LawNews- Issue 20

NEWS Jun 23, 2022 Issue 20

Inside ■ OPINION

Resist corporatisation of the profession P03-04

■ OPINION

What Matariki means for Māori P05

Matariki

adls.org.nz

A TIME TO UNIFY AND RECONNECT

Contents 03-04 CONFLICT COMPETITION CORPORATISATION

The dangers of ‘uberfication’ of the law

LawNews is an official publication of Auckland District Law Society Inc. (ADLS).

06-07 VETO IMPRECISION PRESUMPTION

Why debate about ‘misinformation’ is riddled with assumptions

Editor: Jenni McManus Publisher: ADLS Editorial and contributor enquiries to: Jenni McManus 021 971 598 Jenni.Mcmanus@adls.org.nz Advertising enquiries to: Darrell Denney 021 936 858 Darrell.Denney@adls.org.nz

08-09 SOCIALISTS VOTERS POLLS

How the 2023 election might play out

All mail to: ADLS, Level 4, Chancery Chambers, 2 Chancery Street, Auckland 1010 PO Box 58, Shortland Street DX CP24001, Auckland 1140, adls.org.nz

10-11 FEATURED CPD

12

Photo: jayk7 / Getty Images

CPD IN BRIEF

13 EVENTS

Write for LawNews LawNews welcomes commentary and opinion pieces from ADLS members and readers. We ask that contributions are civil in tone, factually correct, well-written and logically argued – and fewer than 800 words. And we won’t publish anonymous commentary.

Any questions, please email the editor at: Jenni.McManus@adls.org.nz

LawNews is published weekly (with the exception of a small period over the Christmas holiday break) and is available free of charge to members of ADLS, and available by subscription to non-members for $140 (plus GST) per year.

To subscribe, please email reception@adls.org.nz. ©COPYRIGHT and DISCLAIMER Material from this publication must not be reproduced in whole or part without permission. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and, unless stated, may not reflect the opinions or views of ADLS or its members.

Responsibility for such views and for the correctness of the information within their articles lies with the authors.

Cover: LazyPixel / Brunner Sébastien / Getty Images

02

Jun 23, 2022 Issue 20

OPINION/LEGAL PROFESSION

Lawyers urged to resist the corporatisation of their firms Instead of creating competition, corporatisation reduces competition. Any economist will tell you that consolidation within an industry limits competition and choice

Sam Khalesi

Sam Khalesi The New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) last week welcomed the release of the Independent Review Panel’s discussion document, signalling the first in-depth look at the way lawyers and legal services are regulated since the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act was passed in 2006.

But many in our profession are less welcoming. In fact, many I have spoken to are indignant at the thought of permitting non-lawyers into our profession (I shall refer to this generally as “corporatisation” throughout).

This is one of the areas up for discussion: specifically, whether non-lawyers should be permitted to have an ownership interest in law firms and whether law firms should be allowed to become multi-disciplinary practices.

We are not privy to closed-door discussions being had in other jurisdictions but the so-called “benefits” of, say, an insurance company or private equity firm owning a share in our profession are quite clear. We should not be fooled by rhetoric and propaganda, nor should we blindly follow the lead of other jurisdictions.

We are a proud profession with some of the greatest legal minds in the world and we do not need to follow other jurisdictions when, in fact, we should lead. Our firms foot it with the best at a global level and our graduates work in some of the most prestigious firms internationally. We service our clients competently and there is sufficient competition in

Think of the impact to our profession for a moment.

Imagine banks or insurers referring clients to firms they have an interest in or even real estate agencies doing the same

our industry to ensure the provision of excellent, reasonably priced legal services to our communities.

Corporatisation of our profession will yield no benefit to the profession nor the consumer but will in fact damage the very thing NZLS was tasked to protect.

There is no argument that there has been a push in several jurisdictions to permit non-lawyer ownership of law firms and multidisciplinary practices but there is little evidence that the purported benefits have come to fruition.

One should not forget the power of interest groups and lobbyists which operate in the larger jurisdictions and appreciate that not all decisions are made solely for the benefit of the profession or its consumers. In the US, for example, most states have rebuffed these moves, principally because the profession has equally powerful lobbyists.

In each jurisdiction, whether in respect of the legal or healthcare profession, the same propaganda is touted: under-investment in the sector, better access, affordability and technology (whatever that means). To have our own governing body espouse the same ‘benefits’ is not only disappointing, it’s alarming.

US data Although the rhetoric around the benefits of corporatisation of law firms runs thick and heavy, there is little reliable data.

There is, however, very robust data from the United States in respect of the corporatisation of medical clinics (from states that have permitted corporatisation) which cannot be ignored.

According to Avalare (a heath consultancy in the US), nearly three out of four doctors now work for a hospital, health system or a large corporate entity. As mentioned, the same rhetoric was used to push the agenda but reality is quite different from rhetoric.

Predictably, in the states in which corporatisation was adopted, the medical sector slowly consolidated into large entities wielding ever-increasing power. The newly gained

Continued on page 04 03

Continued from page 03 leverage was surprisingly not used to improve healthcare for patients, nor was it used to improve the profession.

In fact, that leverage was used to increase prices, as reported in the Journal of Health Economics where prices for the same healthcare services increased by more than 14% immediately upon acquisition by a corporate.

Did those higher costs translate into higher salaries for physicians? No. Physicians’ salaries decreased by nearly US$10,000 after the acquisition.

Did patient outcomes improve? Absolutely not. A report published by Annals of Family Medicine found “practices owned by corporates reported higher preventable hospital admission and readmission rates among their patients than small, independent practices”.

Less competition Instead of creating competition, corporatisation reduces competition. Any economist will tell you that consolidation within an industry limits competition and choice. There is demonstrable evidence of this in various sectors of the New Zealand economy and we should not permit the same in ours.

We do not have to look far to see the impact of corporatisation in our own country. Some of our health professionals have been brought to their knees in the same way. Their own governing bodies blindly followed their international counterparts, having no regard for the disproportionate power of some interest groups in those jurisdictions.

In New Zealand, think for example about optometrists (Specsavers), pharmacists (Chemist Warehouse) and dentists (Lumino).

These professions were transformed when they permitted non-professional ownership (some immediately, others more slowly) to the detriment of the profession and consumers.

Yes, there is some short-term pricing advantage for consumers but have services improved? Largely not, in this writer’s experience.

Further, any short-term reduction in pricing is temporary.

In time, as competition is diminished and sufficient market share amassed, these corporates will act in a largely predicable way and look to increase profits at the expense of the consumer.

Naturally, the next question is whether there are any benefits in permitting multidisciplinary practices. Again, the 04

Corporatisation of our profession will yield no benefit to the profession nor the consumer but will in fact damage the very thing NZLS was tasked to protect

parallels with the medical profession in the US cannot be ignored.

The US National Bureau of Economic Research found patients are more likely to choose a high-cost, low-quality hospital when their admitting physician’s practice is owned by a corporate. This is primarily because most professionals working within multidisciplinary practices are required to refer patients or clients internally even when better options are available externally.

In our own practices, we use our judgment and refer our clients to whomever we consider most suitable. We never refer them to the practitioner from whom we could derive the most benefit. In fact, we are governed by laws which protect clients from exactly that.

Conflicts of interest Think of the impact to our profession for a moment. Imagine banks or insurers referring clients to firms they have an interest in or even real estate agencies doing the same. Have we forgotten why our profession has over hundreds of years developed laws to prevent conflicts of interest? To think these changes are in the best interest of the public or the profession is frankly ludicrous.

I have drawn heavily from the experience of the healthcare fraternity as we act for many in this sector and have witnessed first-hand the damage caused by corporatisation.

There is no turning back once we allow this Trojan horse into our profession. We would be foolish to think our profession or those we serve would fare any better under the proposed model.

We are a profession that holds ethics much higher than the need to make profits. This is exactly why we are held in far better regard than our counterparts in other jurisdictions.

We don’t chase ambulances nor put our faces on billboards around town and nor does the public have this perception of us. The fact that we can earn a modest living from our profession helps lessen temptation for the less disciplined in our fraternity and helps them avoid sailing too close to the wind on ethical matters. As the old adage goes, desperate men do desperate things.

Corporatisation is a watering down of our profession to the “retail level”, impacting the public’s perception of lawyers and the services we provide.

If we don’t want to see the “uberfication” of our profession and its slow demise, we all need to let NZLS know these proposed changes are not welcome. ■ Sam Khalesi is a director at GML Lawyers ■

Jun 23, 2022 Issue 20

MATARIKI

What Matariki means for Māori in 2022 Te Aopare Dewes Matariki whakahou whare, Matariki whakahou waka Mānawa maiea te putanga o Matariki! Mānawa maiea te ariki o te rangi! Mānawa maiea te Mātahi o te tau!

Mānawatia a Matariki!

Mānawatia hoki rā te huahua o ngā mate o te wā e tūwhetūrangihia rā ki kō atu i a Matariki Whanaunga Kore, ko rātou ki te pō nui, tihei wa mauri ora ki a tātou e ora tonu nei i te ao tūroa.

The origins of Matariki and its recognition as a herald of the Māori New Year are embedded in Māori philosophy and science, with links to similar traditions across the Pacific.

In traditional Māori society, Matariki was a time to unify and reconnect with whānau to: ■ acknowledge the past and commemorate those who have passed on; ■ celebrate the present with learning, sharing and discussion; and ■ plan and decide for the future, focussing on what may be on the horizon.

Matariki also aligned with the end of the harvest season. It was a time when pātaka kai (storage houses) and kumara pits were filled with food to ensure hapū survived the inevitable challenges of the oncoming winter months.

I te ao o nāianei, in modern times, those principles and practices still hold immense value and utility, particularly as Aotearoa New Zealand and the rest of the world continue to confront the social and economic impacts of covid-19.

Matariki Whakahou Whare, Matariki Whakahou Waka. This is a time to consider and perhaps reform the economic structures within which we operate, as well as the trajectory and means of travel as we voyage into the headwinds of uncertainty. Now is the time for Māori businesses to draw strength from tradition, “re-stock the kumara pits”, and prepare for what’s ahead.

Matariki is the time to check that your business is sufficiently prepared for the turbulent times ahead, to ‘re-stock’ the kumara pit, and consider the state of your structures and strategies

Te Mate o Te Wā – covid-19 Māori were disproportionately affected by covid-19, both economically and in relation to social and health paradigms. The high exposure to the tourism sector meant Māori business was particularly affected by the border closure. The 2021 annual report for Māori tourism has sales for Māori tourism businesses down by 26% – or $91 million – from 31 March 2020 to 31 March 2021.

These economic effects had an uneven spread across particular Māori communities and rohe, with some reporting strong growth in domestic tourism while most operators either just got by or were forced into hibernation or closure.

Then there are the challenges which confront all businesses: ■ continuing supply chain disruption; ■ a seemingly chronic skills shortage (also affecting many sectors); ■ learning how to cope in an inflationary environment; and ■ managing the various effects of climate change, from rising sea levels and more volatile weather patterns to higher carbon prices.

Although the wider economy has so far maintained a surprising resilience against the disruption created by covid-19, the worst is likely yet to come.

We don’t know how businesses which have relied on government support will cope once that support is removed. How many of the more than 4,000 SMEs which took out loans through the governmentsubsidised Business Finance Guarantee Scheme, for instance, will be able to renew their loan on normal commercial terms?

He aha kei tua? What lies ahead?

Although we are now getting used to living with covid-19, that does not mean a return to still waters.

Far from it. Instead, we have galloping inflation after decades of relative price stability, the slowdown in China and the conflict in Ukraine.

Matariki is the time to check that your business is sufficiently prepared for the turbulent times ahead, to “re-stock” the kumara pit, and consider the state of your structures and strategies – Matariki Whakahou Whare, Matariki Whakahou Waka.

For example, many Māori business entities are either trusts or incorporated societies so will be affected by recent updates to the Trusts Act and the Incorporated Societies Act. The former increases the number of mandatory and default duties on trustees and the latter introduces a range operational changes.

Alongside seeking advice to manage oncoming economic risks, re-aligning with these legislative shifts is another step Māori businesses can take to ensure their whare and waka are robust enough to survive the storm.

Tirohanga Māori – Māori worldview Many post-settlement iwi corporates have characteristics that provide natural ballast in tough times – a stable ownership structure, relatively healthy balance sheets and the luxury of a long-term view.

Māori businesses generally have the benefit of tirohanga Māori as a wind in their sails to push them through unfavourable conditions, not merely to survive but also thrive in this generation and the next.

We encourage therefore using this time as well as Te Hararei Tūmatanui o Te Kāhui o Matariki (the new public holiday) to reconnect with whānau, friends and colleagues to reflect on the past year as a means of preparing for the future.

Titiro whakamuri, kia anga whakamua – somewhere in our past is our destiny ■ Te Aopare Dewes is a partner (Hoa Rangapu) at Chapman Tripp. ■ The firm’s specialist Māori legal group, Te Waka Ture, provides commercial legal advice, including governance, to support iwi, hapū, Māori landowners and Māori businesses and those looking to work alongside them 05

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/OPINION

How might one

regulate

‘misinformation’?

A veto word effectively shuts down the debate. In a sense it prohibits the continued exchange of ideas.

To say that one is ‘offended’ is a form of veto word because it fails to address the argument and often does not explain why an argument suggests offence

David Harvey Professor Uri Gal argues (LawNews 17 June 2022; The Conversation 10 June 2022) that the time has come for the legislative control of big hightech companies.

He observes that the policies of companies such as Meta (Facebook), Google and Twitter can affect the wellbeing of individuals and the country as a whole. He claims that concerns about the harm caused by misinformation on these platforms have been raised in relation to the covid-19 pandemic, federal elections (in Australia) and climate change, among other issues.

He argues that legislative standards will hold these companies to account for harmful content on their platforms.

Gal writes from an Australian standpoint. As it happens, the yet-tobe enacted Online Privacy Bill (Aust) proposes to impose higher levels of regulation on online platforms and social media networks.

In New Zealand, the provisions of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 provide relief for individuals harmed by electronic communications and for criminal penalties for those posting content with the intention of causing harm or those who post intimate images without consent.

Gal’s issue seems to be with misinformation. At one point in his piece, he poses the question “What is misinformation?” but fails to provide any definition.

06

To characterise a position as ‘misinformation’ generally means that there is disagreement with the position or that the position is contrary to a view held by a majority

Veto word The term “misinformation” is a curious one. It is frequently used in commentary, especially in the context of the covid pandemic. It has been used in a number of official publications (The Edge of the Infodemic: Challenging Misinformation in Aotearoa New Zealand; Sustaining Aotearoa as a Cohesive Society).

In those publications it has not been defined. It seems to be assumed that its meaning is understood. Yet the way in which it is used seems to suggest it is a veto word and the subject matter to which it refers is to be discounted as “misinformation” without further explanation.

My training as a lawyer and as an academic has taught me to question assumptions.

As a lawyer, I have been concerned in establishing a proposition by supporting it with specialised information which lawyers call evidence. As a judge, I was required to give reasons for decisions. As a PhD candidate, I had to justify every assertion and assumption that I made.

In all three examples intellectual rigour is required.

If a speaker or writer asserts that there is misinformation, the question that first springs to mind is “what is misinformation”? What does the critic mean when he or she asserts that the subject matter of the criticism is misinformation? What is the definition of misinformation? Or is it a term with several meanings and the correct meaning depends on the context in which it is used?

Intellectual laziness Some might say “misinformation” is a contradiction in terms. If information is to apprise one of something that informs – that is knowledge of a fact or circumstances – something that misinforms and gives false or misleading information cannot be information because information must necessarily be factually true.

There are some who would say this is the sort of argument that is pettifogging and to a certain extent I would agree. Yet the habit of generalisation is typical of much of the

intellectual laziness that characterises discourse in these times.

The Disinformation Project has provided definitions of misinformation and disinformation in the paper The murmuration of information disorders: Aotearoa New Zealand’s mis- and disinformation ecologies and the Parliament Protest.

Misinformation is defined as “false information that people didn’t create with the intent to hurt others”. The wording is clumsy. I think what is meant is “false information that people created without the intention to hurt others”.

Interestingly, nothing is said about dissemination but I assume that is a given.

Disinformation is defined as “false information created with the intention of harming a person, group, or organisation, or even a company”.

The paper goes further and defines malinformation as “true information used with ill intent”. The source for these definitions is given as Jess Berentson-Shaw and Marianne Elliot, Misinformation and Covid-19: A Briefing for Media (Wellington: The Workshop, 2020).

The definitions deployed by the Disinformation Project writers seem to focus upon the intention associated with the content associated with falseness of the information communicated.

But then the waters are muddied

Continued on page 07

Jun 23, 2022 Issue 20

Commercial Lawyer We are a busy general practice located in Howick, Auckland. We are looking for an experienced Commercial Lawyer to join our team.

Continued from page 06 with the addition of true information communicated with a particular intention. The law places high value on truth. For example, it is an answer to defamation.

I wonder therefore if the concerns of the Disinformation Project are more focused on the consequences of “misdis-mal-information” rather than its quality.

I go back to the suggestion that “misinformation” is used as a veto word.

A veto word effectively shuts down the debate. In a sense it prohibits the continued exchange of ideas. To say that one is “offended” is a form of veto word because it fails to address the argument and often does not explain why an argument suggests offence.

Accusations of “racism” and “racist” are veto words in that they do not progress the argument and are often tantamount to in personam attacks.

Vague and imprecise So it is with “misinformation”. The way it is used, without proper definition or understanding, is vague and imprecise. To characterise a position as “misinformation” generally means that there is disagreement with the position or that the position is contrary to a view held by a majority.

Yet it is considered that to characterise a position as misinformation is an answer to the argument whereas in proper discourse

there should be some explanation of why it is that a position may be characterised as misinformation.

Frequently, what is considered “misinformation” is an opinion or one person’s interpretation of the facts. It may be that the facts deployed are selective and do not tell the whole story. Or the interpretation of the facts selected lacks context and nuance.

Or that there is a line of authority that refutes the basis for the opinion held.

But to dispose of a position as “misinformation” without more is intellectually lazy and seems to suggest disagreement rather than a reasoned and logical answer to a position.

The problem is that “misinformation” has become so misused that there seems to be a move afoot to either stamp it out, eliminate it or stem its spread.

Many of the internet-based platforms are accused of spreading misinformation. And this should be stopped. But how? How do you separate honest opinion from a wilful attempt to mislead? And is such a move rather insulting to listeners, viewers or consumers? Should they not be able to make up their own minds and exercise their own judgment?

The current drive against “misinformation” seems to me to be another attack of the freedom of expression and upon the ability to express views that may be contrary to

The role requires solid experience in all areas of Commercial Law, including sale and purchase of businesses and commercial premises, commercial leases, franchise agreements, employment agreements and shareholder agreements.

We anticipate that you would have 10+ years’ New Zealand PQE. You will be experienced in dealing with clients, able to work autonomously and manage a heavy workload. Excellent interpersonal and communication skills are essential, as well as a confident and professional approach.

The successful applicant will : • Be proactive and motivated with a positive attitude and strong work ethic; • Have excellent time management skills; and • Be able to communicate in plain language and use common sense to provide practical solutions tailored to our clients’ specific needs.

We see a long-term future within the firm in our well-established community. We have an extensive client base consisting of quality businesses, trusts and individuals. We have fantastic schools, shopping, beaches, cafes, sports and cultural facilities all within a short distance, and believe East Auckland is a great place to live and work.

An attractive salary package will be offered to the successful applicant including Fencible Law’s “Flextime” hours for professional staff.

If you would like to learn more about this opportunity please email your CV, in confidence, to Richard Galbraith at Richard@fenciblelaw.co.nz or phone Richard for a confidential discussion on 021-433996. www.fenciblelaw.co.nz

Continued on page 13 07

OPINION/POLITICS

National and Act may learn the same bitter lesson as Vladimir Putin’s challengers: that with the state-run media running against you, it is very hard to win an election

Culture and society are all very well, but with inflation running at 14.69% the voters of 1975 had other things on their mind 08

Photo: Rob Taggart / Stringer / Getty Images

Closer than we think: why 2023 might be different from 1975 Chris Trotter It was a happier time. A unique period in New Zealand history when the country’s egalitarian spirit was alive in both major parties. In what other period could the Avalon television studios in the Hutt Valley have been conceived, let alone built?

Opened in 1975 under Labour, construction of the huge complex began under National. It represented that fragile bipartisan consensus on the subject of public broadcasting that had already begun to crumble, even as Avalon was being completed. For a few glorious years, however, Avalon contributed mightily to the nation-building objectives to which most New Zealand politicians still subscribed.

It is ironic that in 1975, the year Avalon finally came together, public broadcasting in New Zealand came apart. Television and radio were separated into three distinct state-owned entities: Television One, South Pacific Television and Radio New Zealand.

What, then, should we make of the fact that nearly 50 years later another Labour government is bringing state-owned radio and television back together? NZBC redux – so to speak.

The contemporary irony is also strong. Back in 1975, the new order in state broadcasting was dedicated to celebrating New Zealand culture and society in a way calculated to instil pride and confidence in all its citizens: old and young, men and women, Māori and Pakeha. The entity which is set to begin broadcasting in 2023 is unlikely to be so ecumenical.

Gentle socialists For what was, then, a very small country, the New Zealand of 1975 was not the least bit shy about pursuing some very big dreams. That was why Labour gave the new broadcasters so much freedom. Norman Kirk and his party were convinced that most New Zealanders were, in their heart-of-hearts, gentle socialists. Invite broadcasters to produce material reflective of the nation’s character and the result would almost certainly rebound to Labour’s advantage.

It was only when the votes were counted on Saturday 29 November that the hapless Labour Prime Minister, Bill Rowling,

Robert Muldoon

realised how wrong his predecessor had been (Kirk died in 1974).

National’s leader, Rob Muldoon, had read New Zealanders much more accurately than Labour’s. Gentle socialists they may be, in good times, but when the social and economic weather turns stormy the majority of Kiwis prefer New Zealand to be run the way they want it. Culture and society are all very well, but with inflation running at 14.69% the voters of 1975 had other things on their mind.

As do the voters of 2022. Inflation may be running at only half the rate of 1975, but unlike the voters of the 1970s, today’s voters are not in the least accustomed to an inflation rate much above 2%. What is similar about the New Zealand of nearly 50 years ago and the New Zealand of today, however, is the overwhelming sense of instability and crisis pervading the entire planet.

Kicked off by President Richard Nixon’s 1971 decision to let the American dollar float free of gold, the decade promptly lurched into the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and the massively destabilising oil-price increases it inspired.

The whole post-war edifice was crumbling before people’s astonished eyes. Inflation and unemployment rose together, in defiance of conventional Keynesian wisdom, to produce stagflation.

Political reality Certainly, in New Zealand, it was clear that the “golden weather” which had lasted from 1950 until the early-1970s had come to an abrupt end.

Continued on page 09

Jun 23, 2022 Issue 20

What is similar about the New Zealand of nearly 50 years ago and the New Zealand of today is the overwhelming sense of instability and crisis pervading the entire planet

Like the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine has triggered a worldwide economic shockwave that is destabilising pandemicweakened economies right across the planet

Only Muldoon grasped the political meaning of these profoundly disconcerting trends. Labour stalwarts, confident in their party’s 23-seat parliamentary majority, simply refused to consider the possibility of a National victory.

The 2020s have been plagued by a very similar series of interlocking global crises. These began two years ago with the covid-19 pandemic, an ongoing human disaster that has now been joined by the brutal Russo-Ukrainian war.

Like the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine has triggered a world-wide economic shockwave that is destabilising pandemic-weakened economies right across the planet.

Inflation is once again running unchecked. Stagflation threatens. Even 1973’s dramatic rise in oil prices is being reprised. And, as if this wasn’t enough, looming like the scriptures’ ‘Pale Rider’ behind all these converging crises is the mega-crisis of climate change.

Once again, Kiwi voters have a great deal more on their minds than gentle socialism. And, once again, the incumbent Labour government does not appear to be on the same page as much of the electorate.

Unlike the 1970s, however, Labour no longer believes New Zealanders to be gentle socialists. Fifty years on, the party views the New Zealand population as a living relic of colonisation and in urgent need of radical re-education. The relationship between Māori and Pakeha is to be re-imagined and re-purposed in conformity with te Tiriti o Waitangi and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Absurd? Politically suicidal? Many New Zealanders would say so. But there is something about Labour’s current ideology that is very different from the party’s sunny (not to say naïve) assumptions of 1975.

Resolute core In 2022, Labour’s worldview is shared by the most powerful institutions of New Zealand society: the judiciary, the public service, the news media, academia and the cultural industries.

That was certainly not true of the New Zealand Establishment of 1975 whose Cold War spooks had just put the country’s pre-eminent gentle socialist, Bill Sutch, on trial.

Norman Kirk’s Labour government stroked the traditional capitalist cat the wrong way – from tail to head – and ended up getting badly scratched. Jacinda Ardern’s government is stroking the neoliberal capitalist cat from head to tail – and it’s purring. The cat’s claws are reserved for those who come against its mistress.

The Ardern government is also likely to have a much more resolute core of supporters than Kirk’s. Large chunks of the educated middle classes, their children in particular, may prove much harder to detach from Labour than the middle class voters of Rob Muldoon’s era. Then there’s the Pasifika vote – loyal to a fault. Finally, there is the Māori vote.

Photo: Fairfax Media Archives / Contributor / Getty Images

Continued from page 08

Norman Kirk

Labour’s promise of a te Tiriti-based Aotearoa shimmers before them. Urged on by the “woke” Establishment, Māori could end up voting in unprecedented numbers. And those who don’t vote for the government will likely vote for the Greens and the Māori Party – which pretty much amounts to the same thing.

All of which brings us back to those largely empty studios out at Avalon. Labour’s new Broadcasting Minister, Willie Jackson, may yet find it expedient to concentrate the state’s broadcasting resources in one place, all the better to bring its new television-plus-radio entity storming into the looming contest between those still fighting for the racist relics of colonisation and those committed to building the new te Tiriticentric Aotearoa.

National and Act may learn the same bitter lesson as Vladimir Putin’s challengers: that with the state-run media running against you, it is very hard to win an election.

The clear National-Act victory predicted by the most recent polls may not eventuate. Jacinda Ardern, with the wind in her sails, is an impressive – not to say inspirational – opponent.

Framed as Old New Zealand versus New Aotearoa, the contest may throw up a result much closer than the pundits are anticipating.

On election night, instead of the shell-shocked Bill Rowling of 29 November 1975, there may be a Labour Prime Minister speed-dialling her good friends Deborah Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi.

What old New Zealand has on its mind in 2023 – inflation, the cost of living – may end up being very different from the priorities of those New Zealanders with nowhere near as much to lose. ■ Chris Trotter is a political commentator with more than 30 years’ experience. He is editor of the Bowalley Rd blog

■ ‘.

09

FEATURED CPD

FINAL NOTICE

CHANGES IMPLICATIONS REVIEW

Unpacking the new protected disclosures regime Webinar 0.70 CPD hr Tuesday 28 June 12pm – 12.40pm Presenters Tim Clarke, partner, Bell Gully and Bronwyn Heenan, partner, Simpson Grierson

The long-awaited Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 comes into force on 1 July 2022, repealing and replacing the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. Lawyers advising in this area must get up to speed with key changes and any implications for their clients, including a review of workplace policies and procedures.

FIND OUT MORE

FINAL NOTICE

Bright-line and interest limitation rules

Webinar 1.25 CPD hrs Wednesday 29 June 4pm – 5.15pm Presenters Manoj Rathod and Kevin Mascarenhas, property team – community compliance, Inland Revenue and Denham Martin, lawyer, Denham Martin Tax Law

This webinar, led by members of Inland Revenue’s property – community compliance team, will update lawyers on how the regulator is applying the brightline test and interest deductibility rules to residential property investment.

PROPERTY TAX INVESTORS

FIND OUT MORE

FINAL NOTICE

REGIME CONSENT PROPERTY

Real estate and overseas investors Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Thursday 30 June 12pm – 1.30pm Presenters Pedro Morgan; Lael Kim and Andre Baldock, all from the Overseas Investment Office

This webinar will cover the overseas investment regime as it applies to the types of residential property purchases legal practitioners are most likely to encounter. It will help you understand the regime, recognise when a client needs consent from the Overseas Investment Office and how to go about doing that.

FIND OUT MORE 10

Jun 23, 2022 Issue 20

adls.org.nz/cpd

FINAL NOTICE

Significant developments in consumer law CONSUMER BUNNINGS ADVERTISING

Livestream | In Person 2 CPD hrs Thursday 23 June 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters Brigette Shone, special counsel, Russell McVeagh and Charlotte Fleetwood-Smith, consumer law specialist, Russell McVeagh

IN PERSON

FINAL NOTICE

PRODUCTIVITY TOOLS CREATIVITY

cpd@adls.org.nz

09 303 5278

This seminar will explain the key Fair Trading Act changes, work through practical examples and offer tips on how businesses can start to prepare. It will also cover the Bunnings decision and recent decisions from the Advertising Standards Authority.

LIVESTREAM

Personal effectiveness workshop Online Workshop 4 CPD hrs Monday 27 June 9am – 1.15pm Presenter Tony Gardner, managing director, Archetype Leadership + Teams

Back by popular demand, this workshop will provide a range of personal effectiveness insights and tools to help increase your productivity and return-oneffort at work. It is facilitated by a leading high-performance consultant.

Limited spaces available

ULL F NOW FIND OUT MORE

FINAL NOTICE

Written advocacy: what judges want STRUCTURE LANGUAGE PURPOSE

Livestream | In Person 1.5 CPD hrs Thursday 30 June 4pm – 5.30pm Presenters Raynor Asher QC, Richmond Chambers and Davey Salmon QC, Mills Lane Chambers Chair Paul David QC, Eldon Chambers

IN PERSON

Focussing on trial and appellate submissions, the panellists will provide invaluable insights into how to approach drafting, structure and language and ways to ascertain whether you’ve achieved your purpose.

Drinks and nibbles with the presenters afterwards for in-person attendees.

LIVESTREAM 11

CPD IN BRIEF

WFH and technology

Alternatives to trusts

Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Monday 4 July 4pm – 5.30pm Presenters Lloyd Gallagher, managing partner, Gallagher & Co and Sasha Daniels, lead legal business partner – technology, competition and regulation, Spark New Zealand Legal

This webinar will cover cyber-insurance (its scarcity and limitations and alternatives) and offer general tips and traps about using technology when working from home.

Webinar 1 CPD hr Thursday 7 July 12pm – 1pm Presenter Tammy McLeod, director, Davenports Law Limited

Your client may want a trust, but is that the best option? This webinar will look at when a trust should be used and what alternatives might be better suited to the client’s circumstances.

FIND OUT MORE

FIND OUT MORE

Digital property rights

Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Thursday 28 July 1pm – 2.30pm Presenter David Harvey, retired District Court judge

Possession is said to be nine-tenths of the law, but how does this work with digital data? With reference to key cases from New Zealand and overseas about property rights and data, this webinar will provide insights into this increasingly common and complex area of law.

FIND OUT MORE

Drafting wills

Workshop 3.5 CPD hrs Wednesday 3 August 9am – 12.45pm Facilitators Henry Stokes, general counsel, Perpetual Guardian and Theresa Donnelly, legal services manager, Perpetual Guardian

Led by two facilitators immersed in wills and asset planning and known for their practical aproach, this workshop will give you the confidence to deliver real value to your clients.

FIND OUT MORE

Blowing a New Whistle: Unpacking the New Protected Disclosures Regime Tuesday 28 June | 12.00 - 12.40pm | Webinar Visit adls.org.nz for more information.

12

Jun 23, 2022 Issue 20

Continued from page 07

Events

those of the majority.

A justification for this is often cited as the need for “social cohesion” – another term for blind conformity – but in reality, it is yet another manifestation of wellmeaning but misguided “liberals” who know better than everyone else what is good for them.

Of more concern must be the way in which “misinformation” is being perceived as a national security issue, attracting the attention and scrutiny of the current government.

And as far as legislating, as Gal advocates, for informational standards based on terms such as misinformation or disinformation, one would do well to remember that there is a right to free expression, a presumption in favour of it and weighty considerations in terms of harms must be advanced by those who seek to curtail it.

Stifling debate in favour of a “party” or “government” line, in my opinion, is not good reason enough. ■ David Harvey is a retired District Court judge ■

Featured events

Connecting New Zealand lawyers

Rotorua Lawyers’ Lunch Wednesday 27 July 12.30pm – 2pm Ambrosia Restaurant, 1096 Tutanekai Street, Rotorua Learn more

Upcoming WILL INQUIRIES Please refer to deeds clerk. Please check your records and advise ADLS if you hold a will or testamentary disposition for any of the following people. If you do not reply within three weeks it will be assumed you do not hold or have never held such a document.

LawNews: The no-hassle way to source missing wills for $80.50 (GST Included) reception@adls.org.nz

ADLS, PO Box 58, Shortland Street,

DX CP24001, Auckland 1140

Fax: (09) 309 3726

August

Thursday 4 | Tauranga lawyers’ lunch Thursday 11 | Henderson lawyers’ lunch Wednesday 17 | Hawke’s Bay lawyers’ lunch Wednesday 24 | Christchurch lawyers’ lunch

September

Wednesday 28 | Takapuna lawyers’ lunch

( 09) 303 5270

GORMAN James Gerard

YANG Jin Chuang

• Late of 18b Ray Small Drive, Papakura, Auckland • Single • Retired • Aged 72 / Died 16’05’22

• Late of 8 The Anchorage, Sunnyhills, Auckland • Married woman • Retired • Aged 83 / Died 05’04’22

Soon to be added:

October | Wellington lawyers’ lunch November | New Plymouth sundowner November | East Auckland lawyers’ lunch November | Tauranga sundowner

TARR Amy (aka Amy Clariola Ah Tarr) • Late of 74 Boakes Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland • De Facto • Retired • Aged 79 / 16’09’21 events@adls.org.nz

adls.org.nz

13

1.5 CPD HOURS

Digital Property: Legal Developments in Ownership of Digital Data Thursday 28 July | 1.00 - 2.30pm | Webinar With reference to key cases from New Zealand and overseas, on rights in property in the digital space, this webinar will provide you with insights so you are better placed to recognise and advise on the increasingly common and complex legal area of digital property.

T 09 303 5278

E cpd@adls.org.nz

W adls.org.nz/cpd

1.25 CPD HOURS

Inland Revenue Insights – Brightline and Interest Limitation Rules Wednesday 29 June | 4pm - 5.15pm | Webinar There has been a wealth of information on Bright-line, and on the interest limitation rules. But wouldn’t you like to know how it’s all playing out from the regulator’s perspective? This webinar, led by members of IRD’s Community Compliance team, will give you the behind-the-scenes insight.

T 09 303 5278

14

E cpd@adls.org.nz

W adls.org.nz/cpd