It is the season for job-seeking law students to spray emails wherever they hope a seed might sprout. I admire them, even as the messages make me sad. I think of all the energy and hope that has gone into years of study, the day-dreaming of  putting their learning into practice. I try to answer each with something more than a formulaic 'try elsewhere" because I'm so conscious of what the next few months or years will be like for the students in the bottom half of the distribution of grades, initiative and persistence. For some the worst of it will be idealism dented. For many it may be losing the expectations of entitlement to high income.

How desperate it must be in the US (and Europe) at the moment. Only 55% of law graduates last year in the US secured law jobs and they have huge student loans financially justified only if they get elite law jobs.

A review of a new book on legal education 'Failing Law Schools' by Brian Z Tamanaha,  says that  in the US;

"The out-of-pocket cost of obtaining a law degree at many schools now approaches $200,000. The average law school graduate’s debt is around $100,000—the highest it has ever been—while the legal job market is the worst in decades, with the scarce jobs offering starting salaries well below what is needed to handle such a debt load"

The book tempts me but not enough to buy. I'll leave it to the academics. From reviews it would appear that some of the criticisms have pertinence here, for example that "Law professors … generally have had little practical experience themselves, and their published output is largely detached from law and of little use to lawyers and judges in their actual work."

I'm not so worried about a lack of pertinence to law practice in academic work as I am about the paucity of insight and discipline when they do approach matters of contention. At the conference mentioned in my last blog post I did not get time to commend Peter Watts' NZLJ article on criminalising director conduct. It is particularly notable for being the only academic comment I found on a topic of serious and urgent importance.

There is at least one important difference between the US and here. It might wound those of our academics who deserve more credit and money. US law professors seem to be more richly rewarded. The blurb summarises the book as follows (emphasis mine):

" On the surface, law schools today are thriving. Enrollments are on the rise, and their resources are often the envy of every other university department. Law professors are among the highest paid and play key roles as public intellectuals, advisers, and government officials. Yet behind the flourishing facade, law schools are failing abjectly. Recent front-page stories have detailed widespread dubious practices, including false reporting of LSAT and GPA scores, misleading placement reports, and the fundamental failure to prepare graduates to enter the profession."

I'm at a NZ Law Society conference on corporate governance, entrepreneurship and director liability. It is the best attended seminar I've seen in ages. It is on issues on which the public debate hs been assisted by almost no disciplined analysis. 

NBR asked to attend. The conference organisers asked each presenter for a view. Of course I thought they should be there. I was surprised when NBR was told no. It was pleasing to hear Sean Hugues of the FMA robustly disclaim any request by them to keep this arcane knowledge to the lawyers alone. 

The conference is an exhibition.  NZ lawyers are our priestly class. They want to remake business people in their own image. It is all about process and diligence. Why look at purposes and the usual practice of honest and successful business people if it does not fit your elegant theology. 

Bill English's gloom about our prospects suggests he may have lost some Cabinet battles to his wet colleagues. I was upbeat only 6 weeks ago. Not now, not after watching their inability to hold the line and sell obvious reforms.

In a maimai early in May my apple grower host wanted to know what "Wellington" was doing about the exchange rate that was killing his profit as an exporter. He was courteously trying to find something I could be good at, since I could not hit ducks  ( I don't really like cartwheeling them out of the sky anyway).

So I pontificated on the then recent QV report of a firming in property market. I said that Finance Minister Bill English would support Nick Smith's RMA reform programme , perhaps mentioning it in the Budget, because it is critical to the productivity growth that will alone end our debt dependence.

Alan Dormer's imminent report could propose to drag the dead Council hand off land for housing. But even if he does, I doubt the government will get there. The government will puncture Auckland's dopey cordon on development but inaction in Christchurch is telling.

In the result there was nothing in the Budget on land prices, and the latest QV report shows the bubble has lift-off. Judging by what I hear from people with money the greenest shoot in our stagnant economy will be a fresh  property boom but little increase in supply. The speculators' comfort is built on confidence that National's caution (in the vain hope of retaining poll support) will chime with the 'useful idiot' green hostility to developers. They see a guarantee of good exit prices for property with low interest rates long term, despite the gloomy Economist  insight that houses are passing out of reach of ordinary workers, especially on one income.

I doubt now that we'll see a real reform. The Reserve Bank has been warning the government for months that they could have to crucify the rest of the country to stop another borrowing boom in Auckland, but our leaders are dithering. I've heard bankers warning of the catastrophic consequences of a house price correction.

Hah! New Zealand is among the best placed country in world for a 'get it over now' pricking of the land bubble. Our banks are mainly overseas owned, and not guaranteed by the state in any form. They've funded this nonsense. They'll find ways to survive a correction.

I fear that our banker PM may be too readily influenced by banker warnings about the morale effects of a loss of housing value. So we'll resume exuberant borrowing (from overseas, through the banks) to fund our consentable property bubble. For a time we'll all feel more rich as we drive up the nominal value of land assets. 

 And so our cycle goes, a festering complicity of  the old who own, the left and the greens who are the planner's allies in locking out the kids who would like to have at least the housing standards of their parents.

Needed – a great upwards jolt in land supply (in Auckland most of all), producing a downward trajectory in new housing costs.

Method – protect land owners who are willing to intensify existing urban land use, from the veto of their neighbours. End planners powers to stop both densification, and subdivision that carries its own utility costs.   

This BBC report summarises steps that could protect web freedom of speech.

The UK government proposes to give victims of defamatory statements (false claims of fact):

" a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles. The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed."

I've argued for a long time that abuse of freedom leads to politicians promising cures that are worse than the disease. Whether that is the outcome here will depend on the fine print. I'd prefer that the courts work it out as they go, and reform themselves at the same time so that cost and delay did not mean that rights are a false promise to everyone but the truly rich. That seems unlkely there, or here.

The proposals are sure to be opposed by people who mistake freedom for licence to lie about others with impunity.  I'd rather wait to see that fine print. It could be part of   revitalising defamation law's role in protecting against  lies, and to forestall politicians and regulators getting power to censor and punish speech they don't like.

The key will be the mechanisms that guard against ID demands being used just to squelch unwelcome opinion, and not lies of the kind that defamation law protects. As Privacy International says:

"A great deal of the content posted by internet trolls is not actually defamatory, instead constituting harassment, invasion of privacy or simply unpleasant but lawfully-expressed opinion".

An answer could give trolls rights too. They could make it potentially costly for complainants who demand ID without good reason,  after the process has decided whether the words were defamatory. Complainants could have to post a security bond for the reasonable costs of those they unmask, plus a premium for abusing the right, if the words are found not to be derfamatory, (or the complainant does not take the matter to conclusion).

That would be the equivalent of ny recomended cure for gagging writs.

I'm wary of small sample surveys, but having just had some fresh exposure to the health system, I'm struck by how casual the people in that massive industry are about the magic they work daily. They just worked their magic on me. I can now look forward with gratitude to years of not sharing the fate that was normal for many as they grew old – blocked ears .

I've developed Diver's/Kayaker's/Surfer's/Swimmer's/Mountaineer's Ear. I sort of knew there was something wrong because I'd stopped enjoying diving. It took too long for my ears to clear. 

Cathy does not find as funny as everyone else the common question – why did you (at your stage of marriage) not take it as a blessing?

The problem comes from cold in the ear canal. Cold water or cold air can cause the bone, especially in men,  to start growing. It can reach the point where the remaining gap is so small that water can't get out. Amazingly there is almost no hearing difference until the gap is less than a millimetre.

But now I'm living in an era where instead of just becoming a deaf old man, I can go for a routine procedure. It is as simple as going to sleep, and waking several hours later looking (and feeling) as if an axe murderer has been practicing (a big bandage on tthe head). They bore out the bone so the canal is back to a normal size. Then there is six to twelve weeks for the skin to grow back on the bone. 

And what has this got to do with medical morale? The last time I had much prolonged to do with the health system, seven years ago, ti seemed a much more grim place. There were few who did not make grumpy and dispirited comments about their jobs, the frustrations and disappointments. To be sure I was much more recently a politician, and people do like to complain to politicians.

I got more earfuls of complaint in 2008, doorknocking. But in all my recent contacts with health professionals they've seemed very cheerful.

I think the Hon Tony Ryall's stewardship of Health has infused a (reluctantly) more bouyant spirit. He too seems to be one of the health magicians. Perhaps his powers should be tried in Education.

Or maybe I'm not reliable at anything at the moment. I'm supposed to avoid making decisions for clients (and driving heavy machinery) until the reset has finished after the anaesthetic brain wiping. That feels about now, but I'll skive off for another couple of days.

Anna Leask's Herald report on what the parole system does to victims tells it like I've seen it, from my contacts with victims.

Would that our judges could feel more of that in their approach to victims and the law's role in keeping the scales of justice in balance. Instead they think they are therapists for criminals.

Before the French Presidential election friends who know France better than me were reassuring themselves that Hollande in office would not be stupid enough to wreck his country with the policies on which he was campaigning They pointed to his enarque background and the French establishment 's typical flexibility in power.

I've often heard such wishful self-comfort from friends looking at the likelihood of the next Green/Labour government here. Frequently it is after finding prominent Labour or Green MPs to be intelligent in person. I thought about this after a friend said how surprised he was by Metiria Turei's openness and perceptiveness.

We all tend to think we have less in common with opponents than is the case. After meeting vile criminals people exclaim how normal they seem. Some then go on to imagine that they can 'cure' them with a little human care and respect. More than a few idealistic prison visitors have suffered grievously for that naivete when their 'projects' were released and sought them out.

In France we shall now see whether socialist stupidity is cured in power.

Socialist Labour Minister Michel Sapin announced plans on Thursday to "make layoffs so expensive for companies that it's not worth it." after the official unemployment rate passed 10% to hit the highest level this century..

"It's not a question of sanctions, but workers have to have compensation at the right level," he said.

Industry Minister Arnaud Montebourg is also planning legislation to force companies to sell plants they want to get rid of at market prices to avoid closures and job losses.

There is no doubt about the consequences of such typical left insanity:

1. Urgent  downsizing before the law passes.
2. Start-ups outside France wherever employers have the choice.
3. A permanent reduction in job creation because employers hire less when it costs more to reverse course.
4. Special harm to the young, old and people with poor records – why risk problems who will be harder  and more expensive to get rid of.
5. More disruptive and unexpected collapses as artificial closure costs plunge companies from solvency to insolvency when down sizing becomes unavoidable.

If you support Judith Collin's defamation law suit, you can make that support practical. Call my  work 04 815 8050 and ask for Angela or me. Once satisfied you are not  a bot we'll give you a bank number for a lawyer's trust account  that will accept donations. Further terms are at the end of this post.

Why support a defamation action?

 For simple reasons:

• Passionate belief in freedom of speech;
• That freedom will not survive if abusers of the freedom face no cost;
• Licencing and other preventative powers to protect reputations will be abused;
• Governments would abuse general powers to punish for lying after the fact. They'd call unfashionable or unwelcome free speech lying;
• After the fact defamation lawsuits, where truth is a complete defence, are a safe and sufficient deterrent and a remedy for calculated lying. 

I do not know whether Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little (both of whom I respect) made false statements about Judith Collins. If they were false I do not know whether they were calculated, reckless or just careless. That will be for a court to determine. But I do know they are scoffing at defamation law. They might fairly complain that they've been mislead into that – our indulgent and indulged court system has effectively made many rights unenforceable for all but the rich (and the very poor who can get legal aid).

Perhaps only mugs now worry about accuracy in political mudslinging.  Defamation law was wounded when judges changed the law so that politicians became fair game for careless falsehood. David Lange was deprived of his right to vindication by that judicial activism. Journalists rightly hate defamation law nevertheless because it provides no protection against those who file baseless gagging actions, relying on a publisher's fear of uncompensated legal costs even with complete victory.

But flaws can be readily repaired. Until then I support defamation law because the alternatives are worse.

Defamation law is the safeguard against false coin in the competitive marketplace of ideas. A Gresham's law may apply in public debate, where unpunishable recklessness, and scandalous accusation would crowd out sober truth.  An assumption that usually you can trust what someone is telling you, and particularly your leaders or would-be leaders, is a vital element of social capital. New Zealand is currently a high trust country according the the World Values Survey.

High profile defamation cases remind casual liars they could pay a price help to preserve our trust in the honesty of others until proved otherwise. So proceedings that keep open the threat of a cost for reckless allegations are in the public interest.

Contesting for power and influence with words instead of force was the shining goal of the thousands who've died for free speech. I'd rather pay money to protect that freedom than the coin they paid.

Why support this case?

A good lawyer gives up a lot to serve in elected office but she should not be expected to sacrifice a reputation for honesty. Judith Collins is not wealthy. The action she has launched could cost her anything up to $150k to take to conclusion. 

You may have other reasons for contributing. You may be grateful for Judith Collins' plain speaking. You may just not like Labour tactics. Whatever your motive, a contribution will help uphold the integrity of communication currency in the marketplace of ideas.

Terms

The money will earn interest in a trust account of Barnettlaw Limited in Wellington. Paul Barnett will have sole operating rights on that account. He will release it to the lawyers for the Hon Judith Collins at my direction, when I am satisfied that it will defray costs properly incurred in the proceedings. Any amounts not required for that purpose or recouped on success, will be offered back to the donors in the proportions of their respective contributions. After meeting any nominal administration costs of Barnettlaw any sum remaining will go to a charity with objectives that I consider consistent with the objectives of the fund.

None of Paul Barnett, I or any donor (by virtue of a donation) will have any control over the lawsuit, or get net benefit from it in any way. Subject to the inspection requirements for lawyers' trust accounts, we will not tell the MInister or anyone else who has contributed, or the amounts involved.

Lawyers' trust account regulations require that we record the names of contributors, but they will remain confidential.

Last week I posted on a NZ Law Society submission to the effect that the law should no longer humbly set minimum standards of behaviour, leaving room for adult freedom of contract, even among commercial parties. It would not preserve a sphere for the operating flexibility of morality and social sanctions without aid of the coercive power of the state. Instead it should require of all a selfless standard of behaviour, the ideal.

Orthodox jurisprudence explains why such an approach to law is inimical to liberty. It justifies intervention by courts, lawyers and policing authorities into any and all behaviour. They gain the power to make virtually any conduct punishable in hindsight, because what is the highest standard of conduct will always be debateable. That standard will not find an equilibrium. Perfection is not attainable because it is self-referential. As soon as a particular standard has become widespread or 'normal' then a new level must be set to distinguish the standards of the anointed from those of the lesser mortals whose conduct is the norm.

I doubt that the Law Society rep thought that was what she meant. But even if she did she was in respectable company. The resource management industry  has been working to replace the rule of law. They regard as quaint the notion of rule by law so that one can predict in advance from rules what you can do on your land, and what you cannot. They implement instead rule by rulers who can impose their personal aesthetic and other prejudices in the guise of enforcing gnomic rules.

The following ecclesiastical power masquerading as a rule  was sent to me as being  from the draft Hamilton District Plan.

“All development shall be contextually relevant, positively responding and integrating with the surrounding civic and natural heritage environment, ecology, land uses, public realm and networks.”

So now of course you know exactly what you can and can't do, all you property owners who stupidly thought that property rights (and Article 2 of the Treaty) allowed you the peaceful use and enjoyment of your land as you saw fit, if it did not interfere with your neighbours.

If you can't work out what that rule means, ask a planner.

I've posted before on the fond belief of those who share most consensus faiths, that their opponents are thick. I hear frequently from those who hate Garth McVicar and the success of his Sensible Sentencing Trust, that he and his supporters are too thick to understand the 'research' and the 'evidence'.

I discovered the opposite when I asked the Parliamentary library to find me the research support for  the beliefs that have underpinned our 30 year experiment with criminal centred, therapeutic justice.  It does not exist. The views of the traditiionalists, and the 'hardliners' are much better supported by empirical research.

So I love the four day old story from Nature, Climate Change reporting on research funded by the US National Science Foundation. The Register, an IT publication summarises it vividly.  The more maths and science you know, the less worried you are about global warming.

This came as a shock to those who organized the study. So they now want to organise new "science communication" to "dispel this tragedy of the risk-perception commons. A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that".

The researchers were plainly confident they would find that if people were better educated they would come to understand the validity of climate change fears. Presumably they wanted a case for more science education to support climate change alarm. It backfired.

As The Register puts it:

Participants' science knowledge and numeracy was tested and compared with levels of concern regarding climate change. The soft-studies profs were amazed, however, to find that as one moves up the scale of science knowledge and numeracy, people become more sceptical, not less.

According to the profs, this is not because the idea of imminent carbon-driven catastrophe is perhaps a bit scientifically suspect. Rather it is because people classed as "egalitarian communitarians" (roughly speaking, left-wingers) are always highly concerned about climate change, and become slightly more so as they acquire more science and numeracy. Unfortunately, however, "hierarchical individualists" (basically, right-wingers) are quite concerned about climate change when they're ignorant: but if they have any scientific, mathematic or technical education this causes them to become strongly sceptical.

As scientific/tech knowledge and numeracy appears to be more common among "hierarchical individualists" than among "egalitarian communitarians", this meant that in the sample as a whole the effect of more scientific knowledge and numeracy was to increase scepticism. Given that the profs had assumed from the start that scepticism is wrong, this forced them to the conclusion that simply teaching people more science and giving them more facts and numbers is not a good idea as it will lead them into bad (sceptical) decisions.

They write: "This form of reasoning can have a highly negative impact on collective decision making … it is very harmful to collective welfare for individuals in aggregate to form beliefs this way. One aim of science communication, we submit, should be to dispel this tragedy … A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. As worthwhile as it would be, simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public conflict …"

So they now want the  US government to fund a communication strategy on climate change –  focused not on sound scientific information, but on "culturally diverse communicators … with resonances congenial to diverse groups".  I should let them speak for themselves. You can read it at the links above, but some stuff is too rich to leave there:

"It does not follow, however, that nothing can be done … Effective strategies include use of culturally diverse communicators, whose affinity with different communities enhances their credibility, and information-framing techniques that invest policy solutions with resonances congenial to diverse groups. Perfecting such techniques through a new science of science communication is a public good of singular importance."

PS The amusing (or sinister ) response to unexpected findings is the point of this message. I'm agnostic on most of the underlying argument. Significant human induced climate change is probably happening. Whether it is good or bad for the world, for most humans, or even for us in New Zealand is much less clear, and I suspect that many of the policy responses are misguided, or hijacked by people with other agendas.