED]Reports does not occur on the Scoop Website in future.

[LEGALESE, ENDS]

Our response (bolding is mine):

Hi Leo,

Thankyou for your letter. For your information the New Zealand copyright law is not the same as the DMCA and there is no provision for  takedown notices to be issued.

Before we remove the material requested I would ask that you go back to your client with our response below. It has been considered carefully.

Our view is that your material was sent to us unsolicited as press release content – and that we are therefore free to use it and publish it if we wish to do so.

Corporate content which is sent to the media as press release material contains with it an express copyright license to republish. In contractual tems the consideration for this license is  is increased exposure to material which your bank wishes to use to promote its services. It was sent to us with the intention of increasing exposure of the bank and that is what is achieved by our use of it.

As for the standard form copyright notice on the linked documents – these are contained on all manner of material distribued to the media – often mistakenly – so its presence on a document that we have linked to is no real indication of a desire to prevent republication by the agency issuing a release.

We fail to see how in any manner whatsoever your client is prejudiced by our publication of this material – especially as it links back to your full report and clearly credits your bank as the source.

On one reading the use of exerpts plus a link is completely within the bounds of fair use.

On another reading our publication of these reports is in fact promoting your clients business. According to our understanding of the law in NZ you would therefore find it very hard to make any claim in copyright for either loss of income as a result of our publication nor for income inappropriately earned by us (which is likely to be only a few cents anyway).

The link makes your clients material more findable on the web – increases its google ranking in search engine queries and in short is a positive to you not a negative.

Finally – as a matter of curiosity are you attempting to eradicate all cases of unauthorised use of your material from the web? I would think that seeking to do so for services like yahoogroups and discussion forums will likely prove impossible and very harmful to your organisation’s reputation.

Looking forward to your reversion.

The last time Tibet came up in New Zealand politics was when Key declined to meet the Dalai Lama when he visited New Zealand last year. At the time reporters called Key out on a promise he’d made on the 2008 campaign trail that he’d do so, but Key replied that he simply “wouldn’t get a lot out of that particular meeting”.

That may be so – and it’s not like his predecessor was any less evasive – but Key’s apology is not just a backpedal on the issue of Tibetan annexation. It is also the latest in a string of diplomatic handwaving over clashes between Chinese officialdom and freedom of speech in New Zealand.

Remember Nick Wang in 2007? Wang was an accredited member of the Parliamentary press gallery who was barred from a press conference with China’s then Vice-Premier Zeng Peiyan by an officer in New Zealand’s own diplomatic protection squad. While Speaker Mary Wilson confirmed Wang had every right to cover the event, Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen dismissed the incident altogether:

Dr Cullen said there had been a misunderstanding and Wang was removed “after he got upset”. “I think it’s unfortunate that Wang got himself overly wound up on that matter.”

A year later Wang was denied a Chinese visa to cover the signing of New Zealand’s free-trade deal and Cullen was approached for comment:

“No New Zealand citizen has a right to enter China. China, like every other country, reserves the right to withhold entry across its own borders.

“New Zealand does exactly the same thing, and indeed this Government … declined to give a visa for the entry into New Zealand of David Irving in the past.”

This is all technically correct but incredibly mealy-mouthed: Wang was not a holocaust denier on a book tour; he was a New Zealand reporter traveling with a New Zealand delegation to cover a story about New Zealand. There was no reason Cullen couldn’t publicly appeal Wang’s case as with any other international incident, other than that  the Clark government refused to brook any conflict that even remotely jeapordised their chances of a free-trade agreement.

Then there’s also the 1999 protests during the visit of then-President Jiang Zemin, where New Zealand police officers stood on protesters’ Tibetan flags (sound familiar?), blocked protesters’ line of sight, closed roads on an ad-hoc basis and forced demonstrators 100 metres away from the venue.

The Police Complaints Authority report on the incident seems to talk out of both sides of its mouth: it found “no political directive was given to police” but acknowledged a decidedly political-sounding difficulty “at an operational level”:

The Police Operational Order prepared for both the visit of the President of China and the President of South Korea noted the President of China’s sensitivity to both visible and audible protest and recorded that police would “make every effort to minimise the impact of protest on either visit”. That undertaking, whilst ostensibly innocuous, carried with it the obvious and inherent risk of curbing or inhibiting the right of protestors to carry out a lawful and peaceful protest.

It can now only be a matter of speculation as to how police proposed to ensure the right of peaceful protest, whilst at the same time limiting by lawful means the exposure of the Presidents to that protest. The duty to ensure the safety of the Presidents did not extend to shielding them from exposure to lawful and peaceful demonstration by New Zealand citizens. There is no evidence that the President of China was ever at risk during his visit to New Zealand.

The Greens immediately sent a letter of protest to the then-PM Jenny Shipley but the Scoop archives have no record of any public comment by Shipley on the matter.

Taken together these incidents paint a clear and deeply troubling picture of Labour and National attitudes towards freedom of speech: when in Rome, for god’s sake don’t upset the Carthaginians. They’re a major trade partner.

Oh, Rewa…

Now to a current problem that gets to the heart of today’s mismanagement of Treaty relations. Just after the closing of Parliament last year, when MPs couldn’t debate the issue, the Government released its proposals for dealing with the foreshore and seabed following a legal decision that overturned 125 years of settled law.

The simple option was to legislate to establish the Crown ownership that almost everyone believed already existed. Instead, the Government has come up with a convoluted notion called “public domain”. On the face of it, it sounds good. But it leaves room for much more than just limited recognition of “customary rights”, and in fact embodies vast powers, including the right to a Maori veto.

First, Government documents make it clear that the proposed “customary title” will allow the development of commercial activity arising from customary use. This “development right” will mean an expansion of traditional customary rights.

Secondly, along with commercial development, customary title also gives Maori a veto power over anyone else’s development, whether commercial or recreational. As I read the papers released by the Government, anyone wanting to build a small jetty on a coastal property where customary title has been established will need iwi consent. And what we know from experience is that this is likely to require a substantial payment to smooth the path for consent.

Thirdly, Maori also gain a new role in the management of the entire coastline. Customary title will give commercial development rights, which over time will inevitably erode public access. In addition, 16 newly-created bureaucracies will give Maori a more dominant role than other New Zealanders in the use and development of the coastline, not only where customary title is granted, but elsewhere as well. All these committees will be taxpayer-funded. Maori will gain access to even more taxpayers’ funds for consultants, lawyers and hui to “build capacity” to take part in this process.

It is not hard to envisage what is going to happen.

The additional costs in any development process will make a small number of people much better off, but will make all other New Zealanders, including most Maori, worse off, by slowing, and in many cases blocking entirely, the potential for development of our resources, especially aquaculture.

There are massive conflicts of interest in all of this, and they will inevitably invite corruption. Under the proposals, Maori can now be owners, managers and regulators, all at the same time, thereby ensuring their own developments can succeed. They can block others if they can show to sympathetic authorities that their customary right is adversely affected. It is astonishing that the Government could establish such a conflict-ridden model. It is an absolute recipe for disaster.

OOOOOOOOh they are sharp aren’t they? Very good demolition of ACT on campus, good chase on National’s support of VSM, and excellent post on academic freedom. If this is the future of our news rooms, things are not as bad as they seem.

Unfortunately his collaborator Tim Selwyn wasn’t quite so impressed:

Earnest, researched, sober – and being about tertiary education, very dull. Striking an almost neutral pose it reads more like a policy journal than a blog.

Oh well, you can’t win them all. Unless you’re Amanda Fisher, who was at the Actual Media Awards on Saturday and took home the prize for Best Student Journalism. Fisher is also a winner of this year’s Bruce Jesson Emerging Journalism prize (along with me, the Herald‘s Michael Dickison, RNZ’s Motoko Kakubayashi, international music journo Sarah Taane and Westport News‘ Chloe Vaughan) for a series we did last year on a group of Masterton residents who were unaware their homes were built on toxic soil.

That’s about it for now, really. There’s plenty to do back at the Scoop offices, I don’t have an interesting or nuanced perspective on the seabed and foreshore and Twitter is basically crowdsourcing satire these days, so I’ll be back in a couple of weeks I guess. Thanks for reading; see you all in a bit.

P.S. – New bloggers welcome! If you’re a student journalist, journalism student or someone who’s recently graduated and would be interested in contributing to Media Darlings, please feel free to drop me an email. Cheers!

I usually try to keep things local here at Media Darlings, but I want to make a special exception for the war of words triggered by the Israeli Defence Force’s raid on a humanitarian convoy this week.

This is not a political blog, so let me just say this in advance as a reporter: There was a well-publicised humanitarian aid convoy whose members included European legislators, former US diplomats, an international group of journalists and at one point a Holocaust survivor. The Shayetet went in with guns, nine people died, thirty were injured and now the IDF won’t return the journalists’ footage of what happened. Any authority which withholds evidence of a fatal incident is going to look incredibly suspect, IDF or otherwise.

Anyway.

Much of the Israeli hasbara, or PR offensive, has been absurd (the group I described above were supposedly arms smugglers and/or mercenaries) and often contradictory (said arms smugglers/mercenaries were attacking with kitchen knives rather than guns). But only one reporter I’ve seen so far has managed to report an absurdity as fact and then contradict it in the same article. Congratulations, Ron Friedman of the Jerusalem Post:

IDF: Flotilla Supplies Unnecessary

In a statement to reporters at the port on Tuesday, Col. Moshe Levi, commander of the IDF’s Gaza Strip Coordination and Liaison Administration, said that none of the equipment found on board the three cargo ships was in shortage in Gaza.

“We have been working non-stop for the last 24 hours, examining the cargo holds of the three large cargo ships, and I can say with great assurance that none of the equipment on board is needed in Gaza. The equipment that we found is all equipment that we have regularly allowed into the Strip over the past year,” Levi said.

“This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the whole premise of the voyage was for propaganda and provocation and not for humanitarian purposes.”

Four short paragraphs later:

The soldiers also found construction equipment, including sacks of concrete and metal rods. Levi said that Israel did not allow those products to enter the Gaza Strip for fear that they would be used to build fortifications for terrorists and to make weapons.

Guys, listen: there are two sides to every story, sure, but you’re only supposed to have one each.